Reading Teachers Network RSS Feed

Suzanne Carreker Speaks to Interim Committee on Dyslexia

Suzanne Carreker — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:00:00 GMT

On August 2, 2010, Suzanne Carreker, Vice President of Research and Program Development at Neuhaus Education center, spoke about the importance of teacher professional development in the prevention of reading disorders.

To listen to the audio presentation, follow this link to the Interim Committee on Dyslexia and Related Disorders website, and click the link to the August 2 hearing and scroll to 58 minutes and 20 seconds into the presentation for Suzanne's contribution or listen to the whole committee hearing.

Following is a written synopsis of Suzanne's talking points:

"Good afternoon, my name is Suzanne Carreker. I am vice president of research and program development at Neuhaus Education Center. Neuhaus Education Center is a nonprofit organization in Houston that is dedicated to preventing reading failure. We provide professional development in research-based methods of literacy instruction to teachers. Since our inception in 1980, we have provided professional development to more than 60,000 teachers. I have been with the Center for 23 years. I am a Certified Academic Language Therapist and Qualified Instructor. I serve on the board of the International Dyslexia Association and am currently a doctoral candidate in the College of Education and Human Development at Texas A&M University. This afternoon I would like to address teacher preparation and the impact of teacher preparation on the prevention and early detection and treatment of reading disorders such as dyslexia.

Skilled reading is critical to educational advancement, economic opportunity, and lifelong learning. Unfortunately, 15 to 20% of school-aged children will experience reading failure because their reading and language processing disorders are left unidentified and untreated. Another 20 to 30% of school-aged children are at risk for reading failure because the instruction they are receiving does not meet their needs. The best prevention against reading failure is quality research-based reading instruction that is delivered to all students by knowledgeable and skilled teachers.

Skilled reading requires 1) adequate decoding, the quick and accurate translation of alphabetic symbols on a page into words and 2) adequate comprehension, the instantaneous attachment of meaning to words. Both components, decoding and comprehension, are necessary but not sufficient alone. Difficulty in either component can result in overall reading failure. Difficulties in decoding may stem from an inability to perceive individual speech sounds in spoken words, an inability to connect sounds to letters consistently and accurately, an inability to rapidly recognize words held in memory, and/or an inability to read grade-level text at a rate that facilitates the processing of meaning. Difficulties with comprehension may be the result of inefficient decoding, lack of fluency, inadequate vocabulary, insufficient background knowledge, the inability to integrate information, poor working memory, and/or lack of awareness of semantic relationships. As you can see, reading failure can occur for myriad reasons; however, what is needed for the prevention and the early detection and treatment of reading failure is the same: That is, quality research-based reading instruction that is delivered to all students by highly knowledgeable and skilled teachers."

The solution for prevention and early detection and treatment lies in the preparation of preservice and inservice teachers. But, how well are colleges and universities and current professional development opportunities preparing teachers to prevent, detect, and treat reading difficulties that can lead to overall reading failure? A recent study we conducted at Neuhaus Education Center sheds light on the answers to these questions. The participants in our study were 36 preservice teachers or teacher candidates who were completing their last semester of study at a university before entering their student teaching placements and 38 inservice teachers with between 3 and more than 20 years of teaching experience. We assessed the participants’ literacy-related content knowledge. The participants were asked, for example, to count the number of speech sounds in 10 words. No participants correctly counted the speech sounds in all 10 words. Surprisingly, only 22% of the inservice teachers correctly counted the speech sounds in the word string – /s/ /t/ /r/ /i/ /ng/ – and only 8% of the preservice teachers correctly counted the speech sounds in the word.

The ability to perceive individual speech sounds in spoken words is crucial for students who are learning to read. If teachers do not possess this knowledge, how can they recognize and treat students whose basic difficulty in learning to read is the inability to perceive speech sounds in spoken words? The teachers in our study possessed insufficient knowledge of speech sounds and knowledge about other language structures that are important to successful reading. Clearly, preparation at preservice and inservice levels had not provided these teachers with this knowledge. Our study is one of numerous studies that have demonstrated that the majority of teachers lack the literacy-related content knowledge needed to prevent, recognize, and treat reading disorders.

Effective methods of reading instruction for students at risk or who have been identified with dyslexia or other learning disabilities are supported by research and are methods that are explicit, systematic, cumulative, and multisensory, in that the methods integrate listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The content of effective instruction must emphasize the structure of language, including the speech sound system or phonology, the writing system or orthography, structure of sentences and written discourse or syntax, meaningful parts of words or morphology, and meaning relationships among words or semantics.

Information about reading development, language structures, the assessment of reading skills and underlying processes, and explicit research-based reading instruction must become the core of preparation programs in our colleges and universities. This core knowledge provides teacher candidates with the what and the how to teach reading. Equally important is the how well teacher candidates teach this core knowledge. Core knowledge about explicit research-based reading instruction must be accompanied by practical application. It is not enough for teacher candidates to only study and read about research-based reading instruction; they must have supervised teaching with students. We need to think creatively about how we can provide post- baccalaureate apprenticeships, where, before they are certified, teacher candidates work side-by-side with knowledgeable and skilled teachers on a daily basis and learn how to teach all students to read, especially those students who are struggling to learn to read. Or can such apprenticeships be embedded in current preparation programs, pre-graduation and pre-certification and in addition to traditional student teaching placements, so that preservice teachers are ready to prevent reading failure the minute they enter their own classrooms?

Inservice teachers who do not possess sufficient literacy-related content knowledge must be given opportunities to gain this knowledge. Because the field of reading is continually being informed by research, professional development opportunities must continually update all teachers on the most recent information about the identification and treatment of reading disorders such as dyslexia. There are eight professional development centers in Texas similar to Neuhaus, all accredited by the International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council or IMSLEC, that could work in partnership with the Region Service Centers to provide needed professional development on explicit research-based reading instruction to inservice classroom teachers.

The ultimate treatment of intractable reading disorders should fall to dyslexia specialists who are required to complete rigorous preparation standards and are licensed by the State. However, the prevention and the early detection and treatment of reading difficulties are the responsibility of all teachers, not just the specialists. All teachers require appropriate and adequate preparation in our colleges and universities and through ongoing professional development.

The International Dyslexia Association has written Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading. There are two levels of standards – Level I for classroom teachers and Level II for dyslexia and reading specialists. The standards include the knowledge that teachers of reading should have and the standards include the practice that ensures reading instruction is delivered well. These standards can serve as the bedrock for all teacher preparation programs and all programs that prepare reading and dyslexia therapists. Well-prepared classroom teachers can prevent or ameliorate the impact of reading disorders such as dyslexia, so all students can reach their full potential.

16-Aug-10 3:00 PM

From Screening to Diagnosis – RTI Assessment

Barbara Conway — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:00:00 GMT

Teachers and administrators gathered at Neuhaus to discuss and learn more about the Response to Intervention process with keynote speaker, Mary E. Dahlgren, Ed.D., this month. “RTI is a problem-solving model,” said Dr. Dahlgren, which should progress from screening, to formative, to outcome data, all of which drive instruction for each and every child.” Each of four kinds of reading measures serves a specific purpose in the process; the instruments should be chosen with the purpose in mind.

Screenings should be short, easy to administer, and administered to everyone in a class or grade to determine those at risk for failure. Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI), and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are universal screenings commonly used by schools for this quick assessment. Spelling inventories such as those embedded in Words Their Way, 4^th Ed. (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston, 2007), and Primary and Advanced Spelling Inventories (Ganske) give much information about what students know about the English language in order to read and spell. Another quick but informative survey of beginning reading skills is the Really Great Reading Beginning Decoding Survey (http://www.rgrco.com/decodingsurveys). For those who have taken Neuhaus’s Basic Language Skills and Advanced Basic Language Skills, the Mastery Checks serve as both screening and progress monitoring measures.
Progress Monitoring measures, as Dr. Dahlgren said, “are likened to the toothpick with which we test a cake to see if it is done. Is the intervention working? Does the child need more intense intervention for longer?” Some of the suggested instruments for progress monitoring were Basic Language Skills Mastery Checks, AimsWeb (http://www.aimsweb.com/), fluency checks, running records, and measures used previously as universal screenings such as TPRI and DIBELS.
Outcome measures provide a bottom-line evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction and should be predictable by the screenings given at the beginning. Outcome measures used by some schools and districts might include Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), Stanford Achievement Tests, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), and DRA.
Lastly, Diagnostic measures dig deeper into the learning profile of a child who is not responding to intervention at a rate and level that will “close the gap.” These measures would most likely be given by a specialist and would include diagnostic reading tests like Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE), Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP), and Test of Language Development (TOLD), in addition to the other standardized outcome measures given to all children.

13-Jul-10 3:00 PM

Review: Profiles of Emergent Literacy Skills Among Preschool Children Who Are at Risk for Academic Difficulties.

Barbara Conway — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:00:00 GMT

This study involving pre-school children (ages 3-5) in programs for the socio-economically (SES) disadvantaged looked at how emerging skills in both oral language and code-based skills (alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness) contribute to later literacy skill development. The children were tested for performance in vocabulary and language knowledge as well as code-based skills in early preschool. At mid-year in preschool, they were rated by their teachers for emergent literacy performance, and then evaluated at the end of kindergarten with standard literacy performance measures. Five profiles, or groups, of early literacy predictors emerged from the first evaluations: 1) high oral language, high code-based skills; 2) average oral language, code-based strength; 3) high-average oral language, weak code-based skill; 4) low-average oral language, weak code-based skill; and 5) lowest oral language, weak code-based skill.

The teacher ratings at mid-year validated these clusters, with the highest teacher ratings being statistically significantly different between cluster 1 clusters 3, 4, and 5. Tests including alphabet knowledge, passage comprehension, and word identification, given nearly two years later in kindergarten, also revealed statistically significant differences among the profile clusters with more difference between groups that were farther apart (e.g. 1 and 5). There was not a statistically significant difference in literacy skills among the groups which had similar oral language ability but varying levels of strength in code-related skills.

Overall, the study reaffirms that among low SES children, learning patterns are unique to the individual, that child’s strengths, environment and experiences. The authors concluded from the study that children exhibit strength and weakness in the emergent skills of oral language and code-based knowledge which do not necessarily develop together in a linear fashion, that these skill domains have a possible effect on each other, and that each makes a contribution to development of literacy later in school. They suggest that we cannot rely on alphabet knowledge and phonemic awareness as lone predictors of future literacy, and that considering early oral language skill in the profile of the child has the potential for making literacy instruction more precise and effective.

Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Konold, T. R., McGinty, A. S. (2010). Profiles of emergent literacy skills among preschool children who are at risk for academic difficulties. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.

6-Jul-10 12:00 PM

DSPP Grads

Mon, 17 May 2010 15:00:00 GMT

Presentation of the Dyslexia Specialist Preparation Program Graduates of 2010

17-May-10 10:00 AM

Dr. Jack Naglieri - Helping All Children Learn

Barbara Conway — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:00:00 GMT

Dr. Jack Naglieri is co-author of over 250 publications about assessing non-verbal intelligence and assessing and addressing learning disabilities. His publications include Helping Children Learn (Naglieri & Pickering, 2003) and Essentials of CAS Assessment (Naglieri, 2008). Dr. Naglieri spoke with the Neuhaus Teaching staff April 9, 2010, about the relationship between cognitive processes and the components of reading. Dr. Nagieri has done research in the field of learning disabilities since the 1970’s. He gave our teaching staff an overview of the PASS theory and how it relates to reading instruction. The basis of a specific reading disability, according to Dr. Naglieri, is weakness in one or more single areas of psychological processing. One way of defining the processes that underlie academic abilities is PASS – planning, attention, successive processing, and simultaneous processing. An example of the relationship between a weak area of processing and the academic manifestation of that weakness might be a difficulty with sequencing information, resulting in problems with ordering sounds and blending them into words, or decoding.

The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS), designed by J. P. Das and J. Naglieri and published by Pro-Ed, is a diagnostic test designed to evaluate comparative strengths and weaknesses in these areas of processing to support the diagnosis of a specific learning disability. Among other assessments designed or co-designed by Dr. Naglieri are the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test 2 (Naglieri, 1997) which is a test of reasoning and problem-solving ability unbiased by language or cultural background, and The Weschler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (Weschler, D. & Naglieri, J. 2006) designed for culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Both tests are published by Pearson. More information about Dr. Naglieri can be found at his website: http://www.jacknaglieri.com.

13-May-10 11:00 AM

Morphemes: Unlocking Literacy

Barbara Conway — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:00:00 GMT

“The truth is that if borrowing foreign words could destroy a language, English would be dead.” (Claiborne, R., 1983, p. 4).

Did you know that the simple, Anglo-Saxon word, "word" can be expanded to at least 25 new words by adding morphemes? Marcia K. Henry, Ph. D., began a captivating journey into the layers of English at the Lenox M. Reed Seminar March 11, 2010, with the above quote from Claiborne’s, Our Marvelous Native Tongue: The Life and Times of the English Language. English is complex because it is traditionally a friendly “borrower” of words from other languages, primarily Anglo-Saxon/Old English, Latin, and Greek.

We can help our students make sense of English by teaching them about morphemes (units of meaning) in the context of the layers of language. For example, the Anglo-Saxons were fond of compounding two or more morphemes, giving us words like railroad, bookmark, starfish, and cowboy. Since Anglo-Saxon words tend to be frequent and introduced early in reading instruction, it makes sense to teach compounds and rules for adding suffixes to Anglo-Saxon words (doubling letters - big - bigger, dropping letters - take - taking, and changing letters - try - tried). Dr. Henry offered a list of prefixes that she "teaches first" along with Anglo-Saxon words such as in-, meaning in or not, mis-, which means bad or wrong, and fore-, meaning before, expanding vocabulary right away to include such words as inland, misread, and forearm.

The Latin language, from which we get most of our words in English, does not offer many compound words, but instead dramatically broadens the vocabulary of third, fourth, and fifth graders with roots like form and port combined with prefixes and suffixes to make words such as informal, information, formality, export, portal, and important. How many words do you think can be formed from the Latin root, struct? Start with construct, destruct, structure, instruct, and obstruct and see how many you can think of. If you've reached your limit before sixty words, keep thinking!

Many confusing and irregular-looking spellings can be made simple by teaching letter-sound correspondences that originate from Greek, like /f/ spelled ph, /ĭ/ spelled y, /k/ spelled ch, and odd letter combinations like pn (pneumonia) and pt (pterodactyl). Recognizing words of Greek origin becomes easier when you know that many of them are medical, science, and math words. Unlike Latin, Greek is full of compounds, called combining forms, made with morphemes such as micro, psych, tele, scope, ology, and graph, which combine to create microscope, psychology, and telegraph. Knowing the meanings of morphemes helps students develop a wide vocabulary, which we know is a necessity for good comprehension. For more information about planning spelling and vocabulary instruction, you might want to read Unlocking Literacy: Effective Decoding and Spelling Instruction by Dr. Marcia Henry.

By the way, what word can you make from the Greek morphemes, dys, meaning bad or difficult, and lex, meaning word?

22-Mar-10 10:00 AM

Online Professional Development

Suzanne Carreker — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:00:00 GMT

Is Online Professional Development on Spelling an Effective Alternative to

Onsite Professional Development on Spelling?

Suzanne Carreker

Regina Boulware-Gooden

Mary Lou Slania

Neuhaus Education Center

Abstract

Spelling is often taught as a rote memory skill. However, spelling is a cognitive linguistic skill that can be learned with thorough knowledge of English speech sounds and orthographic patterns. Teachers who are knowledgeable about speech sounds and frequent and reliable patterns of English can promote students’ spelling achievement through explicit instruction of the sounds and patterns. Professional development can increase teacher knowledge of spelling. The current paper presents a study of two groups of inservice teachers (N = 126) who received professional development workshops on spelling via two different venues. One group received a workshop presented by two master instructors, and the second group received an online workshop. The content of the workshops was identical. Both groups made statistically significant gains in spelling knowledge. The results suggest that teachers can increase their knowledge of spelling through online professional development, which is flexible, convenient, and does not require teachers to give up valuable instructional time.

Bear and Templeton (1998) suggested, “Spelling is more than a courtesy to one’s reader; understanding how words are spelled is a means to more efficient and proficient reading and writing” (p. 223). A long-held belief is that because English orthography is so complex, memorization is the best way to learn to spell (Joshi, Treiman, Carreker, & Moats, 2008/2009). Indeed, many students are taught to spell by memorizing lists of words that are tested on weekly spelling tests. However, English, which seems a chaotic mess, is actually reliable and consistent (Kessler & Treiman, 2003). Students can be taught frequent and reliable patterns that make English more manageable for spelling.

Spelling Development and Instruction

To make sense of the complexities of English spelling, students need to learn about the orthography’s sounds and structures, which can be taught by knowledgeable teachers (Moats, 1994). Young children learn to spell using sounds as opposed to learning to spell visually (Bryant & Bradley, 1980). Awareness of speech sounds (i.e., phonemic awareness) helps students detect and distinguish sounds in spoken words. This awareness is important to the reading success of beginning readers and spellers (National Reading Panel, 2000). Spelling instruction that includes awareness of sounds enables students to develop the understanding of letter-sound correspondences.

As students progress in spelling, they rely less on sounds and more on the written patterns of the language (Treiman, 1998). The introduction of frequent and reliable patterns is helpful as students increasingly rely on their understanding of these patterns to spell unfamiliar words. In addition to reliable patterns, students’ spelling is enhanced by instruction of prefixes and suffixes (i.e., affixes). For younger children, the introduction of the suffix ed, for example, can help students with the spellings of /jŭmpt/, /sēmd/, and /lănded/. Understanding of word origins is also beneficial to spelling proficiency. For example, words that originate from Latin most often spell the suffix /er/ as or as in actor, supervisor, and spectator, and words derived from Greek reliably spell /f/ as ph as in philosophy and physical.

English may seem confused, but there is a logic to the language that can be taught. Spelling does not need to be a rote visual memory skill (Joshi et al., 2008/2009). Spelling is a cognitive linguistic skill. To promote student achievement in spelling, teachers need awareness of the speech sounds in spoken words and knowledge of frequent and reliable patterns of English. Additionally, teacher knowledge of affixes and word origins helps refine students’ spelling and supports their spelling of multisyllabic words.

Online Professional Development

Walpole and McKenna (2004) proposed that professional development supports teachers through the development of content knowledge and instructional skills. After reviewing evidence regarding how teacher professional development affects student achievement, Yoon, Lee, Scarloss, and Shapley (2007) concluded:

Professional development affects student achievement through three steps. First, professional development enhances teacher knowledge and skills. Second, better knowledge and skills improve classroom teaching. Third, improved teaching raises student achievement. If one link is weak or missing, better student learning cannot be expected. (p. 4)

Individuals with recognized expertise in a particular area traditionally have delivered effective professional development to teachers. Online professional development has become increasingly available to teachers as a supplement or an alternative to traditional professional development. Boling and Martin (2005) suggested that online professional development “… provides the opportunity for learning in real time where teachers immediately apply new information and skills, and thus, improve the quality of instruction” (p. 2). Online professional development is accessible with greater flexibility than traditional professional development. Teachers can enhance their knowledge and skills at their own pace and without giving up valuable instructional days. With increased knowledge related to spelling, for example, teachers can improve their instruction and positively affect student achievement in spelling.

A Comparison of Online and Onsite Professional Development

In the present study, 126 elementary education teachers in Grades 1-5 received two different types of professional development. All teachers in the study received 3.5 hours of professional development on speech sounds, spelling patterns, affixes, word origins, and irregular words for spelling. Fifty-seven teachers received the professional development through online instruction, and 69 teachers received the identical professional development content that was delivered by two master instructors at an onsite location. The research questions included 1) does a 3.5-hour professional development workshop statistically significantly increase teacher knowledge of spelling, and 2) does professional development delivered via online instruction produce the same results as the identical professional development content delivered by master instructors at an onsite location?

All participants completed a pretest (i.e., Form A) before the professional development workshops began and completed a posttest (i.e., Form B) after the workshops ended. The online participants were placed arbitrarily into two computer labs in the elementary schools where the participants taught. The professional development workshop content was projected from the Internet onto a large screen in each lab at the same time. The content was presented using timed PowerPoint slides with prerecorded narration. The online participants in each lab viewed the content together in five continuous 20-to-30-minute sessions. After each session, participants logged onto individual computers and completed a 10-question online quiz that cumulatively reviewed the previously introduced spelling information. The questions were multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank formats. Each quiz was completed in approximately 5 minutes. The participants received immediate feedback on their quiz performances. There was one 15-minute break. A technical facilitator was available in each lab but did not engage participants in discussions of the workshop content and did not answer questions about the content.

The second group of participants was taught by two master instructors at a professional development center. The same PowerPoint slides were used. The notes pages for the slides matched the narration in the online workshop. The workshop content for the second group was presented in the same five continuous 20-to-30-minute sessions. There were no quizzes after the sessions. Periodically during the 3.5-hour workshop, the master instructors had the participants engage in discussions with a partner or practice concepts with the participants at the individual tables. The master instructors circulated among the tables to provide feedback. Cumulatively, the discussions and practices were equal to the time the online participants spent completing the quizzes. There was one 15-minute break. The master instructors were available to answer questions from the participants during the sessions and during the break.

Results

Before the beginning of the workshops, the participants were given a pretest with 35 multiple-choice questions to measure their knowledge of spelling sounds, patterns, affixes, word origins, and irregular spelling words. An ANOVA was conducted. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on their preexisting spelling knowledge (F_{1, 125} = 1.651, p = .222, h² = .01).

After the completion of the workshops, the participants were given a posttest, which was an alternative form of the pretest. No statistically significant difference between the two groups on succeeding spelling knowledge (i.e., posttest) was found on an ANOVA (F_{1, 125} = 3.108, p = .080, h² = .0001). Both groups of participants increased their knowledge of spelling. Because there was no statistically significant difference between the groups on the posttest, a subsequent ANOVA was conducted to compare the aggregated pretest and posttest means of the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest knowledge of the aggregated groups (F_{1, 251} = 199.384, p < .0001, h² = .556).

Discussion

The current study investigated the effects of professional development on teacher spelling knowledge. Two groups of inservice teachers were given the same professional development workshop on spelling. One group received the 3.5-hour professional development workshop online in two computer labs at an elementary school, and the other group received the workshop from two master instructors at a professional development center. The online participants received feedback for the computer-generated quizzes. The onsite participants received feedback for the master instructors and interactions with other participants. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant gains on posttest spelling knowledge, which means that each vehicle for professional development positively affected teacher spelling knowledge.

References

Bear, D., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in spelling: Foundations for learning and teaching phonics, spelling, and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 52, 222-242.

Boling, C. J., & Martin, S. H. (2005). Supporting teacher change through online professional development. Journal of Educators Online, 2(1), 1-15.

Bryant, P. E., & Bradley, L. (1980). Children write words they do not read. In U. Firth (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 355-370). London: Academic Press, Inc.

Joshi, R. M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. C. (2008/2009). How words cast their spell: Spelling instruction focused on language, not memory, improves reading and writing. American Educator, 32(4), 6-43.

Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2003). Is English spelling chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its irregularity. Reading Psychology, 24, 267-289.

Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 18, 207-235.

National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Treiman, R. (1998). Beginning to spell in English. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling development and disorders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. C. (2004). The literacy coaches’ handbook: A guide to research-based practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. No. 033, Issues & Answers REL, Institute of Education Services, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL-2007003.pdf

22-Feb-10 9:00 AM

Perceptions and Realities

Regina Boulware-Gooden — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:00:00 GMT

Perceptions and Realities:

What Teachers and Researchers say About Response to Intervention

Regina Boulware-Gooden

Suzanne Carreker

Barbara T. Conway

Abstract

Response to Intervention (RTI) has been offered to ameliorate the problems of the discrepancy model in the identification of students with learning disabilities (LD). RTI is both an instructional and an identification model in which teachers and schools work together to identify struggling readers, plan appropriate instruction, monitor progress, and adjust instruction as needed. Students who are still not responding to instruction are then referred for further evaluation. Successful implementation of an RTI model requires appropriate professional development for teachers, fidelity to the intervention practices, adequate uninterrupted time, and adequate staffing. One-hundred-twenty teachers who were using the RTI model responded to an online survey. The survey contained 10 statements that pertained to the implementation, resources, and outcomes of RTI. The teachers’ responses, both positive and negative, have been supported by research. The teacher responses to the survey and research on RTI are discussed in the current paper.

The 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2007) documented growth in the area of reading for Grade 4 students. The report cited that Grade 4 students’ overall reading scores were up two points from previous testing in 2005 and up four points from 1992. Overall, students in the 10%, 25%, and 50% ranges all made gains compared to previous years. Students performing at the basic level rose from 62% in 1992 to 67% in 2007. Students’ skills in reading at or above the proficient level rose from 29% in 1992 to 33% in 2007. The Black-White gap narrowed, but a 27-point gap between the two groups remained. The Hispanic-White gap remained the same statistically, with a 26-point gap. Additionally, there were no gains for students receiving free or reduced lunch from 2005 to 2007. Thirty states documented no gains. Although the report did note gains in overall reading, the gains in reading reported by the NAEP (2007) seemed anticlimactic compared to the focus on elementary reading and the money that had been spent by schools under No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2000).

The gains in reading improvement in part could be attributed to the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disability Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), which proposed an alternative model for the identification of students with learning disabilities (LD). Fletcher and Vaughn (2009) stated that the Response to Intervention (RTI) model is twofold. The proprietary goal of the model is to improve student achievement using universal screenings and progress monitoring to place students in instructional groups and scientifically based reading curricula for instruction. The RTI model moves students through tiers of leveled instruction. The first tier is for all students, the second tier is for students who struggle to keep up in the first tier. A subsequent tier is for students who fail to catch up with their peers after needed remediation and need even more intensive instruction.

A secondary goal is the identification of students with learning disabilities. Many researchers had advocated for a shift away from the “discrepancy model,” which was often called the “wait-to-fail” model (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). The definition of LD did not changed in the reauthorization of IDEIA (2004), but the method for establishing eligibility did. With RTI, a student no longer would need a certain discrepancy between IQ and achievement scores to be eligible for services. A student could qualify if documentation of appropriate instruction and remedial efforts could demonstrate that the student was still unable to meet expectations. This is the underlying premise for RTI as an identification model.

Although the RTI model could be used to remediate any number of specific learning disabilities (e.g. mathematics, written expression, and listening comprehension), reading has been the main focus of the RTI model, probably due to the large number of students receiving services for reading. Lyon (1995) reported that 80% of students receiving special education were receiving services for reading disorders. Six years after IDEIA (2004) teachers and school districts are still trying to come into compliance with federal law. The purpose of the current study described in the current paper was to investigate classroom teachers’ perceptions and realities concerning, implementation, resources, and outcomes of RTI on their school campuses and in their individual classrooms, and to compare teachers’ perceptions and realities with research findings.

Methodology

Participants

The participants were 120 teachers who responded to an online survey about RTI. The survey was created and posted on a web site that offers information and resources to reading teachers. To solicit responses to the survey, an email was sent to approximately 2,000 teachers in Texas who had taken at least 30 hours of professional development specific to literacy-related content instruction. It is unknown whether all respondents were from this group of teachers because the survey was accessible to other teachers visiting the website.

Design

There were 10 statements on the survey to which the teachers responded using a Likert scale that ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The statements fell into three categories pertaining to RTI: implementation, resources, and outcomes. The statements from the survey are embedded in the remaining text of the current paper and will be discussed presently. Additionally, teachers could write anecdotal comments. Teachers completed the survey in approximately 5 to 10 minutes. The survey remained online for approximately three weeks.

Results

Implementation of RTI

What Teachers Say:

I have found universal screenings like TPRI (Texas Primary Reading Inventory; University of Texas System and Texas Education Agency, 2006), DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; Good & Kiminski, 2002), or PALS (Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening; Virginia Department of Education, 2007) to be helpful in informing instruction.

65% agreed or strongly agreed, 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 27% not applicable.

RTI has allowed our school to work as a team in identifying the needs of our students.

75% agreed or strongly agreed, 18% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 7% not applicable.

The screenings are easy to give.

64% agreed or strongly agreed, 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 25% not applicable.

RTI’s first focus is the early identification of struggling readers and the delivery of effective instruction. Teachers who responded to the present survey overwhelmingly believed that implementing RTI did assist them in providing useful instruction. Additionally, teachers strongly agreed that the implementation of RTI was allowing a team approach to identify student needs. Lastly, responding teachers felt that screenings and progress monitors were easy to administer. For statement one, teachers responded 28% to not applicable. This was perhaps because they were not using the specific screenings listed on the survey. Statement three also had a high percentage of not applicable responses (25%) which was believed to be for the same reason. If RTI was not being used on their campuses, it did not appear that they would have completed the remaining questions.

Agreed. Although Deno, et al. (2008) did not use any of the universal screenings found on our survey, the authors did find that a similar screening provided clear data that was effective in implementing RTI and that the use of the probes were not overly expensive and time consuming. Veluntino, Scanlon, Zhang, and Schatschneider (2008) agreed that the use of RTI screening measures were economical and effective in identifying students who were at-risk for reading difficulties at the beginning of kindergarten.

In a dialogue with Batsche and Kavale, Batsche commented:

The RTI model uses practices and procedures that are less-inferential and that provide information that is more directly related to instructional decision making. To that end, the practices and procedures are more concrete and should result in more consistent implementation across settings. (p. 16)

Kavale (2006) cautioned that, although he believed school-based evaluation teams were capable of valid decision making for RTI implementation, a great deal of professional development would be needed to assure success.

Additionally, Feifer (2008) suggested that RTI was a scientific process used to make educational decisions. Feifer stated, “Through collaborative data-based decision making, RTI seeks to prevent the inherent problems that have emerged from the traditional ‘test and place’ philosophy that currently dominates the landscape of special education (p. 814).” Vanderhaden, Witt, and Gilbertson (2007) noted, “RTI requires that teams make a series of data-based decisions (p. 226)”. Teachers who responded to our study agreed that the implementation of RTI was instrumental in having them work as collaborative teams. However, no research was found that measured how the collaborative process uniquely affected the success of the student.

Disagreed. Teachers in the current study found the screenings easy to give and helpful in informing instruction. Although the assessments were easy to give, Kavale (2006) found that the screenings were too aligned with the interventions and not a good indication of a student’s overall ability. Schatschneider, Wagner, and Crawford (2008) noted such measurements do not have the psychometric characteristics considered necessary as do other standardized test measures. Furthermore, those who argue against the use of the discrepancy model cite the use of cut-scores as bad practice. The authors argued that some type of cut-score would have to be used in an RTI model to move them through the different tiers. Even more importantly, their investigation found that the RTI model did not identify students with learning disabilities better than did the traditional means of comparing growth at the end of the year to the beginning of the year. The authors findings are important to note, as the second goal of RTI is the identification of students with learning disabilities. In a diaglogue with Batsche and Kavale (2006), Kavale stated, “RTI has the potential for making the overidentification problem worse (p. 16)”. Kavale noted that this would occur due to the large number of students in the latter tiers, the inability to clearly define unresponsiveness, and teachers wanting to do something to help their students (Batsche & Kavale).

Resources Needed for RTI

What Teachers Say:

We are given adequate time during the instructional day to debrief about planning intervention and evaluating student progress.

26% strongly agree or agree, 69% disagree or strongly disagree, and 5% not applicable.

We have adequate staff available for intervention with students.

34% strongly agreed or agreed, 61% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 5% not applicable.

We have been given appropriate resources and materials, which have been beneficial in maximizing student achievement.

53% strongly agreed or agreed, 43% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 4% not applicable.

We have been offered adequate professional development to positively impact student achievement.

50% strongly agreed or agreed, 46% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 4% not applicable.

It appeared from our survey that teachers felt they did not have the resources or time for effective implementation of the RTI model. The two biggest obstacles to implementation appeared to be inadequate staff for helping with interventions and inadequate time for planning and debriefing. One teacher commented, “Time and knowledge! Schools need to reorganize – rethink staffing – rethink how professional staff is used…” Although half of the teachers responded that they have received adequate professional development and resources, there were still almost 50% of teachers who felt that they had not.

What Research Says:

Agreed.When thorough training of teachers, fidelity to the intervention practices, monitoring of progress, adequate uninterrupted time, and resources are available, researchers have demonstrated the efficacy of RTI interventions. In a meta-analysis of 18 reading interventions, Wanzek and Vaughn (2007) were able to show the long-term effectiveness of tiered intervention in improving the reading outcomes of early elementary children in Grades K-3. The intervention studies in the meta-analysis met the following criteria: Studies 1) were reported in peer-reviewed journals between 1994 and 2005 and printed in English, 2) included students with LD or students identified as at risk for reading failure, 3) included students in kindergarten through third grade, 4) targeted early literacy and were provided as supplemental instruction of 100 sessions or more, 5) were provided as regular school programming, and 6) addressed reading outcomes as dependent variables. Five of the intervention studies used gold-standard experimental design. Fourteen of the interventions were implemented using school personnel for all or part of the implementation, which would make implementation of similar interventions possible in other classrooms.

Additionally, data from large scale and long-term interventions were analyzed by Velluntino et al. (2008), involving kindergarten children at risk. Interventions reduced numbers of identified children by almost 900 after tiered interventions through first grade. By second grade and beyond, only 16 % of students continued to have difficulty. Research by Linan-Thompson, Cirino, and Vaughn (2007) suggested that English language learners (ELLs) also benefit from interventions that teach essential reading components in small-group settings, and that this has the potential for reducing the disproportionate numbers of culturally diverse students in special education (Haager, 2007). In this, as in many efficacious studies (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009), teachers who conducted intervention groups were carefully trained and monitored by researchers which is too often not the case in general education classrooms (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

Disagreed. The fidelity to treatment protocol, a necessary component for successful intervention, is inconsistent at the school level. Most often, the measurement and monitoring of progress have been conducted by the teachers themselves, which made true evaluation of the success of intervention problematic .The lingering questions about the effectiveness of RTI and how to implement it in a practical way leave teachers and administrators with the responsibility of interpretation as well as the more serious and urgent problem of how to help students who are struggling. As Reynolds and Shaywitz (2009) stated, “…implementation is left to the vagaries, inconsistencies, and non-evidence-based particular sets of beliefs of individual school psychologists, teachers, principals, and school system administrators” (p. 131). District administrators must interpret how small-scale research protocol might be adapted to fit their student population, and teachers then again must interpret the interpretation of their administrators (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009). Carrying out vague directives requires more time and collaboration on the part of teachers, but, as was reflected in our survey, lack of time is a major obstacle to careful planning. This being the case, the recommendations for the successful assistance of students struggling with reading from the National Center for Education, Evaluation, and Regional Assistance (IES; 2009) would be difficult to carry out. The recommendation stated, “Create a building-level team to facilitate the implementation of universal screening and progress monitoring (p. 9).” Though our results did show there was team building in identifying struggling students, there evidently was not enough time in the instructional day for planning and debriefing about intervention and student achievement.

Though effective classroom teachers admirably attend to individual student needs as a matter of course, juggling small, needy groups in a classroom full of activity is difficult without assistive staff (Haager, Heimbichner, Dhar, Moulton, & McMillan, 2008). The recommendation from the IES (2009) for Tier II intervention specified small groups, three to five times per week for 20 to 40 minutes. Our survey results indicated that teachers felt that there may not be adequate staff to assist with intense intervention for the extended time that has been shown to be effective by research. It is perhaps for this reason that the type of intervention which has been found to produce substantial effect sizes in small, controlled studies has not translated into the treatment fidelity required to replicate the result in real-life classrooms (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

The idea of early intervention is an appealing one to teachers in that it saves students from the agony of waiting for a clinical diagnosis; but, does this happen reliably enough to match the model’s definition? In order for struggling students to receive help, first responders, the teachers, must meet certain criteria to be effective in the face of the problem. Firstly, teachers must be knowledgeable enough and have the tools to define the source of the students’ problems (Gerber, 2005; Moats, 2009). The success of intervention is tied more tightly to teacher knowledge than to materials, test scores, or organization of the system (Haager et al., 2008; Piasta, Connor, Fishman, & Morrison, 2009; Schatschneider, Wagner, & Crawford, 2008). The implementation and fidelity to programs and the analysis of curriculum-based measurements are only as effective as teachers’ understanding of the principles behind them. Higher levels of teacher knowledge, achieved through professional development, have been linked to higher levels of student achievement (McCutchen, Green, Abbott, & Sanders, 2009; Moats, 2009; Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). As Moats (2009) stated, “Teachers cannot teach well what they do not understand themselves.”

Secondly, district and administrative staff must support the teachers with resources in the forms of materials and professional development that they need to be successful (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Slightly more than 50% of our respondents indicated that they had been given the appropriate resources and materials they needed (53% agree or strongly agree to 43% disagree). They were split almost 50-50 agree to disagree as to whether they had received adequate professional development to impact student achievement.

RTI Outcomes

What Teachers Say:

I feel that struggling students are being identified earlier than was possible before.

55% strongly agreed or agreed, 40% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 5% not applicable.

Overall, RTI has been an effective model for improving student achievement.

55% strongly agreed or agreed, 37% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 8% not applicable.

Overall, RTI has been an effective model for identifying students with learning disabilities.

52% strongly agreed or agreed, 41% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 7% not applicable.

Teachers were positive in their responses that RTI was identifying struggling readers earlier. There was support for RTI as an effective model for instruction and identification. What our survey was not specific in differentiating was whether the identification of students was instructional in terms of identifying strengths and weaknesses that could indicate LD or as students who actually identified as LD and eligible for special education services.

What Research Says:

Agreed. RTI requires matching instruction to student needs, monitoring progress, and adjusting instruction as needed (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) contended RTI ultimately would move schools to early prevention. In an RTI classroom, Tier I assesses the progress of the entire general education classroom and the overall learning environment. Students who are dramatically below their peers in achievement are identified and given intensive instruction in the classroom in Tier II. In the aforementioned meta-analysis conducted by Wanzek and Vaughn (2007), 13 studies had sufficient data to calculate effect sizes. The effect sizes were larger in the kindergarten and first-grade interventions and support the importance of early identification and intervention for the resolution of reading difficulties (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Disagreed. Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, and LeFevers (2008) suggested that RTI is best viewed as an instructional model, not an identification model. However, some researchers would question the effectiveness or the readiness of RTI as an instructional model. Gerber (2005) detailed the cost of implementation of RTI and argued that the instruction that had been demonstrated experimentally for RTI cannot be meaningfully scaled. Berkeley et al. (2009) investigated the implementation of RTI in all 50 states, some of which are further along in implementation than others. Berkley et al. noted a concern about the successful implementation is “…general educators do not currently have the background knowledge or skills needed to implement an RTI model even in beginning reading” (p. 94). Additionally, Burns, Appleton, and Stehouwer (2005) noted that more and controlled studies are needed to determine instructional issues, such as length of intervention and fidelity of implementation.

Kavale et al. (2008) did not support RTI as a sufficient identification model. The authors suggested that RTI be used as pre-referral instruction and identification be based on diagnostic and instructional data. Reynolds and Shaywitz (2009) contended that RTI alone will not identify students with dyslexia accurately, as there is no mechanism in RTI to identify students with intra-individual differences. That is, students who have intact language comprehension skills (i.e., adequate ability) but poor decoding skills (i.e., low achievement) will appear to have the same instructional needs as students with both decoding and language comprehension deficits. In reviewing the data to date, Wagner (2009) suggested that it is doubtful RTI will identify students with LD any earlier than the discrepancy model.

Discussion

The responses to our survey statements indicated that teacher attitudes toward the RTI model were mixed. Teachers seemed to think that the screenings were working well for them; that is, the screenings were easy to give and had supplied the data needed to identify struggling students. Most teachers positively indicated that struggling readers were being identified earlier than ever before. Additionally, most teachers felt schools had been able to work as teams in achieving this goal. However, one teacher commented, “I use RTI in my room daily, but as a school …it is not being done effectively….If we all don’t take it seriously, it isn’t going to work.” Overall though, the responses indicated that teachers felt that the first focus of RTI, early identification of struggling students (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009), had been achieved.

The biggest obstacles, indicated by responses, are related to the actual implementation of interventions. Interventions in research studies that documented student growth had adequate staff, planning time, assessment debriefing, training in the intervention protocol, and monitoring of fidelity to the protocol built into the methodology of the studies (Vaughn et al., 2003; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). These implementations do not correspond with what is happening in schools at this time as evidenced by teachers’ responses. One teacher commented, “I feel that by the time we go through all of the steps (RTI), the student is slipping even further and further behind.”

Responses indicated that teachers are concerned about inadequate numbers of staff to assist with interventions and an inadequate amount of time in the instructional day for collaborative planning before intervention and debriefing afterward. One teacher offered:

Hire more than just one teacher per 22 students – allow for creative groupings of students – break the model of everybody goes to lunch at the same time – [instead] everybody goes to PE together so the teachers can have a 45-minute conference period.

Although half of responding teachers indicated that they had received adequate professional development and resources for intervention, it is of concern that half of responding teachers did not. Researchers have emphasized teacher knowledge as being key to the success of student intervention. Research has shown the lack of teacher knowledge has been problematic for the success of student outcomes (Piasta et al., 2009), and teachers, as we saw in our survey, have recognized their own need for professional development.

The authors of the current paper are involved in teacher professional development, and wish to highlight two important aspects of professional development not addressed in the preponderance of research: quality and time. Quality professional development that broadens the knowledge base about how children learn, particularly in the area of reading, does not happen in a single one-day workshop, training for an intervention program, or even in a more lengthy course during a single summer (Moats, 2009). Knowledge of the processes that enable accurate reading and deep comprehension are incremental, take time, and should begin at the pre-service level. All colleges and universities preparing teachers for service in elementary school should require courses in reading instruction. These courses should include the phonological and phonetic aspects of learning to read and spell words, and knowledge about how students make connections with the meaning of written language (i.e., comprehension) through their own oral language, vocabulary, ability to inference, and use of strategy (Joshi et al., 2009).

Finally, it appeared from teacher responses that the RTI model was perceived as effective in improving student achievement. A majority of teachers responded that they thought it was an effective model for identifying students with LD, a surprising result considering the fact that most school districts have not reached a point of complete dependence on RTI to identify LD (Berkley, 2009). One important note of the current findings is the high degree to which teachers did not agree with the following statements: 1) Over all, RTI has been an effective model for improving student achievement (37%) and 2) Over all, RTI has been an effective model for identifying students with learning disabilities. This indicated that many of our respondents were skeptical that RTI was the panacea to address either achievement or identification of struggling students.

Limitations

Our survey was accessible on a web site designed for teachers of reading and language arts that is publicly available and free. However, because of the subject matter, we feel that users of this website are primarily reading teachers in Texas who have taken professional development courses. In addition, we sent an email blast to teachers who have taken 30 or more hours of professional development in reading from our center, another reason to believe that many of the respondents to the survey are alumnae of our classes. Therefore, many respondents could have a broad base of knowledge in reading, which is not necessarily typical of all teachers.

The last question in our survey, Overall, RTI has been an effective model for identifying students with learning disabilities, was intended to refer to the use of RTI in identifying learning disabled students for special education in place of the historically traditional discrepancy model ( ). We feel that it is possible that teachers interpreted this question to mean identifying struggling students in general, which would skew results on this question to the positive.

Summary

Our survey was designed to document informally teachers’ perceptions of RTI and experiences with the implementation of RTI. The original intent simply was to obtain feedback. We pleased with the number of responses and felt the teachers’ perceptions provided interesting perspectives that should be shared. A future survey will be offered that will include information that will make teacher feedback more robust. Teachers are on the frontlines of successful RTI implementation: Teachers’ voices needed to be heard, so that all students can achieve reading and academic success.

References

Batsche, G. M., Kavale, K. A., & Kovaleski, J. F. (2006). A dialogue on response to

intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 6-19.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response

to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Disabilities, 42, 85-95.

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394.

Deno, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., & Windram, H. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools. 46, 44-55.

Feifer, S. (2008). Integrating response to intervention (RTI) with neuropsychology: A scientific approach to reading. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 812-825.

Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 93-99.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention:

Definitions, evidence, and implications for the LD construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs., D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilites Research & Practice, 13204-219.

Gerber, M. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies

for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 516-524.

Good, R. H., & Kiminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.

Haager, D., Klinger, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds). (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for

response to intervention. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Haager, D. (Ed.). (2007). Early intervention for students in general education: Promoting

academic achievement for all. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, II.R. 1350, 108 Cong., 2^nd Sess. (2004).

Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, A. S., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFevers, G. B. (2008). Response- to- intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 135-150.

Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English language

learners’ response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 185-218.

McCutchen, D. Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for teacher

knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 401-423.

Moats, L. (2009). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of Learning

disabilities, 42, 387-391.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq.

Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M, Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading 13, 224-248.

Reynolds, C. R., Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait

to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 2, 130-145.

Schatschneider, C., Wagner, R. K., & Crawford, E. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences 18, 308-315.

Snow, C. E. Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

United States Department of Education (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Fourth Grade Reading, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

University of Texas System and Texas Education Agency. (2006). Texas primary reading inventory. Austin, TX: Authors.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilberton, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225-256.

Vaughn, S. Linan-Thompson S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 397-409.

Velluntino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Using response to

kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 437-480.

Virginia Department of Education. (2007). Responsive instruction: Refining our work of teaching all children. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Department of Education Office of Student Services, 6.

Wagner, R. (2008). Rediscovering dyslexia: New approaches for identification and classification. In G. Reid, A. J. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. S. Siegel (Eds.). The Sage handbook of dyslexia (pp. 174-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading

interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541-561.

18-Feb-10 1:00 PM

Knowledge and Practice Standards

Barbara Conway — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:00:00 GMT

The Professional Standards and Practices Committee, 2009, appointed by the International Dyslexia Association, has developed a well-referenced document which will serve as a guide for college and university teacher preparation, professional development, and certification of those who teach reading and related literacy skills in all settings. "Reading difficulties," says the document, "are the most common cause of academic failure and underachievement." The standards developed by this committee address the fact that that a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill is required in order to address reading problems effectively. The committee hopes these standards will 1) inform professional development and dyslexia preparation programs, 2) be used in colleges of education to prepare teacher candidates, and 3) help inform publishers of literacy materials and textbooks.

Soon to be posted on the IDA website, www.interdys.org, the document will encompass both knowledge and practice standards in the following:

Foundation Concepts about Oral and Written Language Learning

Knowledge of the Structure of Language

Knowledge of Dyslexia and Other Learning Disorders

Interpretation and Administration of Assessments for Planning Instruction

Structured Language Teaching: Phonology

Structured Language Teaching: Phonics and Word Recognition

Structured Language Teaching: Fluent, Automatic Reading of Text

Structured Language Teaching: Vocabulary

Structured Language Teaching: Text Comprehension

Structured Language Teaching: Handwriting, Spelling, and Written Expression

Ethical Standards for the Profession

16-Nov-09 3:00 PM

Comprehension Assessment is Not What It Seems

Barbara Conway — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Assessing student comprehension ability may not be what it seems, according to Janice M. Keenan, Ph.D., who participated in the Neuahus sponsored full day symposium at IDA. Some comprehension measures are truly a test of decoding ability. An example of this might be the slight misreading of a word resulting in the choice of a wrong answer, such as misreading the word beard for bear, therefore choosing a picture of a bear. The author's concept of what comprises comprehension makes a difference in the measurement outcome and what comprehension skills are actually measured. On some tests, students are able to view the text while answering the questions, while others require the student to rely completely on memory. The issue of passage independence refers to comprehension questions that can be answered without even reading the passage, a phenomenon that has been cited with respect to several well known tests. Dr. Keenan, Director of Reading and Language Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, says that reading comprehension is best assessed with several measures in order to pinpoint the true nature of difficulty. Also advisable is a thorough knowledge of the shortcomings of commonly used tests and compensation with additional assessment, either formal or informal. For more information on this topic, see the following articles:

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess:

Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension.Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300.

Cutting, L. E., Scarborough, H. (2006). Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency and other cognitive skills can

depend on how comprhension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277-299.

16-Nov-09 2:00 PM

State Dyslexia Consultant

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Title: State Dyslexia Consultant Description: Primary Purpose: Provide leadership and training for teachers, principals, and central administrative staff across the state in the area of dyslexia and effective program design for students at-risk for reading, spelling and writing difficulties. Plan and deliver professional development sessions for the ESC Dyslexia contacts at the 20 Education Service Centers in Texas. Support the activities and purposes of the Statewide Dyslexia Project. Required Experience: Education/Certifications: TexasStateTeaching Certification Masters Degree in an educational related field Professional Reading Specialist Certificate (highly preferred) Certified Educational Diagnostician Certified Academic Language Therapist (highly preferred) Five or more years teaching experience This Job Requires the Follow Skills: Experience: •Background in...

Hard Work and Camaraderie

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:57:02 GMT

After intensive instruction in Basic Language Skills class, small groups of teachers get to know each other well.

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Linda Corbett is...

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:46:44 GMT

...passionate in her desire to "help those with language learning differences realize their full potential and experience success in learning."

Oral Language - a Must for Good Comprehension

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:45:56 GMT

Teachers in this summer's Developing Metacognitive Skills class practice an oral language activity they will use with students.

Continuing Education on Demand

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:25:23 GMT

In need of continuing education units to meet your certification requirements? At your own time, place, and pace, earn Continuing Professional Education/Continuing Education Units (CPEs/CEUs) online from Neuhaus! Just register, choose a learning opportunity, and begin!

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Katy Farmer

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:03:20 GMT

If you have taken Language Enrichment, Scientific Spelling, Multisensory Grammar, and other classes for general teachers here at Neuhaus, Katy Farmer's face is familiar to you.

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Catherine Scott

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:52:10 GMT

If you have taken Language Enrichment, Scientific Spelling, Multisensory Grammar, or any number of other classes here at Neuhaus, chances are you know Catherine Scott. A Dyslexia Specialist now, Catherine came to us in a very round-about way via an interest in animal behavior, and actually did research with elephants!

The Nokomis Story

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:06:07 GMT

"I have been a teacher for twelve years. I graduated from college at the age of 50 and during my college experience I was never taught how to teach reading. When I first entered the classroom I was shocked to see that my students had so few reading skills..."

Academic Resilience and Reading: Building Successful Readers

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:33:13 GMT

Do emotions have anything to do with learning? As teachers, we have long known that the "socio-emotional" plays a part in our students' academic achievement. On Friday, October 16th, at this year's first Alumnae Event, this idea was confirmed with hard data.

Poll Section

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:08:03 GMT

What is a word that has the Latin prefix that means "before," the root that means "to write," and the suffix that means "tending toward an action"?customer surveys

Tools

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:17:28 GMT

Comprehension Screenings Screenings to be used in conjunction with other assessments in isolating specific difficulties with reading comprehension. Reading Comprehension Screening PDF 2nd Grade Reading Comprehension Screening PDF 3rd Grade Reading Comprehension Screening PDF 4th Grade Reading Comprehension Screening PDF 5th Grade Depth of Oral Language This chart can be used to demonstrate the idea of words with similar meanings but different intensities. Students can sort these words for problem into three piles: big problems, little problems, medium problems. Open/Download Depth of Oral Language Chart (PDF) Instructional Charts - small These small versions of the classroom charts are sized for use with small groups of students. All of the files below are sized for 8.5 in. by 11 in....

Consumables

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:03:46 GMT

Silly Cats are O.K. Silly Cats are O.K. is a mnemonic for the elements of a story. Use this fun form to help your students summarize any narrative. A Story Map The Story Map offers another method for summarizing narratives. Blank Lesson Plans Foundations Foundations Blank Lesson Plan Extended Foundations Blank Lesson Plan Basic Language Skills Book 1 Blank Lesson Plan Books 2 & 3 Blank Lesson Plan Language Enrichment Language Enrichment Blank Electronic Lesson Plan Language Enrichment Blank Lesson Plan PDF Handwriting Upper Case Cursive Trace and Copy Pages Lower Case Cursive Trace and Copy Pages Cursive Stroke Descriptions Mastery Checks - Basic Language Skills Basic Language Skills Mastery Check IV Basic Language Skills Mastery Check V Basic Language Skills Mastery Check VI Basic Language Skills Mastery Check VII Basic Language Skills Mastery Check VIII Basic Language Skills Mastery Check IX ...

Camaraderie

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:24:50 GMT

Basic Language Skills is a class for reading/dyslexia specialists and teachers of Tier III intervention who will be involved in intensive instruction for young readers with dyslexia or other related reading disorders. Teachers and specialists who have taken the prerequisite course, Basic Language Skills, are eligible to deepen their knowledge of phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, oral language, comprehension, and composition in the Advanced class. Becoming an expert in the structure of the English language enables our graduates to teach all students with a more diagnostic and prescriptive approach. Working toward expertise is intensive, but the rewards are great!

Susan Hall - Live Webinar

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:52:29 GMT

Dr. Hall is co-author with Dr. Louisa Moats of Straight Talk About Reading and Parenting a Struggling Reader and author of I've Dibel'd, Now What? and Implementing Response to Intervention: A Principal's Guide.

Dr. Hall has an MBA from Harvard University and a doctorate from National-Louis University. Her focus for 15+ years has been on reading education. As founder and president of 95% Group Inc., a consulting firm that strives for 95% of students reading at grade level, Dr. Hall now helps a growing client list of schools implement RTI practices for improving student success. She also serves on Neuhaus' National Advisory Council.

To view the webinar, click on this link to 95percent group.

Decks

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:36:42 GMT

Regular Word Decks for Language Enrichment Year One (listed by year and Reading Practice number) Word Deck - formatted for cutting into 3 in. x 5 in. cards, one page per lesson Word List - list of the words on the cards of the deck Year Two (listed by year and Reading Practice number) Word Deck - formatted for cutting into 3 in. x 5 in. cards, one page per lesson Word List - list of the words on the cards of the deck Word Deck (Review Words from Year 1)- formatted for cutting into 3 in. x 5 in. cards Year Three (listed by year and Reading Practice number) Word Deck - formatted for cutting into 3 in. x 5 in. cards, one page per lesson Word List - list of the words on the cards of the deck Irregular Word Decks for Language Enrichment Year One Irregular...

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Linda Corbett

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:49:31 GMT

Linda is a Certified Academic Language Therapist and has been with Neuhaus Education Center (NEC) for 15 years. She coordinated Neuhaus's Adult Literacy Program for 12 years and now works on the professional development staff . She first came to NEC as a parent, seeking guidance for a bright child who struggled with reading.

Linda continues her work in the evenings as an Academic Language Therapist, but can also be seen pounding the pavement daily with her spirited lab, Luke, and spending time with her family. Linda's wide interests include design and photography, traveling with her husband, and, like so many of us here at NEC, reading!

Oral Language - the Foundation of Comprehension

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:10:59 GMT

If this is difficult to read:

The amygdaloid complex is located in the temporal lobe, deep into the uncus, a swelling on its medial aspect. It was originally described as an almond shaped structure anterior to the hippocampal formation and ventromedial to the striatum. The amygdala consists of a collection of adjacent cell groups that have been subdivided into a number of nuclei and subnuclei with differing functions...

it's probably because you don't have the oral language background to understand it. These (pictured) and many other teachers who have taken Developing Metacognitive Skills here at Neuhaus know that a good, rich oral language will help their students go beyond decoding to deep comprehension.

Thesis of Distinction - Catherine Scott

Mon, 24 May 2010 14:10:04 GMT

St. Thomas University School of Education has named Catherine Scott's work, Increasing Literacy Coaching and Teacher Knowledge through Professional Development, The Thesis of Distinction.

She was honored on May 14th at St. Thomas University. Neuhaus wants to congratulate Catherine, a member of our teaching staff, on her huge success!

Catherine's Vita:

CALT. B.A. Psychology, Hendrix College, Conway, AR. Experienced classroom teacher in public school setting. Developed standards and practices for inaugural Dyslexic Intervention Program for public school, Dyslexic Intervention Coordinator in public school. Developed programming and curriculum for a private educational organization Coordinated volunteers for private educational organization. Neuhaus since 2008.

Links

Tue, 18 May 2010 16:30:17 GMT

Survey for Adult Literacy Tutors for Harris County Library

noemail@readingteachersnetwork.org — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:00:00 GMT

Objectives:

Release Date: 15-Jun-10 8:00 AM
Expiration Date: 25-Aug-10 10:00 PM

Give your best answer to the following survey questions.

Lorem ipsum

2009-04-20T18:52:12Z

Instructor: Instructor

Lorem ipsum

Reading Teachers Network RSS Feed

Suzanne Carreker Speaks to Interim Committee on Dyslexia

From Screening to Diagnosis – RTI Assessment

Review: Profiles of Emergent Literacy Skills Among Preschool Children Who Are at Risk for Academic Difficulties.

DSPP Grads

Dr. Jack Naglieri - Helping All Children Learn

Morphemes: Unlocking Literacy

Online Professional Development

Perceptions and Realities

Knowledge and Practice Standards

Comprehension Assessment is Not What It Seems

State Dyslexia Consultant

Hard Work and Camaraderie

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Linda Corbett is...

Oral Language - a Must for Good Comprehension

Continuing Education on Demand

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Katy Farmer

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Catherine Scott

The Nokomis Story

Academic Resilience and Reading: Building Successful Readers

Poll Section

Tools

Consumables

Camaraderie

Susan Hall - Live Webinar

Decks

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Linda Corbett

Oral Language - the Foundation of Comprehension

Thesis of Distinction - Catherine Scott

Links

http://www.storylineonline.net

http://www.spellingcity.com

www.95percentgroup.com

Survey for Adult Literacy Tutors for Harris County Library

Lorem ipsum

Reading Teachers Network RSS Feed

Suzanne Carreker Speaks to Interim Committee on Dyslexia

From Screening to Diagnosis – RTI Assessment

Review: Profiles of Emergent Literacy Skills Among Preschool Children Who Are at Risk for Academic Difficulties.

DSPP Grads

Dr. Jack Naglieri - Helping All Children Learn

Morphemes: Unlocking Literacy

Online Professional Development

Perceptions and Realities

Knowledge and Practice Standards

Comprehension Assessment is Not What It Seems

State Dyslexia Consultant

Hard Work and Camaraderie

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Linda Corbett is...

Oral Language - a Must for Good Comprehension

Continuing Education on Demand

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Katy Farmer

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Catherine Scott

The Nokomis Story

Academic Resilience and Reading: Building Successful Readers

***Poll Section***

Tools

Consumables

Camaraderie

Susan Hall - Live Webinar

Decks

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Linda Corbett

Oral Language - the Foundation of Comprehension

Thesis of Distinction - Catherine Scott

Links

http://www.storylineonline.net

http://www.spellingcity.com

www.95percentgroup.com

Survey for Adult Literacy Tutors for Harris County Library

Lorem ipsum

Poll Section