Who Are Struggling Readers and What Do They Need?

Dr. Kathleen J. Brown

University of Utah Reading Clinic

Problem: Too Many Struggling Readers

15-40% depending on SES (Allington, 1994)

2003 NAEP data

34% Utah 4th graders “below basic” in reading

Probability unsuccessful G1 readers still unsuccessful in G4 = .88 (Juel, 1988)

Step 1: What are the Possibilities for Joe’s Profile?

Reading = Decoding X Comprehension

If good readers = good at decoding & comp

Then, struggling readers can be:

poor at both decoding & comp

worse at decoding/better at comp (bk users)

better at decoding/worse at comp (word callers)

What does research say about these groups?

Step 1: What Does the Research Say About Joe’s Profile?

Shankweiler et al., 1999 Scientific Studies of Reading

N = 361 7-9 year olds w/above 80 IQ

measures = reading comp, word id, listening comp, psuedoword id, etc.

plotted scores on a scattergram

Step 1: What Does the Research Say About Joe’s Profile?

114 students = average or above readers

71 students = “too close to call” (buffer zone)

All remaining students = poor readers

Of these:

127 students =

32 students =

17 students =

Step 1: What Does the Research Say About Joe’s Profile?

Joe is most likely struggling with both decoding & comp (n = 124 of 361)

It is unlikely that Joe is “bk user” (n = 34 of 361)

It is even more unlikely that Joe is a “word caller” (n = 17 of 361)

Even those 17 word callers are below average in comparison to “good readers!”

Step 2: Is Joe Struggling?

Initial Screening (e.g., DIBELS or AimsWeb)

Indicated Risk of Reading Failure? Follow up with diagnostic assessment to determine instruction/intervention level

accuracy & rate on passages of graded difficulty

Step 3: OK, Joe is Struggling. What Does He Need From Me?

Forget how old he is; think developmentally and work at his instructional levels:

develop automaticity in decoding

short vowels-> vowel patterns-> polysyllabic words

“consume” as much independent and instructional level text as is humanly possible

guided & independent, repeated reading for fluency

develop increasingly sophisticated ways of thinking and talking about text

complete sentences-->more complex sentences via modeling of vocab & syntax

Step 4: Automatic Decoding: Phonics Scope & Sequence for Joe

Nonreader to Primer: master letters-sounds, use initial consonant, blends & digraphs, master easier high frequency words, blend CVCs

Primer to mid G2: master CVC(e)s, vowel teams, easy prefix & suffix, harder high frequency words, chunk 2 syllable words

end G2 and up: use chunks & morphemes in polysyllabic words

Step 4: Guided & Fluency Reading: What Text Level for Joe?

Find highest place he meets both criteria and start guided & fluency reading there

min 90% accuracy & sufficient speed

mid G1= min 30wpm mid G3 = min 90wpm

end G1= min 40wpm end G3= min 110wpm

mid G2= min 65wpm end G4= min 120wpm

end G2= min 90wpm end G5= min 130wpm end G6= min 150wpm

Step 5: Pacing: When Do I Move Joe to a More Difficult Level?

Collect regular rate & accuracy data (at least 2-3x per week)

prepare passage (count out 100 words)

must be a “cold read”

time Joe (how long does it take?)

count errors (substitutions, omissions, insertions, “helps,” self-corrects above G1)

repetitions are not errors

Step 5: Pacing: When Do I Move Joe to a More Difficult Level?

Evaluate rate & accuracy data:

Is Joe at least 90% accurate?

Does Joe read with sufficient speed?

mid G1= app 30wpm mid G3 = app 80wpm

end G1= app 40wpm end G3= app 100wpm

mid G2= app 60wpm end G4= app 100wpm

end G2= app 80wpm end G5= app 100wpm end G6= app 100wpm

Step 5: Pacing: When Do I Move Joe to a More Difficult Level?

At high end of level, evaluate rate & accuracy data:

Is Joe at least 90% accurate?

Does Joe read with sufficient speed?

If yes, move to next higher text level, work there and collect rate & accuracy data

If no, stay at current level; if possible, increase amount of reading. Continue to collect rate & accuracy data

Will This Really Help Joe?

At-risk G1 students who received 95 sessions of Early Steps finished the year reading between primer and late-G1.

Matched control G1 students who received 135 sessions of regular Title 1 intervention finished the year at preprimer.

Will This Really Help Joe?

G2 & G3 students who started the year just below primer and received 45 sessions of Next Steps, made a little more than one year of progress as readers (to mid-G2+).

Matched control G2 & G3 students who received 135 sessions of regular Title 1 intervention made one-half year’s progress (late-G1+).

Will This Really Help Joe?

G2 students who had received Early Steps in G1and no intervention in G2 had made one-half year’s progress by March (to early-G2).

Matched control G2 students who received no intervention in G2 made one-half year’s progress by March (between primer & late-G1).

What Do These Data Mean for Joe?

Intervention can help Joe make substantial progress as a reader

Joe may need more than 1 year of intervention to get to, and/or maintain grade level performance

remember Dominique & Shelby!!!

What Needs to Be in Place to Help Joe? And Juan? And Jane?...

Materials

lots of leveled text with controlled vocabulary (carefully selected predictable, decodable, high frequency, old basals, and easy reader texts)

Enough Trained Bodies To Go Around

educators who understand reading development,know how to deliver effective intervention in an efficient manner and have time to do so

What Do Educators Need to be Able to Help Joe? And Juan? And Jane?

Clinical Experience/Practicum (they’ve had enough “Sit-N-Gets!”)

watch expert model intervention with student

educator tutors 1-on-1 with a student

educator gets “on-line” feedback from expert

educator observes other tutors and students

Critical Issues: Time & 1-on-1

Clinical Experience/Practicum

1-on-1 clears management issues so educators can see reading development “up close and personal” over time

intensive and ongoing:

tutoring needs to happen 2-5x/week for 1 year to see the interplay between intervention and development

mentoring needs to happen at least twice monthly over time

What Needs to Be in Place to Help Joe? And Juan? And Jane?

teachers group for reading to allow students to function at instructional level AMAP

in non-Title I schools, staff + volunteers build a tutoring program

in Title I schools, paraprofessionals are effective intervention tutors

remember Granger Elementary!!

	15-40% depending on SES (Allington, 1994)

	2003 NAEP data
		34% Utah 4th graders “below basic” in reading

	Probability unsuccessful G1 readers still unsuccessful in G4 = .88 (Juel, 1988)


	Reading = Decoding X Comprehension
	If good readers = good at decoding & comp
	Then, struggling readers can be:
		poor at both decoding & comp
		worse at decoding/better at comp (bk users)
		better at decoding/worse at comp (word callers)
	What does research say about these groups?


	Shankweiler et al., 1999 Scientific Studies of Reading

	N = 361 7-9 year olds w/above 80 IQ
	measures = reading comp, word id, listening comp, psuedoword id, etc.
	plotted scores on a scattergram


	114 students = average or above readers
	71 students = “too close to call” (buffer zone)
	All remaining students = poor readers
	Of these:
		127 students =
		32 students =
		17 students =


	Joe is most likely struggling with both decoding & comp (n = 124 of 361)
	It is unlikely that Joe is “bk user” (n = 34 of 361)
	It is even more unlikely that Joe is a “word caller” (n = 17 of 361)
	Even those 17 word callers are below average in comparison to “good readers!”



	Initial Screening (e.g., DIBELS or AimsWeb)

	Indicated Risk of Reading Failure? Follow up with diagnostic assessment to determine instruction/intervention level
		accuracy & rate on passages of graded difficulty


Forget how old he is; think developmentally and work at his instructional levels:
	develop automaticity in decoding
		short vowels-> vowel patterns-> polysyllabic words
	“consume” as much independent and instructional level text as is humanly possible
		guided & independent, repeated reading for fluency
	develop increasingly sophisticated ways of thinking and talking about text
		complete sentences-->more complex sentences via modeling of vocab & syntax


	Nonreader to Primer: master letters-sounds, use initial consonant, blends & digraphs, master easier high frequency words, blend CVCs
	Primer to mid G2: master CVC(e)s, vowel teams, easy prefix & suffix, harder high frequency words, chunk 2 syllable words
	end G2 and up: use chunks & morphemes in polysyllabic words


Find highest place he meets both criteria and start guided & fluency reading there
	min 90% accuracy & sufficient speed
		mid G1= min 30wpm mid G3 = min 90wpm
		end G1= min 40wpm end G3= min 110wpm
		mid G2= min 65wpm end G4= min 120wpm
		end G2= min 90wpm end G5= min 130wpm end G6= min 150wpm


	Collect regular rate & accuracy data (at least 2-3x per week)
		prepare passage (count out 100 words)
		must be a “cold read”
		time Joe (how long does it take?)
		count errors (substitutions, omissions, insertions, “helps,” self-corrects above G1)
		repetitions are not errors


Evaluate rate & accuracy data:
	Is Joe at least 90% accurate?
	Does Joe read with sufficient speed?
		mid G1= app 30wpm mid G3 = app 80wpm
		end G1= app 40wpm end G3= app 100wpm
		mid G2= app 60wpm end G4= app 100wpm
		end G2= app 80wpm end G5= app 100wpm end G6= app 100wpm


	At high end of level, evaluate rate & accuracy data:
		Is Joe at least 90% accurate?
		Does Joe read with sufficient speed?
	If yes, move to next higher text level, work there and collect rate & accuracy data
	If no, stay at current level; if possible, increase amount of reading. Continue to collect rate & accuracy data


	At-risk G1 students who received 95 sessions of Early Steps finished the year reading between primer and late-G1.

	Matched control G1 students who received 135 sessions of regular Title 1 intervention finished the year at preprimer.


	G2 & G3 students who started the year just below primer and received 45 sessions of Next Steps, made a little more than one year of progress as readers (to mid-G2+).

	Matched control G2 & G3 students who received 135 sessions of regular Title 1 intervention made one-half year’s progress (late-G1+).


	G2 students who had received Early Steps in G1and no intervention in G2 had made one-half year’s progress by March (to early-G2).

	Matched control G2 students who received no intervention in G2 made one-half year’s progress by March (between primer & late-G1).


	Intervention can help Joe make substantial progress as a reader

	Joe may need more than 1 year of intervention to get to, and/or maintain grade level performance
			remember Dominique & Shelby!!!


	Materials
		lots of leveled text with controlled vocabulary (carefully selected predictable, decodable, high frequency, old basals, and easy reader texts)

	Enough Trained Bodies To Go Around
		educators who understand reading development,know how to deliver effective intervention in an efficient manner and have time to do so


	Clinical Experience/Practicum (they’ve had enough “Sit-N-Gets!”)
		watch expert model intervention with student
		educator tutors 1-on-1 with a student
		educator gets “on-line” feedback from expert
		educator observes other tutors and students


Clinical Experience/Practicum
	1-on-1 clears management issues so educators can see reading development “up close and personal” over time
	intensive and ongoing:
		tutoring needs to happen 2-5x/week for 1 year to see the interplay between intervention and development
		mentoring needs to happen at least twice monthly over time


	teachers group for reading to allow students to function at instructional level AMAP

	in non-Title I schools, staff + volunteers build a tutoring program

	in Title I schools, paraprofessionals are effective intervention tutors
			remember Granger Elementary!!