Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A Synthesis - PowerPoint Presentation

1. Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers Carol McDonald Connor, ASURollanda O’Connor, UC-RiversideIntro - Joan McLaughlin, IES Q&As – Elizabeth Albro, IES

2. Available on IES Websitehttp://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20143000/pdf/20143000.pdf 2

3. AcknowledgementsCo-AuthorsCarol Connor (Chair), Arizona StatePaul Alberto, Georgia StateDonald Compton, VanderbiltRollanda O’Connor, U of California, Riverside3

4. Purpose of the SynthesisTo review and synthesize articles and chapters that described products of IES funded research projects that focused on improving reading for children with or at risk for reading disabilities. Focus was on grants that were initially awarded from 2002 through 2008 through the National Center for Education Research and the National Center for Special Education Research. 4

5. Preparing the SynthesisIES identifies a topic for study, names a Chair, and with the Chair’s input identifies a set of co-authorsIES identifies all relevant grants for the topic articles & gathers all peer-reviewed articles and book chapters relevant to the topic For this synthesis, 48 research projects & 111 publications were reviewedPanel meets to discuss articles & frame the synthesisSynthesis is limited to IES-funded researchFinal product reflects panels’ expert judgment & is externally peer-reviewed prior to publication5

6. Areas of FocusAssessmentBasic Cognitive and Linguistic ProcessesInterventionProfessional Development6

7. AssessmentWhat have we learned about effective identification and assessment of students who have or are at risk for reading difficulties or disabilities?4 contributions 7

8. Contribution 1Contribution 1. Screening all students’ reading skills (i.e., universal screening) at the beginning of the school year, especially in the early grades, can be a valid and efficient way to identify students who are at risk for poor reading outcomes. 8

9. Contribution 2Contribution 2. Using assessments to monitor students’ progress can be a valid and efficient way to guide the decision making process –for example, through a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach-for determining whether an intervention is improving a student's reading skills. 9

10. Contribution 3Contribution 3: New assessments for English learners indicate that reading comprehension can be assessed without overburdening word reading and oral language skills. 10

11. Contribution 4Contribution 4: Assessment accommodations can be made for students with disabilities that do not modify the construct being measured, and therefore represent a valid measure of this construct. For example, reading aloud the Gates MacGinitie improved scores for students with LD but not for typical students (Cook et al., 2010)11

12. And Since the Synthesis Was PublishedEarly response to intervention measuresBeach & O’Connor, 2013New ways of assessing reading for understandingO’Reilly et al., 201412

13. Basic Cognitive and Linguistic ProcessesWhat are the basic cognitive and linguistic processes that support successful reading and how can these skills be improved for students who have or who are at risk for reading disabilities? 3 Contributions13

14. Contribution 5Contribution 5: Several basic cognitive processes, including working memory and abstract and inferential reasoning, have been found to be important for students’ reading success. For example, Glenberg et al., showed that enacting stories improved students’ retention of the stories.Swanson & O’Connor (2009) conjectured that improving fluency might help compensate for weaker working memory. The intervention improved fluency but not working memory – fluency and working memory operated independently.Van den Broek et al., 2009, used eye tracking to examine the reading skills of students. They found that although patterns of reading were similar (e.g., fixations) the weaker readers were less efficient and less strategic – i.e., generating less coherent mental representations of the text14

15. Contribution 6Contribution 6. Malleable linguistic processes, such as oral language skills and vocabulary, contribute to children’s reading performance. Uccelli & Paez (2007): Spanish-English narrative skills and vocabularyTerry et al., (2012): changing use of non-mainstream dialect from first to second grade predicted reading outcomes 15

16. Contribution 7Contribution 7: Although the same sets of cognitive and linguistic skills are involved in learning to read, children bring unique constellations of these skills to the classroom with important implications for instruction.16

17. And Since the Synthesis Was PublishedEye movement studies have illuminated processes of reading for understandingConnor, Radach, et al., 2014Vortius et al., 2013Importance of metacognition for reading for understandingRoberts et al., 201417

18. InterventionHow do we make reading instruction more effective for students who have or are at risk for developing reading disabilities? How do we teach reading to students with low-incidence disabilities? 6 Contributions18

19. Contribution 8:Increasing the intensity of interventions in kindergarten and first grade may prevent reading difficulties for many students. KindergartenVadasy & Sanders, 2008, 2010: Effective also for ELLHagan-Burke et al., 2010: Effective also for students with behavior difficultiesGrade 1Denton et al., 2010: Scales up effective interventionReading rate continues to lag, on average19

20. Contribution 9:Fluency interventions that focus on repeated reading or reading a range of text, along with opportunities to practice reading in the classroom may generally improve students’ fluency and comprehension. Vadasy & Sanders, 2008a,b: Gr 4-5Vadasy & Sanders, 2009: Gr 2-3O’Connor et al., 2007, 2009, 2010: Gr 2 & 420

21. Contribution 10:Language outcomes for many children at risk for language disabilities can improve if they are provided extensive opportunities to hear and use complex oral language.K: Interactive discussion and practice of word meaningsCoyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007Loftus, Coyne et al., 2010Gr 1: Teacher plus small group in a tiered modelMaynard, Pullen & Coyne, 2010Pullen et al., 2010Forgetting was common for low-skilled students21

22. Contribution 11:Peer-assisted or collaborative learning is a promising method of increasing the intensity of instruction for students and improving their reading outcomes. PALSMcMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2008: Effective for many; however less effective than adult tutoringSaenz et al., 2007: Include ELLCollaborative Strategic ReadingVaughn, Klingner et al., 2011: Grades 7-822

23. Contribution 12: Interventions that are differentiated to target an individual student’s profile of component skills can improve reading development. Connor et al., 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011: Gr K, 1, 3Individualized Student Instruction, with Assessment to Instruction guidance for teachersGelzheiser et al., 2011: Gr 4 students with reading disabilityVaried lesson components depending on current skills23

24. Contribution 13: What we understand about how typically developing readers learn to read also appears to hold for students with low incidence disabilities, including children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities, and children who are deaf or hard of hearing.Wise et al., 2010: Relations among reading skills are similarBrowder et al., 2008: Takes more time, but comprehensive instruction is more effective than sight word approaches alone.Allor et al., 2010: Takes 3 years to achieve end-of-Gr1 outcomesAlberto et al., 2007, 2010: Comprehensive lessons for students with moderate/severe IDLederberg & colleagues (2008): Over 70% of students who are DHH may benefit from phonological and phonics-based reading approaches24

25. And Since the Synthesis Was PublishedResponse to Intervention ModelsVocabularyInterventions in Middle SchoolsTechnology25

26. Response to Intervention (RtI) ModelsDoes Beginning in K Matter (O’Connor et al., 2014)Access to RtI in K or Gr 1 improve Gr 2 outcomes over typical practiceRtI in K > RtI in Gr1 at the end of 1st gradeStudents who are English Language Learners (O’Connor et al., 2014)Effects of K intervention lasted through 2nd grade for ELLEliminated over- and under-identification of ELLs by 4th gradeLong-term Outcomes with K-4 access to RtI (O’Connor et al., 2013)Higher reading scores for students at riskNo statistical difference in percent of SpEdThose identified for SpEd had more severe deficits26

27. Improving VocabularyIn Primary Grades:Improving teachers’ language-focused comprehension instruction and support also improved their overall classroom quality ratings (Justice et al., in press)Students in K-2 can learn morphology, but it doesn’t impact overall reading development (Apel & Diehm, 2013-14)27

28. Vocabulary in Middle SchoolsTeachers’ use of sophisticated vocabulary is linked to vocabulary growth of students in their classes (Games & Leseaux, 2012; Silverman et al., 2013)Large-scale implementation by teachers of vocabulary programs yields positive and lasting effects (Lawrence, Snow et al., 2012; Lesaux & Kieffer, in press)WHO benefits differs:Word Generation benefits native English speakers more than ELLs; students not proficient in English showed no effectsALIAS benefited ELL > EO28

29. Students with Reading Disabilities in Middle SchoolsDirect reading intervention with 6th graders (Roberts, Fletcher, Vaughn et al., 2013)One year of small-group intervention improved students’ ability to compensate for poor verbal skills.3 years improved reading comprehension and school behavior Direct intervention using U.S. History content (O’Connor, Beach, Sanchez et al., in press)Improved word reading and vocabulary; generalized to history knowledge and reading comprehensionStudents who were ELL benefitted similarly in content, but needed more focus on academic language29

30. Teacher-delivered Middle School InstructionTeachers learned to improve explicit teaching of comprehension in U.S. History and Language Arts (Wanzek, Vaughn et al., 2013; Simmons et al., in press)Experimental classes > control classesIn Language Arts, higher-performing students benefitted mostIn History, students with disabilities also performed better than SpEd in controls30

31. Web-based Reading TutorsTeaching text structure in Gr 5-7 (Meyer, Wijekumar et al., 2010-2011)Most effective innovation = elaborated feedbackLowest-skilled readers also benefit from explicit feedback on their errorsVaried degree of individualization in feedbackThe more individualized, the better students’ learning and comprehensionIndividualized feedback also improved middle school students’ attitudes!31

32. Professional DevelopmentHow do we bring research-based instructional practices to the classroom?2 Contributions32

33. Contribution 14Contribution 14: We can improve many teachers’ delivery of complex, evidence-based instruction and interventions through developing their specialized knowledge and supporting consistent long-term implementation of evidence-based instructional practices.33

34. Contribution 15Contribution 15: Combining multiple professional development strategies, including coaching, linking student assessment data to instruction, using technology, and participating in communities of practice, can support teachers’ learning and implementation of research-based reading instruction. E.g., Carlisle et al., 2011 – compared different combinations of PD. The greatest improvement in teacher practice was observed when teachers received workshops, learning how to assess students, and the support of a literacy coach34

35. And Since the Synthesis Was PublishedNew technologies for teachersPD for CCSS35

36. ImplicationsWhere do we go from here? 36

37. ImplicationsThe first eight years of rigorous research funded by IES extended our knowledge about how to help students who have or are at risk for reading disabilities. The fifteen specific contributions that we identified through the published articles we reviewed reveal that IES-funded research has contributed in important ways to understanding how best to support students with or at risk for reading disabilities. During its relatively short history, IES has required rigorous standards regarding how scientific information is obtained, particularly through the use of randomized controlled field trials in schools. Through IES, research findings now inform decision-making in education in ways that were simply not considered prior to its inception and we have reason to believe that IES funded research will continue to contribute meaningful and important research findings to the professional and research fields that support the successful education of children. 37

38. Next Steps from IESIES is in the process of identifying new areas to synthesize IES-funded research. Currently reviewing work in social/behavioral contexts to support academic learning and mathematics. 38