Upload
gaius
View
33
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Early Literacy Interventions focused on Phonemic Awareness, Phonics and Vocabulary . By Alicia Smith. At Risk Reading Development. This presentation focuses on literacy development of students aged 4-7 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Early Literacy Interventions focused on Phonemic Awareness,
Phonics and Vocabulary By Alicia Smith
At Risk Reading Development
This presentation focuses on literacy development of students aged 4-7
Struggling readers often have specific deficits-usually in code-based or comprehension-related skills
Code-based deficits included : low phonemic awareness and low understanding of phonics
Comprehension deficits are often related to low vocabulary development
Struggling readers are at risk for various problems such as: developing a reading disability, low self-esteem, entrenchment of failure and poor academic self-concept
Components to Reading Development
The National Reading Panel has identified three components of reading: Alphabetics: phonemic awareness and phonics Fluency Comprehension: vocabulary and text comprehension
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to reading: an evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved May 25,2011 , from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm.
Reading Development
Reading development processes from language, to early reading, to skilled reading (Schickendanz & McGee, 2010).
Synthesis of two main sets of skills-those related to decoding and word recognition and those related to language (Schickendanz & McGee, 2010)
Reading Development
Children struggling with reading and written expression often have difficulty with basic word identification and spelling skills ( Aaron & Joshi, 1992)
Even if students do develop phonemic awareness they often have difficulty making letter-sound correspondences which results in difficulty reading new words ( Joseph, 2002)
Reading and Learning Disabilities
Difficulty with reading is by far the most common characteristic of students with learning disabilities ( Heward, 2009)
Researchers estimate that 90% of all children identified as learning disabled are referred to special education services because of reading problems ( Heward, 2009)
Children who fail to read by first grade tend to fall farther and farther behind not only in reading but in academic achievement as well ( Heward, 2009)
Phonemic Awareness
Intervention• Students received 20 minute
daily lessons using word boxes.
• Word boxes were created by drawing a rectangle on a magnetic board. The rectangle was divided into three sections.
• Each student was given three colored chips that represented a sound in a word.
• Students were told a word and asked to break the word down into individual sounds using the colored chips to represent the sounds
Joseph, L. (2000). Developing first graders' phonemic awareness, word identification and spelling: a comparison of two contemporary phonic instructional approaches. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(2), 160-9. Retrieved from Education Full Text database
Subjects: 42 first grade students within two first grade classes. Students came from low to lower middle socioeconomic
levels
Results: Significant mean differences were found in favor of word boxes when
compared to students who only received
phonemic segmentation instruction
Phonics Instruction
Intervention• Students received individual,
systematic and explicit phonics instruction, including letter sound correspondence, phonemic decoding, spelling and assisted reading reading practice in decodable text
• Instruction was taught by a paraeducator
• Instruction was done 30 minutes, 4 times a week for 18 weeks
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786-803. doi:10.1037/a0019639
Subjects: 84 language minority (LM) kindergarten students and 64 non LM kindergarten students
at 10 urban public schools. Students were randomly assigned
to individual supplemental instruction (treatment) or classroom instruction only
( control)
Results: Regardless of their language status, treatment
students significantly outperformed control group in alphabetics, reading, spelling, passage reading fluency and
comprehension
Vocabulary Instruction
Intervention: Shared book reading generally
involves an adult reading a book to a group of children
Review of interactive shared reading intervention (adult asking children questions about the story) resulted in small to moderate effects on the vocabulary development of young at-risk children
By organizing shared reading into knowledge network or thematic units that span across several days or weeks and involved explicit instruction on vocabulary, students were able to increase associate of the illustration to content and define taught vocabulary
Pollard-Durodola, S.D., Gonzalez, J.E., Kwok, O., Taylor, A.B., Davis, M.J., Kim, & Simmons, L. (2001, winter). The effects of shared book-reading intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 161-183.
Subjects: 148 preschool students from 18 classrooms, in
two school districts. Average age of the student was 4.5
years. 56 students demonstrated well below
average knowledge of vocabulary. All students
qualified for free or reduced lunch.
Results: Explicit, thematic intervention increased students’ ability to associate illustrations
with related vocabulary
Response to Intervention
Three tiered approach to intervention
First tier is whole class instruction Second tier is small group instruction to
support instruction of first tier Third tier is individualized instruction National Center on Response to Intervention
website:http://www.rti4success.org/
Recommendations
Students benefit from explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics instruction ( Vadasy & Sander, 2010)
Word boxes are an effective way to increase phonemic awareness ( Joseph, L. 2001)
Phonics instruction should not be taught in isolation, but rather should be taught to allow students opportunity to engage in meaning and authentic activities ( Howard, 2009)
Recommendations continued…
Organizing shared reading into thematic units increases vocabulary (Pollard-Durodola, Gonzalez, Kwok, Taylor, Davis, Kim, & Simmons, 2001)
Vocabulary instruction increases comprehension ( Howard,2009)
Vocabulary words should be taught in context not in isolation ( Howard, 2009)
Response To Intervention (RTI) provides, a research based frame work in which to meet each student’s individual needs ( Howard, 2009)
Pros and Cons
Student instruction is tailored to specific needs within the classroom
All students make gains with explicit phonics instruction
Creating thematic units to use with shared reading increases vocabulary within the themes
Can be time consuming to gather data, re-teach when necessary and re-assess
Language minority students still under perform when compared to non LM students
Vocabulary outside of the thematic unit does not increase
Pros and Cons continued…
Paraeducators are trained to provide instruction
Use of paraeducators or volunteers allows student to work with different mentors and receive individualize instruction
Training paraeducators can be time consuming and costly
Paraeducators may not be provided by school budget, it can be difficult to find volunteers
Application to the
classroom
Plan shared reading around thematic units (Pollard-Durodola, Gonzalez, Kwok, Taylor, Davis, Kim, & Simmons, 2001)
Teach relevent vocabulary words to classroom content (Pollard-Durodola, Gonzalez, Kwok, Taylor, Davis, Kim, & Simmons, 2001)
Do not teach phonics in isolation, rather provide students with meaningful way to strengthen and build their phonetic knowledge ( Howard, 2009)
Use word boxes increase students’ phonemic awareness (Joseph, 2000)
Ask support of paraeducators in the classroom to provide support ( Vadasy &Sanders, 2010)
Provide at least 30 minutes daily of phonics instruction to all students ( Vadasy & Sanders, 2010)
Explicitly teach phonemic awareness ( Joseph, 2000)
Use assessment data to guide which students receive tier 2 instruction (Howard, 2009)
Provide 30 minutes daily session to tier 2 (Howard, 2009) Provide two 30 minute daily session to tier 3 (Howard,
2009)
References Heward, W.L. (2009). Exceptional children: an introduction to special education. Columbus, OH: Pearson
College Div. Howard, M. (2009). Rti from all sides: what every teacher needs to know. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Joseph, L.M. (2002, March). Helping children link sound to print: phonics procedures for small-group or whole-
class setting. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 217-221. Joseph, L. (2000). Developing first graders' phonemic awareness, word identification and spelling: a
comparison of two contemporary phonic instructional approaches. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(2), 160-9. Retrieved from
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to reading: an evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved May 25,2011 , from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm.
http://www.rti4success.org/ Pollard-Durodola, S.D., Gonzalez, J.E., Kwok, O., Taylor, A.B., Davis, M.J., Kim, & Simmons, L. (2001, winter).
The effects of shared book-reading intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 161-183.
Schickedanz, J., & McGee, L. (2010). The NELP Report on Shared Story Reading Interventions (Chapter 4): Extending the Story. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 323-9. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10370206
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786-803. doi:10.1037/a0019639