Joseph R. Jenkins, University of Washington & Rollanda E. O'Connor, University of Pittsburgh
Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future White Papers
This paper is available in alternative formats: | Download Word | Download pdf |
Our understanding of RD derives primarily from an amalgamation of stage and verbal efficiency theories that link phonological processes to alphabetic reading skill to orthographic reading skill to language and reading comprehension. Empirical backing for the theoretical framework consists mainly of correlational research, supplemented with experiments that invite causal interpretations. This theoretical framework guides much of the research on early identification and early intervention for students with R/LD. Although we have learned much about early identification and treatment of young children with R/LD, we still have far to go. We know that some level of phonemic awareness is necessary for acquiring decoding skill, and that decoding skill is necessary for acquiring the enormous sight vocabulary needed for fluent reading. We also know that the majority of students with reading disabilities are weak in phonemic awareness, have difficulty decoding, and lack fluency.
However, it is fair to ask, have the assessment and instructional practices derived from this framework led to better outcomes for students with R/LDs? In our view, the answer is a qualified yes. "Yes," because early assessment of phonological awareness has increased our accuracy in identifying children who subsequently exhibit reading problems; because early training of phonological awareness facilitates decoding; and because explicit decoding instruction produces better orthographic reading skill. Nevertheless, we must qualify our "yes" answer because of lingering questions about the long-term benefits of early phonological training, explicit decoding instruction, and fluency training. For example, early intervention researchers report strong effects for phonological awareness training on decoding when measured immediately after phonological training, but statistically negligible effects 18 months later. Immediate effects resulting from a specific treatment approach are educationally important only if teachers can exploit them to produce long-term advances in reading skill.
Another cause for concern is the sizable number of children who exhibit small or indiscernible response to early intervention. Besides students who respond weakly to our interventions, we may also find children who respond well by learning the foundation skills that are the targets of early intervention, yet still fail to grow in reading ability at rates that keep them within the range of normal reading development over time. We may find other children who with ongoing, intense intervention by research or school staff can keep pace with peers in first or second grade, but falter as reading demands become more complex in the middle elementary years. Other students may struggle with reading throughout their schooling and into adulthood--regardless of early identification, early intervention, and relentless support. For some individuals, reading disability may be a chronic condition.
Finally, even with the explosion of early intervention research in R/LD, the practical knowledge derived about intervention is far more modest than many had hoped for. The good news is that researchers have been able to document a variety of specific intervention approaches that yield significantly better outcomes. Examples of interventions that surpass generic classroom instruction include Blachman's five-step instructional program for struggling first graders (Blachman et al., 1999); O'Connor's experimental multilevel intervention program (O'Connor et al., 2001); Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (Fuchs et al., 2001); Open Court's Collection for Young Scholars (Foorman et al., 1998); Phonological Awareness plus Synthetic Phonics (Torgesen et al., 1997), Read, Write, and Type (Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, & Herron, undated); Spell Read P.A.T. (Rashotte, MacPhee, & Torgesen, in press); and Sound Partners (Vadasy et al., 2000). These approaches which incorporate instruction in phonological awareness, explicit phonics, text reading, and spelling/writing lead to two generalizations. Classroom instruction and specialized interventions (e.g., tutoring) that include these elements (in particular, explicit phonics) reduce the number of children who demonstrate an R/LD profile at the end of treatment (kindergarten, first grade, or second grade). Longer and more intense treatments tend to give stronger effects, though some children still struggle with reading.
Without minimizing the importance of these generalizations, we cannot overlook the fact that similar generalizations existed before the current rash of early intervention studies. Decades ago, major studies of beginning reading instruction (Chall,1967; Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Becker & Gersten, 1982) concluded that beginning reading instruction characterized by explicit phonics, ample amounts of text reading, and spelling/writing produces better reading outcomes for novice and at-risk learners. Moreover, few practitioners would be startled by the conclusion that longer and more intense interventions lead to better outcomes for at-risk learners.
Are there alternative conceptualizations of reading acquisition that have potential for guiding interventions for students with R/LD? Granted, any alternative must make room for direct code instruction. The overwhelming volume of research attesting to its benefit has erased doubts about the role of explicit phonics instruction. Teachers are on board; Baumann, Hoffman, Duffy-Hester, and Ro (2000) report that more than 99% of primary-grade teachers believe explicit phonics instruction is essential. This is an important milestone.
Although word reading constitutes the primary roadblock for children with R/LD, special educators would commit a serious error were they to focus exclusively on word-level reading, shortchanging other aspects of reading competence. Word reading is not the end goal of literacy instruction; teaching phonics, even if combined with fluency-oriented instruction, will not suffice (i.e., there are limits to the amount of reading improvement possible from word-level training alone). Children must also gain proficiency in reading purposefully and selectively; reading between the lines; integrating text information with background knowledge; linking ideas within and across texts; establishing standards for coherence; monitoring and evaluating comprehension; repairing comprehension failures; finding, explaining, and learning information from text; and appropriating authors' ideas and discourse conventions for talking and writing about text. Fortunately, students need not accomplish all these skills in the primary grades, any more than they need to fully master decoding or fluent reading, but they should get a start on becoming mentally active, strategic readers and on learning how reading is used to cultivate knowledge, accomplish tasks, and enrich the mind.
Remaining alert to the larger goals of reading instruction compels us to think beyond teaching alphabetic and orthographic reading skills, necessary and critical though they be, to consider the nonphonics, nonfluency, text-level component of literacy instruction. How much emphasis should the text-level component receive in the early grades? What theoretical model should guide text-level instruction? Are there approaches to teaching text-level skills and dispositions that produce better outcomes for students with R/LD? Far less attention has been paid to this aspect of literacy learning and teaching, especially as it relates to students with R/LD.
Some of the most promising research from an alternative conception derives from a social constructivist perspective, exemplified in Englert and colleagues' Early Literacy Project (ELP; Englert, Raphael, & Mariage, 1994; Englert et al., 1995). Relative to instructional approaches derived from phonological processing and verbal efficiency perspectives, the ELP gives minimal consideration to explicit teaching of phonological awareness, phonics instruction, and fluency building. Although the ELP supplements literacy lessons and activities with phonics teaching, most code instruction is embedded within writing activities. The instructional emphases of phonologically driven, information-processing approaches, and social-constructivist teaching models show remarkably little overlap, each focusing on different but equally important aspects of literacy. Each approach has potential for complementing the other.
Success rates, even for state-of-the-art early intervention programs are not so high that researchers and practitioners can afford to dismiss alternative theoretical perspectives. The sizable number of unanswered and partially answered questions that we catalogued earlier testifies to our limited understanding of early intervention. Successful treatment and prevention of R/LD is the goal. Achieving that goal will take all our best ideas. Remaining open to different theoretical perspectives is both sensible and necessary, especially in the face of children who do not respond satisfactorily to conventional intervention approaches. Creative, responsive, relentless instruction will be needed for these children, and it must arrive before children with R/LD give up on the reading enterprise.
Funding for NRCLD is provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs. Award No. H324U010004. Opinions expressed herein are those of the National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S.
Department of Education.
© 2007 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
Last Updated: November 19, 2007
Contact: nrcld@ku.edu