Early Literacy Interventions focused on Phonemic Awareness, Phonics and Vocabulary

1. Early Literacy Interventions focused on Phonemic Awareness, Phonics and Vocabulary By Alicia Smith

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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 Phonemic Awareness 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

8. 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 Phonics Instruction 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

9. 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. Vocabulary Instruction 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

10. 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/

11. 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)

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. Application to the classroom

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. 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