G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

EVIDENCE-BASED READING INSTRUCTION:

The Critical Role of Scientific Research in Teaching Children, Empowering Teachers, and Moving Beyond the

“Either-Or Box”

G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

National Institutes of [email protected]

READING FAILURE: AN EDUCATIONAL AND A PUBLIC

HEALTH PROBLEM

Reading Proficiency is Critical to Academic Learning and Success in School (Lyon, 1998; 2002, 2003, 2004; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998)

The Ability to Read Proficiently is Significantly Related to Quality of Life and Health Outcomes (Lyon, 1997; Lyon & Chhabra, 2004; Thompson, 2001)

READING PROFICIENCY IN 2004

HOW ARE WE DOING IN THE UNITED STATES?

DO MORE STUDENTS HAVE GREATER DIFFICULTIES LEARNING TO READ

TODAY THAN:

10 YEARS AGO?20 YEARS AGO?30 YEARS AGO?

Long Term Trends in Reading Achievement From the National

Assessment of Educational Progress

Right now, all over the United States, we are leaving too many children behind in reading

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

WhiteWhite

Percent of Students Performing Below Basic Level - 37%

BlackBlack

HispanicHispanic

PoorPoor

Non-poorNon-poor

5858

6363

2727

6060

2626

And, a large share of those children come from poor and minority homes

““Current difficulties in Current difficulties in reading largely originate reading largely originate from rising demands for from rising demands for literacy, not from literacy, not from declining absolute levels declining absolute levels of literacy” of literacy” Report of the National Research Report of the National Research CouncilCouncil

MAJOR SOURCES OF READING FAILURE

Socioeconomic Factors – Poverty

Biological Factors – Genetics and Neurobiology

Instructional Factors - Predominate

SOME REASONS WHY READING INSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN

HELPFULUntested Theories and Assumptions Regarding Reading Development and Instruction

Romantic Beliefs About Learning and Teaching

Fads

Appeals to “So Called” Authority

Some Myths About Interventions for Struggling Readers

Learning to Read is a Natural Process

Children who Struggle to Learn To Read in the Early Grades Will “Catch Up” If You give Them Time

Children are Either Auditory or Visual Learners and Should Be Taught to Read Accordingly

Theories of “Multiple Intelligences” or “Learning Styles” Can Help Us Adapt Our Reading Instruction to the Needs of Different Children

Quality Time With an Enthusiastic Volunteer Tutor Can Solve Most Children’s Reading Difficulties

BUT, RISING NEEDS FOR HIGH LEVELS OF

LITERACY…

Demand That We Break the Mold of Past Performance!!!

We Must Do Better Than Has Ever Been Done Before!!!

THIS WIL NOT BE EASY!!!!!!!!

What makes us think we can do better?

We now have substantial converging scientific evidence about:

• How children learn to read

• Why some children have difficulty

• How to prevent and remediate reading difficulties

Federal funding for the prevention and remediation of reading failure has increased significantly


There is an emphasis on accountability:

We use assessments to tell us how well students are reading

We use assessment data to inform instruction

We have many examples of schools that beat the odds in reading achievement when valid assessments and evidence-based instruction are provided


We are shifting from grounding educational practices and policies in political and philosophical contexts to basing instruction on the attitudes and values of science

We are relying on scientific criteria for the evaluation of knowledge claims:Peer Reviewed PublicationReplication (Convergence)Scientific Consensus

Scientific ResearchA process of rigorous reasoning based on interactions among theories methods, and findings;

Builds on understanding derived from the objective testing of models or theories;

Accumulation of scientific knowledge is laborious, plodding, and indirect;

Scientific knowledge is developed and honed through critique contested findings, replication, and convergence;

Scientific knowledge is developed through sustained efforts;

Scientific inquiry must be guided by fundamental principles.

Reading Research is Not an Either-Or Proposition

THE SCIENTIFIC QUALITY OF A STUDY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT EMPLOYS QUANTITATIVE OR QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND METHODS

A QUALITY RESEARCH PROGRAM REFLECTS A DIMENSION OF INQUIRY FROM DESCRIPTION THROUGH CONFIRMATION


Designs and methods are selected to permit direct investigation of the question

The trustworthiness of any study is predicated on: The appropriateness of the design and

methods to address the specific questions The scientific rigor with which the design and

method are applied


The Majority of NICHD Supported

Studies Include BOTH Quantitative and

Qualitative Designs and Methods

An Examination of the Social and Cultural Influences on Adolescent Literacy

Development

Elizabeth Birr MojeJacquelynne EcclesPamela Davis-Kean

Helen WattPaul Richardson

University of Michigan

Examination ofSocial and Cultural Influences onAdolescent Literacy Development

Literacy Skills in Context

Motivations&

Expectancies

Out-of-SchoolEngagements

Transfer Across Contexts

ObservationInterviewsExperimental Tasks

AssessmentsInterviewsObservation

ObservationInterviewsTextual AnalysesAssessments

SurveysInterviewsDiary StudiesObservation

Summary of Scientific Criteria

A study is deemed to be “scientific” when:

There are a clear set of testable questions underlying the design;

The methods are appropriate to answer the questions and falsify competing hypotheses and answers;

The study is explicitly linked to theory and previous research;

The data are analyzed systematically and with the appropriate tools;

The data are made available for review and criticism.

HOW WAS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OBTAINED AND UNDER

WHAT CONDITIONS?

A Commitment to Focus on Four Research Questions:

How Do Children Learn to Read?

Why Do Some Children Have Difficulties Learning To Read?

How Can Reading Failure Be Prevented?

How Can Persistent Reading Difficulties be Remediated?

THE NICHD SCIENTIFIC INVESTMENT in READING – K-6

Number of Research Sites: 44

Children and Adults Studied: 48,000

Proficient Readers: 22,000

At-Risk/Struggling Readers 26,000

Average Years Studied/Followed: 9

Max Longitudinal Span to Date: 22

Current Prevention/Intervention Trials 12

Schools Currently Participating: 266

Classrooms Currently Participating: 985

Classroom Teachers Participating: 1,012

Annual Research Budget: $ 60 Million

San Luis EbispoLindamood/Bell

Univ of SouthernCaliforniaManis/Seidenberg

UC Irvine Filipek

Univ of California--San Diego,Salk InstituteBellugi

Univ of Arkansas-Med CtrDykman

Univ of MissouriGeary

Univ of Texas Med CtrFoorman/Fletcher

Yale MethodologyFletcher

Colorado LDRCDefries

Emerson CollAram

Loyola Univ/ChicagoMorrison

TuftsWolf

Syracuse UnivBlachman

Univ of Massachusetts

Rayner

Beth IsraelGalaburda

TorontoLovett

Children’s Hospital/

Harvard LDRCWaber

Southern Illinois UMoltese

Florida StateTorgesen/Wagner

Yale UnivShaywitz

Haskins Labs Fowler/Liberman

Johns HopkinsDenckla

D.C./HoustonFoorman/Moats

Georgetown UnivEden

Bowman GrayWood

Georgia StateR. Morris

Univ of GeorgiaHynd

U of FloridaAlexander/Conway

Mayo ClinicKalusic

SUNY AlbanyVellutino

University of WashingtonBerninger Boy’s Town

Smith

U of HoustonFrancis

NICHD Sites

NICHD Reading Research Program

The NICHD/OSERS/OVAE Scientific Investment Grades 7-12

Adolescent Literacy Network

Funded in 2004, will study >12,700 students across five projects

Elizabeth Birr Moje: University of Michigan – Social and Cultural Influences on Adolescent Development and Literacy

Bennett Shaywitz: Yale University – Adolescent Literacy: Classification, Mechanism, and Outcomes

James McPartland: Johns Hopkins University – Supporting Teachers to Close Adolescent Literacy Gaps

Laurie Cutting: Kennedy Krieger Institute – Cognitive and Neural Process in Reading Comprehension

Hollis Scarborough: Haskins Labs – Adolescent Reading Programs : Behavioral and Neural Effects

The NICHD/IES Scientific Investment:English Language Learners

80 Research Sites in 12 States, Mexico, and Puerto RicoChildren Studied: ~ 9,000Scientific Investment: ~ $32 Million Dollars over five years

Dr. David Francis: University of Houston

Dr. Diane August: Center for Applied Linguistics

Dr. Carol Hammer: Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Mark Innocenti: Utah State University

Dr. Kim Lindsey: University of Southern California

Dr. Alexandra Gottarda: Grand Valley State University

The NICHD/NIFL/OVAEScientific Investment

Adult Literacy Network80 Research Sites in 16 StatesAdults to be screened: 73,000 Adults to be studied: > 3,800Scientific Investment: > $18.5 Million Dollars over five years

Daphne Greenberg: Georgia State University, Research on Reading Instruction for Low Literate Adults

Susan Levy: University of Illinois, Testing Impact of Health Literacy in Adult Literacy and Integrated Family Approach Programs

Daryl Mellard: University of Kansas – Lawrence, Improving Literacy Instruction for Adults

John Sabatini: Educational Testing Services, Relative Effectiveness of Reading Programs for Adults

Frank Wood: Wake Forest University of the Health Sciences, Young Adult Literacy Problems: Prevalence and Treatment

Richard Venezky: University of Delaware, Building a Knowledge Base for Teaching Adult Decoding

The NICHD/OSEP/HHS Scientific Investment: Early Childhood and

School Readiness

WHICH EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS OR PROGRAM COMPONENTS ALONG WITH INTERACTIONS WITH ADULTS AND PEERS ARE EFFECTIVE FOR PROMOTING EARLY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT:

FOR WHICH CHILDREN

UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS

The NICHD/OSEP/HHSScientific Investment:Early Childhood and

School Readiness Network

Annual Research Budget: $7.5 Million

Dr. Karen Berman: Penn State U.Dr. John Fantuzzo: U. Pennsylvania

Dr. Carollee Howes: UCLADr. Janis Kupersmidt: UNC-Chapel Hill

Dr. Samuel Odom: Indiana U.Dr. Robert Pianta: U. of VirginiaDr. Cybelle Raver: U. of Chicago

Dr. Susan Sheridan: U. of Nebraska

HOW DO CHILDREN LEARN TO READ?

Critical Language and Literacy Interactions from Birth Onward

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency

Vocabulary

Reading Comprehension Strategies


EARLY LANGUAGE AND LITERACY INTERACTIONS

Language

Hart and Risley (1995) conducted

a longitudinal study of children and families from

three groups:Professional familiesWorking-class familiesFamilies on welfare

Hart & Risley compared the mean number of interactions initiated per hour in each of the three groups.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Welfare Working Professional

Interactions

InteractionsHart & Risley also compared the mean number of minutes of interaction per hour in the three groups.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Welfare Working Professional

Differences in exposure to words over the course of

one yearChildren in Professional Families -- 11 Children in Professional Families -- 11 millionmillion

Children in Working-Class Families -- 6 Children in Working-Class Families -- 6 millionmillion

Children in Welfare Families -- 3 millionChildren in Welfare Families -- 3 million

Cumulative Language Experiences

Cumulative Words Spoken to Child (in millions)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 12 24 36 48Age of child (in months)

Professional

Working

Welfare

The Effects of Weaknesses in Oral Language on Reading Growth

(Hirsch, 1996)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

Read

ing

Ag

e

Level

Chronological Age

Low Oral Language in Kindergarten

High Oral Language in Kindergarten

5.2 years difference

HOW DO CHILDREN LEARN TO READ ?

PHONEMIC AWARENESS

What is Phonological Awareness?

Phonological awareness involves the Phonological awareness involves the understandingunderstanding that spoken words are that spoken words are composed of segments of sound smaller composed of segments of sound smaller than a syllable. It also involves the than a syllable. It also involves the abilityability to notice, think about, or to notice, think about, or manipulate the individual sounds in manipulate the individual sounds in words.words.

Why is phonological Why is phonological awareness important awareness important in learning to read?in learning to read?

Children must understand that the words in their oral language are composed of small segments of sound in order to comprehend the way that language is represented by print.

It helps children understand the alphabetic principle

Without at least emergent levels of phonemic awareness, the rationale for learning individual letter sounds, and “sounding out” words is not understandable.

2

4

6

1 2 3 4 5

1

3

5

5.9

2.3

Low PA

K

Ave. PA

Grade level corresponding to age

Rea

ding

Gra

de L

evel

Growth in “phonics” ability of children who begin first grade in the bottom 20% in Phoneme Awareness and Letter Knowledge (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000)

LowAverage

Low PA 5.7

3.5

2

4

6

1

3

5

K

Ave. PA

Grade level corresponding to age 1 2 3 4 5

Growth in word reading ability of children who begin first grade in the bottom 20% in Phoneme Awareness and Letter Knowledge (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000)

Rea

ding

gra

de le

vel

LowAverage

1 2 3 4 5

Low PA

3.4

2

4

6

1

3

5

K Ave. PA

6.9

Growth in reading comprehension of children who begin first grade in the bottom 20% in Phoneme Awareness and Letter Knowledge (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000)

Grade level corresponding to age

Rea

ding

Gra

de L

evel

LowAverage

Same verbal ability – very different Reading Comprehension

Mean Effect Sizes Produced by Phonemic Awareness Instruction on Reading

Outcomes (Ehri, 2004)

Characteristics Effect SizeOf Reading Outcomes

Phonemic Awareness .86*Word Reading .46*Pseudo Word Reading .52*Spelling .59*Comprehension .34* Math .15


PHONICS

(PHONEMIC DECODING )

What is “Phonics”?

It is a kind of knowledge

Which letters are used to represent which phonemes

It is a kind of skill

Pronounce this word…

blitblit fratchetfratchet

Connecticut Longitudinal Study (Shaywitz et al.)

The next slide shows correlations over time between the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Passage Comprehension Scores and WRMT Decoding composite (Letter Word and Word Attack) scores

The CLS sample is an epidemiologic sample from Connecticut, largely white, middle to upper income children (Shaywitz, et al., 1990) with very low attrition (over 90% retention through Grade 9)

Correlation between Decoding and Comprehension on the Woodcock-Johnson from Grades 1-9 (N=395)

Comprehension Grade Decoding Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 .89 .79 .73 .69 .64 .66 .66 .61 .65 2 .75 .83 .78 .74 .70 .70 .71 .68 .69 3 .70 .74 .77 .74 .71 .75 .72 .72 .71 4 .64 .71 .74 .73 .70 .74 .72 .68 .70 5 .58 .63 .68 .67 .70 .69 .67 .66 .66 6 .59 .65 .67 .68 .67 .69 .67 .66 .66 7 .53 .61 .65 .65 .68 .69 .69 .66 .68 8 .49 .58 .62 .62 .64 .65 .65 .63 .63 9 .52 .58 .60 .62 .60 .63 .63 .61 .63

Early Interventions Sample (Foorman, et al.)

The following slide shows correlations for two measures of comprehension, WJ PC and the CRAB (Fuchs & Fuchs), with two measures of decoding over four years in a freshened longitudinal sample recruited from 17 high poverty schools in two cities.

The sample was over 95% African American.

Children were randomly sampled from Kindergarten and Grade 1 classrooms and followed longitudinally through Grade 4.

Correlations for WJ PC and CRAB with three Decoding Measures from Grades 1 to 4 for Ethnic-minority

Children

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4

PREDICTOR

PC_W CRAB PC_W CRAB PC_W CRAB PC_W CRAB

WJ LETTER WORD W SCORE

0.7399<.0001

1432

0.7695

<.0001

504

0.7910<.0001

1086

0.71664

<.0001

1044

0.76854

<.00011063

0.65053

<.0001

1042

0.75412

<.0001712

0.66656

<.0001

706

WJ WORD ATTACK W SCORE

0.70442

<.00011423

0.62199

<.0001

504

0.39170

<.00011089

0.31629

<.0001

1049

0.24025

<.00011063

0.24892

<.0001

1042

0.64142

<.0001712

0.59755

<.0001

706

Mean Effect Sizes Produced by Systematic Phonics Instruction

Characteristics

Of Reading Outcomes Effect Sizes

Kindergarten and First Graders

Decoding Regular Words .98*

Decoding pseudowords .67*

Reading Miscellaneous Words .45*

Spelling Words .67*

Reading Text Orally .23*

Comprehending Text .51*

Mean Effect Sizes Produced By Systematic Phonics Instruction

CharacteristicsOf Reading Outcomes Effect SizesSecond Through Sixth Grade

Decoding Regular Words .49*Decoding Pseudowords .52* Reading Miscellaneous Words .33* Spelling Words .09 Reading Text Orally .24*Comprehending Text .12


READING FLUENCY

A common definition of reading fluency:

“Fluency is the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with proper expression.”National Reading Panel

The most common method of measuring reading fluency in the early elementary grades:

Measuring the number of accurate words per minute a child can read orally

The challenge of continuing growth in fluency becomes even greater

after third grade

4th, 5th, and 6th graders encounter about 10,000 words they have never seen before in print during a year’s worth of reading

Furthermore, each of these “new” words occurs only about 10 times in a year’s worth of reading

Sadly, its very difficult to correctly guess the identity of these “new words” just from the context of the passage


VOCABULARY

Relationship between Vocabulary Score (PPVT) measures in

Kindergarten and later reading comprehension

End of Grade One -- .45End of Grade One -- .45

End of Grade Four -- .62End of Grade Four -- .62

End of Grade Seven End of Grade Seven -- .69-- .69

The relationship of vocabulary to reading comprehension gets stronger as reading material becomes more complex and the vocabulary becomes becomes more extensive (Snow, 2002)

Bringing Bringing Words to LifeWords to Life

Isabel BeckIsabel Beck

M. McKeownM. McKeown

L. KucanL. Kucan

Guilford PressGuilford Press

Big ideas from “Bringing Words to Life”First-grade children from higher SES groups know about twice as many words as lower SES children.

Poor children, who enter school with vocabulary deficiencies have a particularly difficult time learning words from “context.”

Research has discovered much more powerful ways of teaching vocabulary than are typically used in classrooms.

A “robust” approach to vocabulary instruction involves directly explaining the meanings of words along with thought-provoking, playful, interactive follow-up.

What we haven’t yet demonstrated we know how to do

Close the “vocabulary gap” between low SES and higher SES children

This gap arises because of massive differences in opportunities to learn “school vocabulary” in the home.


COMPREHENSION

“Acquiring meaning from written text”Gambrell, Block, and Pressley, 2002

“the process of extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language”Sweet and Snow, 2002

“thinking guided by print”Perfetti, 1985

Some definitions of reading comprehension to make a point about

remaining gaps in our knowledge

Preparing children to meet grade level standards in reading comprehension by the end of third grade is as much about providing the vocabulary and thinking skills they need as it is about helping them learn to read accurately and fluentlyThis point becomes increasingly important as we move up the grades

What we know about the factors that affect reading comprehension

Proficient comprehension of text is influenced by:

Accurate and fluent word reading skillsAccurate and fluent word reading skills

Oral language skills (vocabulary, linguistic comprehension)Oral language skills (vocabulary, linguistic comprehension)

Extent of conceptual and factual knowledgeExtent of conceptual and factual knowledge

Knowledge and skill in use of cognitive strategies to Knowledge and skill in use of cognitive strategies to improve comprehension or repair it when it breaks down.improve comprehension or repair it when it breaks down.

Reasoning and inferential skillsReasoning and inferential skills

Motivation to understand and interest in task and Motivation to understand and interest in task and materialsmaterials

Reading Reading ComprehensionComprehension

KnowledgeKnowledge FluencyFluency

MetacognitionMetacognition

LanguageLanguage

•ProsodyProsody•Automaticity/RateAutomaticity/Rate•AccuracyAccuracy•DecodingDecoding•Phonemic AwarenessPhonemic Awareness

•Oral Language SkillsOral Language Skills•Knowledge of Language Knowledge of Language StructuresStructures•VocabularyVocabulary•Cultural InfluencesCultural Influences

•Life ExperienceLife Experience•Content KnowledgeContent Knowledge•Activation of Prior Activation of Prior KnowledgeKnowledge•Knowledge about Knowledge about TextsTexts

•Motivation & Motivation & EngagementEngagement•Active Reading Active Reading StrategiesStrategies•Monitoring StrategiesMonitoring Strategies•Fix-Up StrategiesFix-Up Strategies

Why the disparity between early word-level outcomes and later

comprehension of complex texts?

Demands of vocabulary in complex text at third grade and higher place stress on the remaining SES related “vocabulary gap”

More complex text demands reading comprehension strategies and higher level thinking and reasoning skills that remain “deficient” in many children

Preparing children to meet grade level standards in reading comprehension by the end of third grade and beyond is a job for all teachers, not just “reading teachers” and special educators.

A big idea to keep in mind:

It’s at least as much about building content knowledge, vocabulary, and thinking skills as it is about helping children learn to read accurately and fluently

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCHSAY ABOUT

INSTRUCTION?

CRITICAL ELEMENTS

5 + ii + 3 + iii = NCLB

Five Instructional Components:

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency

Vocabulary

Comprehension strategies

Identifying words Identifying words accurately and accurately and fluentlyfluently

Constructing Constructing meaning once meaning once words are words are identifiedidentified

“High quality initial instruction in the classroom is the first line of defense against reading difficulties” NRC report, 1999

“The characteristics of a good program are that it contains the five elements identified in the legislation, and that these elements are integrated into a coherent instructional design. A coherent design includes explicit instructional strategies, coordinated instructional sequences, ample practice opportunities and aligned student materials.”

HOW ARE WE DOING?

SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENT

EARLY INTERVENTION

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS

Change in Reading Skill for Children with Reading Disabilities who Experience Growth in Reading of .04 Standard

Deviations a Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Grade Level

Sta

nd

ard

Sco

re i

n

Rea

din

g AverageReadersDisabledReaders

70 71.8

HOW CAN WE PREVENT READING FAILURE?

Development of Sensitive and Valid Screening Measures

Professional Development and Use of a Professional Common Language

Implementation of Three-Tier Models

Continuous Assessment of Progress

Appreciation of School Leadership and Capacity Factors

We do not yet know how to prevent reading difficulties in “all” children

Percent of children scoring below the 30th percentile

Author Type Before After

Foorman 174 hrs. – classroom 35% 6%

Felton 340 hrs. – groups of 8 32% 5%

Vellutino 35-65 hrs. 1:1 tutoring 46% 7%

Torgesen 88 hrs. 1:1 tutoring 30% 4%

Torgesen 80 hrs. 1:3 tutoring 11% 2%

Torgesen 91 hrs. 1:3 or 1:5 tutoring 8% 1.6%

Mathes 80 hrs. 1:3 tutoring 1% .02%

Interval in Months Between Measurements

P-Pretest Pre Post 1 year 2 year

75

80

85

90

95

LIPS

EP

Growth in Total Reading Skill Before, During, and Following Intensive

Intervention

Sta

ndar

d S

core

75

86

96

89

Outcomes from 67.5 Hours of Intensive LIPS Intervention

70

80

100

Sta

nd

ard

Sco

re

90

Word Attack

Text Reading Accuracy

Reading Comp.

Text Reading

Rate

68

7473 71

30%

83

91

Why are so many children currently being left behind?1. Many elementary schools are not organized or

focused in ways that most effectively promote literacy in all children.2. Teachers often do not possess the special knowledge or teaching skill to effectively teach children who experience difficulties learning to read.

3. Many families and neighborhood environments do not provide experiences that prepare children to learn to read well.

5. Many schools do not really expect children from low wealth or minority backgrounds to learn to read well.

6. Teachers often do not have adequate materials or instructional time available to them to effectively promote literacy in all their children.

4. There is significant variability in the language-based talents required for learning to read.

Evidence from one school that we Evidence from one school that we cancan do do substantially better than ever beforesubstantially better than ever before

School Characteristics:

70% Free and Reduced Lunch (going up each year)

65% minority (mostly African-American)

Elements of Curriculum Change:

Movement to a comprehensive reading curriculum beginning in 1994-1995 school year (incomplete implementation) for K-2Improved implementation in 1995-1996Implementation in Fall of 1996 of screening and more intensive small group instruction for at-risk students

Proportion falling below the 25th

percentile in word reading ability at the end of first grade 10

20

3031.8

20.4

10.96.7

3.7

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Average Percentile 48.9 55.2 61.4 73.5 81.7for entire grade (n=105)

Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years

Screening at beginning of first grade, with extra instruction for those in bottom 30-40%

The consensus view of most important instructional features for

interventions

Provide ample opportunities for guided practice of new skills

Provide a significant increase in intensity of instruction

Provide systematic cueing of appropriate strategies in context

Provide systematic and explicit instruction on whatever component skills are deficient: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension strategies

Interventions are more effective when they:

Provide appropriate levels of scaffolding as children learn to apply new skills

Reading Reading stimulates stimulates general general cognitive cognitive growth—growth—particularly particularly verbal skillsverbal skills

Meanwhile, Back in the Brain

S#1

S#31

KindergartenKindergarten

Kindergarten

First Grade

Left RightAt Risk Reader

R L

11

2

3

45

6

7

One Year After Intervention

Shaywitz et al., Biol. Psychiatry, 2004

Z=+12

Z=-4

LeftRight

Documents

G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development