Beginning Reading Instruction for Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities

2006 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Coyne ◽  
Richard P. Zipoli ◽  
Maureen F. Ruby
2021 ◽  
pp. 002221942199984
Author(s):  
Cheryl Varghese ◽  
Mary Bratsch-Hines ◽  
Heather Aiken ◽  
Lynne Vernon-Feagans

Teachers’ implementation of differentiated supplemental instruction is critical to help students with or at risk for reading-related disabilities acquire early reading and vocabulary skills. This study represents an initial investigation of whether classroom teachers’ intervention fidelity (exposure, adherence, and quality) of targeted reading instruction (TRI, formerly called targeted reading intervention), a professional development program with embedded student intervention and weekly webcam literacy coaching support, was related to spring reading and oral vocabulary gains for students at risk for reading-related disabilities. The study also examined whether teachers’ years of participation in TRI (1 year vs 2 years) moderated associations between intervention fidelity and students’ reading and oral vocabulary outcomes. Findings suggested that teachers’ adherence to TRI strategies was directly associated with students’ vocabulary gains as well as word reading skills for teachers in their second year of participation. Furthermore, when teachers provided students with more TRI exposure during their second year of participation, students made greater gains in word reading and reading comprehension.


1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Larrivee

This paper reviews accumulated research pertinent to the issue of modality preference as a method for differentiating beginning reading instruction. Research is considered here in the following categories: Studies providing differential instruction based on modality preference; related studies comparing auditory and visual modes as mediational channels; and studies dealing with the extent to which auditory and visual capacities are related to success in beginning reading. The following conclusions are presented: 1) Regardless of the measure used to classify learners, only a relatively small percentage of children showed a marked preference for either modality; 2) most current measurement instruments did not demonstrate the necessary reliability to be used in decisions concerning differential assignment of children to instructional programs; and 3) differentiating instruction according to modality preference apparently did not facilitate learning to read.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Stevens ◽  
Christy Austin ◽  
Clint Moore ◽  
Nancy K. Scammacca ◽  
Alexis N. Boucher ◽  
...  

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grass-roots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at-risk for world-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006) and What Works Clearinghouse reports (WWC, 2010) yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; ES = 0.22, p = .40); though the mean effect size was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, there were not significant differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.14; p = .59) for students with or at-risk for WLRD. More high quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document