Reading and Writing

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 929–963 | Cite as

Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: a replication and comparison of instructional groupings

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to replicate previous research on phonics-based tutoring in kindergarten and to compare treatment effects for students who received individual instruction compared to instruction in dyads. Thirty classroom teachers from 13 urban elementary schools referred at-risk students for participation. Students who met screening criteria were quasi-randomly assigned, within classroom, to one of three conditions: individual tutoring (n = 22), tutoring in dyads (n = 32), or no tutoring (n = 22, classroom instruction only). Twenty-one paraeducators provided 18 weeks of explicit instruction in phonemic skills and the alphabetic code to students during the latter half of kindergarten. Multilevel model results showed that tutored students outperformed non-tutored controls on posttest measures of phonological awareness, word reading accuracy, oral reading fluency, spelling, and comprehension. However, no significant differences were found between the two tutored groups on any measure, suggesting that code-oriented tutoring for pairs of students is a viable alternative to the gold standard of individual instruction.

Keywords

Kindergarten Paraeducators Phonics Supplemental reading instruction Tutoring 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant H324C030029 to Washington Research Institute. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. We would like to express our gratitude to our project staff, especially Sarah Tudor and Kathryn Compton, and would also like to express our appreciation to the students, tutors, and teachers who made this research possible. Finally, we thank our anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Acalin, T. A. (1995). A comparison of Reading Recovery to Project READ. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California State University, Fullerton, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agronin, M. E., Holahan, J. M., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). The Multi-Grade Inventory for Teachers (MIT): Scale development, reliability, and validity of an instrument to assess children with attention deficits and learning disabilities. In S. E. Shaywitz & B. A. Shaywitz (Eds.), Attention deficit disorder comes of age: Toward the twenty-first century (pp. 89–116). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  4. Al Otaiba, S., Schatschneider, C., & Silverman, E. (2005). Tutor-assisted intensive learning strategies in kindergarten: How much is enough? Exceptionality, 13, 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berliner, D. C. (1990). The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berninger, V. W. (1998). Process assessment of the learner (PAL): Guides for intervention and PAL intervention kit. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researchers, 13, 4–16.Google Scholar
  9. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities Monograph No. 1. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bradley, R., Caldwell, B., Rock, S., Hamrick, H., & Harris, P. (1988). Home observation for measurement of the environment: Development of a home inventory for use with families having children 6 to 10 years old. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, K. U. (1995). Great leaps reading program. Gainsville, FL: Diarmuid.Google Scholar
  14. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1998). Causes of reading disabilities. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Language and reading disabilities (pp. 95–127). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  16. Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, P., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.Google Scholar
  18. Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., & Harn, B. A. (2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin; first-grade reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Poe, M. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dickinson, D., & Tabors, P. (1991). Early linkages: Linkages between home, school, and literacy achievement at age 5. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6, 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunn, L. M, & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IIIA (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  22. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risks for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans, T. L. (1996). I can read deze books: A qualitative comparison of the Reading Recovery program and a small group reading intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
  24. Fernandez-Fein, S., & Baker, L. (1997). Rhyme and alliteration sensitivity and relevant experiences among preschoolers from diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 433–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.Google Scholar
  28. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N. J., Braun, M., & O’Connor, R. E. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gettinger, M. (1985). Time allocated and time spent relative to time needed for learning as determinants of achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  31. Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, L., et al. (2004). Technical adequacy and decision making utility of DIBELS (Technical Report No. 7). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  32. Goswami, U. (2005). Synthetic phonics and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Hatcher, P. J., Goetz, K., Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., Gibbs, S., & Smith, G. (2006). Evidence for the effectiveness of the Early Literacy Support programme. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of reading failure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoffman, J. V., Sailors, M., & Patterson, E. U. (2002). Decodable texts for beginning reading instruction. (Report #1-016). Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  37. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2004). P.L. No. 108-446, SS 614 (b)(6)(A).Google Scholar
  38. International Dyslexia Association. (2006). New roles in response to intervention: Creating success for schools and children. November. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://www.interdys.org/npdf/rti-rev.pdf
  39. Iversen, S., Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 456–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). The wide range achievement test-revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jenkins, J. R., Vadasy, P. F., Firebaugh, M., & Profilet, C. (2000). Tutoring first-grade struggling readers in phonological reading skills. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnston, F. R., Invernizzi, M., & Juel, C. (1998). Book buddies: Guidelines for volunteer tutors of emergent and early readers. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 268–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Barker, T. A. (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lyster, S. H. (1998). Preventing reading failure: A follow-up study. Dyslexia, 4, 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Makar, B. W. (1995). Primary phonics. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  48. Maslen, B. L. (2003). Bob books. New York: Scholastic, Inc.Google Scholar
  49. Mathes, P. G., Allor, J. H., Torgesen, J. K., & Allen, S. H. (2001). PALS: Paths to achieving literacy success: Teacher-directed beginning reading lessons. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  50. McGuinness, C., & McGuinness, G. (1999). Reading reflex. New York: Fireside.Google Scholar
  51. Mesmer, H. (2004). Textual scaffolds and beginning readers: Predicting accuracy and fluency in leveled and decodable text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  52. Molfese, V. J., Beswick, J., Molnar, A., & Jacobi-Vessels, J. (2006). Alphabet skills in preschool: A preliminary study of letter naming and letter writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early steps: Replicating the effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 681–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2003). The nation’s report card: Reading highlights (NCES Publication No. 2004-452). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  55. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  56. National Reading Panel. (2000). Summary report. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  57. No Child Left Behind Act (PL 107-100). (2001). 20 U.S.C. §§ 6310 et seq.Google Scholar
  58. Pianta, R. C. (2006). Teacher–child relationships and early literacy. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 149–162). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  59. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM for Windows 6.0. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  60. Rosenshine, B. (1997). Advances in research on instruction. In: J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 197–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skills: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shaywitz, S. E. (1987). Multigrade inventory for teachers. New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  63. Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Makuch, R. (1992). Distribution and temporal stability of dyslexia in an epidemiological sample of 414 children followed longitudinally. New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecticut longitudinal study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 998–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., Harn, B., Coyne, M. D., Stoolmiller, M., Santoro, L. E., Smith, S. B., Beck, C. T., & Kaufman, N. K. (2007). Attributes of effective and efficient kindergarten reading intervention: An examination of instructional time and design specificity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., Stoolmiller, M., Coyne, M. D., & Harn, B. (2003). Accelerating growth and maintaining proficiency: A two-year intervention study of kindergarten and first-grade children at risk for reading difficulties. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 197–228). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  67. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  68. SPSS, Inc. (1989–2004). Statistical package for the social sciences 13.0. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  69. Tangel, D. M., & Blachman, B. A. (1992). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on kindergarten children’s invented spelling. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 233–261.Google Scholar
  70. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999a). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  71. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999b). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997a). Community-based early reading intervention for at-risk first graders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 29–39.Google Scholar
  73. Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997b). The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., & Pool, K. (2000). Effects of tutoring in phonological and early reading skills on students at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., Peyton, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (2002). Timing and intensity of tutoring: A closer look at the conditions for effective early literacy tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or word-level instruction in supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 364–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 508–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Abbott, R. D. (2008). Effects of paraeducatorimplemented early reading intervention at 2-year follow up: Reading skill growth patterns and predictors. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 51– 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experienced deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wagner, R., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Pro-Ed: Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  82. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872.Google Scholar
  83. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from pre-readers to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11–29). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  84. Wolf, M., & Denkla, M. B. (2005). RAN/RAS: Rapid automatized naming and rapid alternative stimulus tests. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  85. Woodcock, R. (1987, 1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised/Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington Research InstituteSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations