Skip to main content

Reorganizing the instructional reading components: could there be a better way to design remedial reading programs to maximize middle school students with reading disabilities’ response to treatment?

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to explore if there could be a more beneficial method in organizing the individual instructional reading components (phonological decoding, spelling, fluency, and reading comprehension) within a remedial reading program to increase sensitivity to instruction for middle school students with reading disabilities (RD). Three different modules (Alternating, Integrated, and Additive) of the Reading Achievement Multi-Modular Program were implemented with 90 middle school (sixth to eighth grades) students with reading disabilities. Instruction occurred 45 min a day, 5 days a week, for 26 weeks, for approximately 97 h of remedial reading instruction. To assess gains, reading subtests of the Woodcock Johnson-III, the Gray Silent Reading Test, and Oral Reading Fluency passages were administered. Results showed that students in the Additive module outperformed students in the Alternating and Integrated modules on phonological decoding and spelling and students in the Integrated module on comprehension skills. Findings for the two oral reading fluency measures demonstrated a differential pattern of results across modules. Results are discussed in regards to the effect of the organization of each module on the responsiveness of middle school students with RD to instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning reading instruction in the United States. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, M. J., Treiman, R., & Pressley, M. (1998). Reading, writing and literacy. In I. Sigel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, volume 4: Child psychology in practice. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(1), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, J. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bear, D. R. & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundations for learning and teaching linguistics skills, spelling, and vocabulary. Reading Teacher, 52(3), 222–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I. L. & Juel, C. (1995). The role of decoding in learning to read. In Consortium on Reading Excellence (Ed.), Reading research: Anthology, the why? of reading instruction (pp. 78–87). Novato: Arena Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatized and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biancarosa, G. & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caccamise, D. & Snyder, L. (2009). Comprehension Instruction in the 21st century. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoon, M. B. (2003). Reading Achievement Multi-Modular Program (RAMP-UP). Georgia State University. Unpublished manual.

  • Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition of middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 424–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoon, M. B. (2006). Rethinking adolescent literacy instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 32(3), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.). Colombus: Merrill Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct reading instruction (4th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreker, S. (2005). Spelling instruction: Foundation of reading and ornament of writing. Perspectives, 31(3), 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth: Hartcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, M. (2004). Adolescents who struggle with word identification: Research and practice. In T. Jetton & J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, M. E. & Longo, A. M. (1999). When adolescents can’t read: Methods and materials that work. Cambridge: Brookline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Disabilities, 10, 343–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dymock, S. (1993). Reading but not understanding. Journal of Reading, 37(2), 86–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., et al. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Educational Research Service. (1995). Reading at the middle and high school levels. Arlington: ERS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamala, O. B. Rosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol II (pp. 383–417). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics: An explanation of the national reading panel meta-analyses. The voice of evidence in reading research. McCardle, Peggy (Ed); Chhabra, Vinita (Ed); pp. 153-186. Baltimore, MD, US: Paul H Brookes Publishing, 2004. xxix, 496 pp.

  • Ehri, L. C. & Soffer, A. G. (1999). Graphophnemic awareness: Development in elementary students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. A., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. R. (2005). Multi-tiered reading instruction: Linking general education and special education. In J. Gilger & S. Richardson (Eds.), Research-based education and intervention: What we need to know. Baltimore: International Dyslexia Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Lieberman, I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S. (1988). Effects of computer-managed instruction on teachers` implementation of systematic monitoring programs and student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 81(5), 294–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 309–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted leaning strategies: Making classroom more responsive to academic diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1995). Acquisition and transfer effects of class wide peer students with varying leaning histories. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 604–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Reading methods for grades 2-6. Vanderbilt University.

  • Gough, P. B. & Walsh, M. A. (1991). Chinese, phonicians, and the orthographic cipher of English. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonetical processes in literacy (pp. 199–210). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. F. (2006). Language! Frederick: Sopris West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselbring, T. S. & Goin, L. I. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

  • Henry, M. (1997). The decoding/spelling continuum: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction from pre-school to early secondary school. Dyslexia, 3, 178–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M. & Aaron, P. G. (2005). Spelling: Assessment and instructional recommendation. Perspectives, 13(3), 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C. & Roper/Schneider, D. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindamood, P. & Bell, N. (1999). Lindamood-Bell learning processes. San Luis Obispo: Gander Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., DeLuca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N. J., & Brackstone, D. (1994). Treating the core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically- and strategy- based reading training programs. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 805–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Lacerenza, L., Frijters, J. C., Steinbach, K. A., & De Palma, M. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combing phonological and strategy- based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. W. & Steinbach, K. A. (1997). The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manset-Williamson, G. & Nelson, J. M. (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mohler, L. J., Beranek, M. L., Spencer, V., Boon, R. T., et al. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn anything? Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 16(1), 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Brooks Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCray, A. (2001). Middle school students with reading disabilities. Reading Teacher, 55, 298–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (1996). Phonological spelling errors in the writing of dyslexic adolescents. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8(1), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (2000a). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (2000b). What is the role of the speech-language pathologist in assessing and facilitating spelling skills? Topics in Language Disorders, 20(33), 85–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (2001). When older students can’t read. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (2002). Learning to read. American School Board Journal, 189(6), 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Reading instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel (NRP)—Report of the Subgroups. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NIH Pub. No. 004754).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council Report. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.

  • Olson, R. K., Wise, B., Johnson, M., & Ring, J. (1997). The etiology and remediation of phonologically based word recognition and spelling disabilities: Are phonological deficits the “hole” story? In B. Blashman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition (pp. 305–326). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activity. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, R. E. (2000). Attentional resource emancipation: Toward understanding the interaction of word identification and comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(3), 169–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding; Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved August, 2007, from http://www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/reading/readreport.html.

  • Samuels, S. J. (1985). Automaticity and repeated reading. Lexington: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J. & Kamil, M. L. (1984). Models of the reading process. In P. D. Pearson, P. Mosenthal, M. Kamil & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J., Schermer, N., & Reinking, D. (1992). Reading fluency: Techniques for making decoding automatic. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research says about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 124–144). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrank, F. A. & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). WJ-III compuscore and profiles program [computer software]. Itasca: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education, 1, 1–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., Shneider, A. E., Marchione, K. E., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: the Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, L. (2001). Saxon phonics intervention. Norman: Saxon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, L. (2006). Saxon phonics intervention (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Saxon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P. G., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-performing students in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 387–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C., (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis.

  • Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Department of Education, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416465).

  • Stahl, S. A., Heubach, K., & Cramond, B. (1997). Fluency-oriented reading instruction (Reading Research 790). Athens: National Reading Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the cause and consequences of individual differences in early reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 307–342). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, B. & Brady, S. (1995). Evidence for phonological processing deficits in less-skilled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 51–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (1999a). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(3), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (1999b). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. J. & Hoskyn, M. (1998). A synthesis of experimental intervention literature for students with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 271–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2004). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 407–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, S. (1983). Using the spelling/meaning connection to develop word knowledge in older students. Journal of Reading, 27(1), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, S. (1992). Old story, new resolution—Sound and meaning in spelling. Language Arts, 69(6), 454–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, S. & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 102–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33-58, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuner, W. E. & Hoover, W. A. (1992). Cognitive and linguistics skills factors in learning to read. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175–214). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. & Barker, T. (1994). The development of orthographic processing ability. In V. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge I: Theoretical and developmental issues (pp. 243–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederholt, J. L. & Blalock, G. (2000). Gray silent reading test. Austin: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (2002). The Wilson Reading System, Third Edition. Millbury, MA: Wilson Language Training Corporation.

  • Wolf, M. (1999). What time may tell: Towards a new conceptualization of developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 387–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). WJ- III tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Beth Calhoon.

Additional information

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Children’s Health and Human Development (NICHD) grant #1R03HD048988.h.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 4
figure 4

Example of linguistic skills lesson

Fig. 5
figure 5

Example of working with words instructional sheet

Fig. 6
figure 6

Example of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies question card

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Calhoon, M.B., Sandow, A. & Hunter, C.V. Reorganizing the instructional reading components: could there be a better way to design remedial reading programs to maximize middle school students with reading disabilities’ response to treatment?. Ann. of Dyslexia 60, 57–85 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0033-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0033-x

Keywords

  • Adolescent literacy
  • Fluency
  • Phonological decoding
  • Reading comprehension
  • Remedial reading
  • Spelling