ESS518 - Reading Difficulties: Prevention and Intervention Assessment

item 1 - Identifying Reading Difficulties 1 Component A: The Science of Reading Criterion 1: Defining the Science of Reading The Science of Reading (SoR) is an enormous and cross-disciplinary amount of empirical information that describes how children learn to read and why some have reading problems. Based on many years of experimental and longitudinal research material on cognitive psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and education, The Science of Reading brings together the most successful instructional practices in terms of success in developing skilled reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). Instead of one program or pedagogy, SoR is evidence-based concepts on reading development including the need to teach foundational skills in an explicit, systematic manner; that is, phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The most crucial point in the Science of Reading is the fact that reading is an unnatural process that cannot arise out of exposure. A reading process, in contrast to oral language, has to be taught consciously since it entails the correspondence of visual signs (graphemes) to the spoken language (phonemes). Therefore, the instructional strategies which go along with SoR focus on the structured literacy practices which are explicit, cumulative, and responsive to the assessment data. Criterion 2: The Case for Adopting the Science of Reading in a School Context The implementation of the Science of Reading into a school environment is the key to enhancing literacy performance and eliminating disparities in student achievement (CabralGouveia, Menezes & Neves, 2023). Studies have continuously shown that whole-language or minimal guided methods put students at risk of failure as future readers, such as dyslexics, those with a language weakness, or low literacy exposure, at a disadvantage. Conversely, SoR-related teaching is one that enhances every learner; it is especially effective among students who have disadvantages. The Science of Reading fosters early identification and intervention on a schoolwide view. (Early) risk identification with screening tools like DIBELS will allow the educator to intervene promptly before the problem becomes deeper-rooted through the wait-to-fail model in place which tends to produce long-term reading problems (Hoskins et al., 2021). In addition, SoR offers a common professional communication between teachers, which facilitates alignment in the levels of year levels and minimizes disparity in instruction. 2 Criterion 3: Theories and Frameworks Underpinning the Science of Reading There are various theories which are already well established in Science of Reading. The Simple View of Reading is among the most powerful and it is a conceptualisation of reading comprehension as a decoding and linguistic comprehension product. Based on this framework, any problem with one of the components or both can lead to a bad reading comprehension (Davidson, 2021). This model is especially beneficial due to its ability to give a clear assessment and intervention-structured framework. Scarborough Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001) is another important structure, which elaborates on the Simple View to demonstrate how several subskills become more and more integrated and automatic over time. The rope illustrates combining the lower-level word recognition strands (phonological awareness, decoding and sight recognition) at the bottom with higher level language comprehension strands (vocabulary, syntax, background knowledge and verbal reasoning) at the top. Moreover, cognitive theory of reading development places emphasis on orthographic mapping which is the process through which a reader permanently records written words in memory by the formation of strong links between phonemes, grapheme and meaning. Figure 1: Simple view of reading (Source: images.google.com) 3 Criterion 4: Reflection on How These Frameworks Support Understanding and Identification of Reading Difficulties Combined, these models play a crucial role in enhancing the knowledge of educators about the reading process and in determining the reading difficulties accurately. The Simple View of Reading is a diagnostic tool, which enables educators to differentiate between decoding-based (as in dyslexia) troubles, language comprehending troubles, and mixed pictures. This point of difference is vital as each profile needs an alternative approach to the instruction (Seidel et al., 2021). The Reading Rope provided by Scarborough also allows the teacher to be more precise in their diagnosis as it assists in determining which particular strands are not fully developed. An illustration is a student whose decoding is good but vocabulary and background knowledge weak so that he/she cannot comprehend his reading even though he/she reads fluently. On the other hand, the poor phonological awareness of a student might manifest in early word recognition, which is a sign of the necessity of a specific phonics support. Notably, these models are closely related to the instructional approach that is based on assessment. When administered together with curriculum-based tests and diagnostic tests, they help educators to go beyond the superficial measurements and go to the real sources of the problems with reading. Component B: DIBELS 8 Screening Analysis Student Selection The learner who was chosen to be analysed is a student by the name of Harry who is a Year 2 learner. To plan the Assessment item 2, data available on Harry in terms of the 8th Edition of DIBELS (Beginning of Year) will also be utilized as per the requirements. Overview of DIBELS Subtests and Big Ideas ? Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) represents the testing of the Big Idea of Alphabetic Principle, namely, the quality of students to use letter-sound correspondences and combine sounds in order to read unknown words (Wu & Gadke, 2023). This measure is a measure of decoding under the Simple View of Reading. ? Word Reading Fluency (WRF) assesses the Big Idea of Accuracy and Automacy with Connected Text, which involves reading of real words at rapid and accurate rates. This also assesses decoding. 4 ? The Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) assesses the Accuracy and the Big Ideas of Fluency when reading a connected text. It mainly represents decoding, the new interaction with comprehension. ? The Big Ideas of the Reading Comprehension is measured in MAZE using the competence of students to combine meaning, syntax, and vocabulary. MAZE is measurement of linguistic comprehension under the Simple View (Washburn, 2022). Harrys Results and Risk Status Subtest Skill Focus Result Summary Risk Status NWF Alphabetic principle & blending Inconsistent accuracy; difficulty with full blending At risk WRF Automatic word recognition Low rate and accuracy At risk ORF Fluency in connected text Reduced words correct; errors affect flow Some risk MAZE Comprehension Difficulty selecting contextually appropriate words Some risk Table 1: Harrys Results and Risk Status (Source: Self illustrated) Patterns of Performance Harry has a consistent weakness with respect to decoding, especially with blending and automatic word recognition. Mistakes made in NWF and WRF propose poor phonemegraphene mapping, which restrains fluency in ORF. Comprehension is also affected by MAZE performance, presumably as a by-product of decoding ineffectiveness, and not fair, as a language comprehension deficit (Zhang, Tolmie & Gordon, 2022). Simple View of Reading Profile Harry presents a reading difficulty that involves decoding in using the Simple View of Reading. His language understanding seems to be comparatively more developed than the reading of the 5 words, which means that explicit, systematic phonics and phonological awareness training should be among the priorities of the intervention. Component C: Diagnostic Assessment Analysis Harry (Year 2) This aspect provides a descriptive analysis of the assessment data of Harry in terms of decoding to establish his current level of performance, the gaps in the underlying reading skills, and an adequate initial point of learning (Carnine et al., 2017). The tests that have been analysed are the following: Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST - Form A), the Beginning and Primary Phonics Assessment, and the SPELD NSW Decodable Reader Placement Test. Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST Form A) Purpose and Big Idea The PAST tests the phonological awareness of a student on the syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme levels. The most important principle of starting reading is phonemic awareness that is important in the process of orthographic mapping and effective decoding. Summary of Performance Harry performs better at the syllable level and the onset rime level successfully completing simple syllable segmentation and simple rhyme tasks. Nevertheless, he shows a major decrease in performance in the phoneme level especially in the tasks that involve manipulation of phonemes. Phonological Level Performance Summary Syllable Largely secure Onsetrime Mostly accurate Phoneme blending Inconsistent Phoneme segmentation Weak Phoneme deletion/substitution Significant difficulty Table 2: Phonological Level and Performance Summary (Source: Self illustrated) 6 Areas of Difficulty and Error Patterns Harry finds it the most difficult to handle higher-level phonemes activities such as deleting and replacing phonemes. Mistakes imply that he is using half-sound referents as opposed to comprehension in phonemic perception. All these challenges imply the inadequate development of phoneme-level sensitiveness, which is essential in mapping graphemes to phonemes during the decoding processes. Instructional Starting Point and Rationale Teaching ought to start at the explicit level of work, i.e. phoneme segmentation and blending, and then proceed to the manipulation tasks. This position can be explained by the fact that the phonemic awareness is one of the best predictors of success in decoding, and the present weaknesses of Harry might be the direct cause of his poor performance in decoding tests. Beginning and Primary Phonics Assessment Purpose and Big Idea The Beginning and Primary Phonics Assessment are used to determine how well the student knows the letter sound relationships, small and capital letters recognition, and reading of regular words (Bowers, 2020). The first Big Idea which is to be evaluated is the Alphabetic Principle. Summary of Performance Skill Area Observed Performance Lowercase lettersound knowledge Mostly secure Uppercase lettersound knowledge Inconsistent Regular word reading Weak accuracy Blending CVC words Inconsistent Multisyllabic decoding Not secure Table 3: Summary of Performance (Source: Self illustrated) 7 Harry demonstrates partial mastery of simple letter-sound correspondences, especially lowercase letters. But he exhibits some confusions in the form of upper-case letters, and he has difficulties using familiar letter-sound information in reading ordinary words. Areas of Difficulty and Error Patterns Such patterns show that Harry has some knowledge of phonics, but it is not automatic or integrated which makes it hard to read words without errors and fluently. Harry frequently: ? Identifies individual sounds but fails to blend them successfully ? Substitutes visually similar letters ? Attempts to guess words based on initial sounds rather than full decoding Instructional Starting Point and Rationale Learning should be by way of clear combinations of letters, sounds and vowels and with known letter-sound associations, which are to be checked up and rectified as they arise (Colenbrander et al., 2020). The application of this strategy is appropriate because Harry already possesses partial phonics knowledge but poor automaticity and consolidation, which is a requirement to possess an automatic word recognition. SPELD NSW Decodable Reader Placement Test Purpose and Big Idea The SPELD NSW Decodable Reader Placement Test is meant to pair the students with the right decodable reading material according to their phonics knowledge and decoding level. The phonics skills in connected text applied in the Big Idea evaluated is application of phonics skills (Fletcher, Savage & Vaughn, 2021). Summary of Performance According to the results of the assessment, Harry can be defined as a reader on the early decodable stage, which relates to texts with the focus on: ? Single-letter sounds. ? Simple CVC word structures. ? Smaller and restricted vocabulary. 8 Indicator Observation Accuracy in decodable text Lowmoderate Reliance on guessing Evident Fluency Limited Comprehension Impacted by decoding difficulty Table 4: Indicator and Observation (Source: Self illustrated) Areas of Difficulty and Error Patterns Instructional Starting Point and Rationale Harry's reading of connected text reveals: ? Frequent breakdowns when encountering unfamiliar words ? Reduced fluency due to slow and effortful decoding ? Loss of meaning when cognitive resources are consumed by word-level reading (Cistola, Farrs & van der Meulen, 2021). These patterns prove that the major challenge experienced by Harry is in decoding and not in language understanding. Instructional Starting Point and Rationale The instruction should be initiated with Harry with the early-level SPELD NSW decodable readers that consist of his present phonics knowledge. It should be taught with an emphasis on: ? Careful decoding of every word ? Reinforcement of taught phonemegrapheme correspondences ? Avoidance of compensatory guessing strategies 9 Such positioning will guarantee that reading materials are eminent of the instructional level of Harry and he can succeed in practicing and gaining confidence along with reinforcing the decoding skills. Overall Diagnostic Summary and Instructional Implications In all the three tests, Harry presents an evident reading deficiency that is decoding-based. He has a weakness in phonological awareness, especially on the phoneme level coupled by incomplete knowledge in phonics that restricts accurate and fluent word reading. These challenges go hand in hand with the decoding deficiency on the Simple View of Reading in which linguistic understanding is comparatively less affected yet, it is not able to offset poor word recognition. The suggested point of instructional intervention with Harry is explicit systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics with the help of well-matched decodable texts. The evidence-based approach to interventions based on this information will give the practice a better base and corresponds to evidence-based tenets of Science of Reading. 10 11 References Bowers, J. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 681-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y. Cabral-Gouveia, C., Menezes, I., & Neves, T. (2023, May). Educational strategies to reduce the achievement gap: a systematic review. In Frontiers in education (Vol. 8, p. 1155741). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1155741. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kameenui, E. J., Slocum, T. A., & Travers, P. (2017). Direct instruction reading, 6th ed. Pearson, Boston MA. Cistola, G., Farrs, M., & van der Meulen, I. (2021). Aphasia and acquired reading impairments: What are the high?tech alternatives to compensate for reading deficits?. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 56(1), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12569. Colenbrander, D., Wang, H. C., Arrow, T., & Castles, A. (2020). Teaching irregular words: What we know, what we dont know, and where we can go from here. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 37(2), 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2020.11. Davidson, M. M. (2021). Reading comprehension in school-age children with autism spectrum disorder: Examining the many components that may contribute. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(1), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00010. Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S25-S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411. Fletcher, J. M., Savage, R., & Vaughn, S. (2021). A commentary on Bowers (2020) and the role of phonics instruction in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1249-1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09580-8. Hoskins, W. H., Hobbs, W. I., Eason, M. J., Decker, S., & Tang, J. (2021). The design and implementation of the Carolina Automated Reading Evaluation for reading deficit screening. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100123. 12 Seidel, T., Schnitzler, K., Kosel, C., Strmer, K., & Holzberger, D. (2021). Student characteristics in the eyes of teachers: Differences between novice and expert teachers in judgment accuracy, observed behavioral cues, and gaze. Educational Psychology Review, 33(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09532-2. Washburn, J. (2022). Reviewing evidence on the relations between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension for adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211045122. Wu, S., & Gadke, D. L. (2023). A preliminary evaluation of positive self?review as an oral reading fluency intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 60(8), 2843-2862. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22888. Zhang, Y., Tolmie, A., & Gordon, R. (2022). The relationship between working memory and arithmetic in primary school children: a meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 13(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13010022. 13