In prep for my upcoming Literacy Difficulties class, I recently
read a research article on reading intervention in kindergarten that struck me
as very important, and thus I thought that I would attempt to briefly summarize
the findings here. As I guy who has said for many years, “It is not just about
teaching the right stuff, but also doing it at the right level of intensity,” I
loved the design of the study. Specifically, the researchers compared outcomes
for students who participated in three differently designed kindergarten interventions.
The three interventions were designed to compare the effects of two key
variables – time and “design specificity.” So, the three treatments were… 1) 30
minutes of HIGH-design-specificity, code-based instruction, 2) 15 minutes of HIGH-design-specificity,
code-based instruction + 15 minutes of read aloud, vocab and narrative structure
instruction, and 3) 30 minutes of MODERATE-design-specificity, code-based
instruction. Based on these interventions, the researchers could compare groups
1-2 to examine the effects of additional instructional time on key code-based
objectives (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, beginning decoding/spelling) and
groups 1-3 to examine the effects of design specificity. There were many assessments
used and thus many comparisons. I will try to do justice to the findings very briefly…
1)
Students in the 30-minute HIGH treatment scored significantly
greater growth than students in the 15-minute HIGH + 15-minute story reading in
letter naming and writing, decoding, word reading and spelling. The two groups performed
equally on phoneme segmenting. Importantly, the 30-minute HIGH treatment was
differentially more effective for students who entered K with the lowest alphabet
knowledge (naming 3 or fewer letter names – 70% of the total sample). In short,
for the students with the lowest alphabetic knowledge, 30-minute of highly
specifically designed code-based instruction was much more effective than 15. 15
minutes of such instruction was equally effective for students who were at the “top”
of the bottom 25% in alphabetic knowledge. In simple terms, kids who start really
low in terms of early literacy knowledge need not just carefully targeted instruction
but also “the right intensity” (time on task) of this instruction.
2)
Students in the 30-minute HIGH treatment scored significantly
greater growth than students in the 30-minute MODERATE treatment in letter naming
and writing, decoding, word reading and spelling. Similar to the above
comparison, the 30-minute HIGH treatment was differentially more effective for
students who entered K with the lowest alphabet knowledge (naming 3 or fewer letter
names – 70% of the total sample). In short, for the students with the lowest alphabetic
knowledge, 30 minutes of highly specifically designed code-based instruction
was much more effective than 30 minutes of moderately specifically designed code-based
instruction. So, once again, to maximize growth of kids who start really low in
terms of early literacy knowledge, it is critical that the instruction not just
target the “right stuff” but also have excellent design.
Overall, there were a lot of
effect sizes involved. So, practically speaking, I will just say this to give a
sense of the magnitude of the gains: The kids in the 30-High treatment ended up
at the 67% on Dibels decoding whereas those in the other conditions ended up at
about the 40%. And, a little info on “specifically designed instruction:” this
variable involved elements such as explicitness of big ideas, scaffolding, and strategic
review.
The bottom line here seems quite
clear: Just generally “doing the right stuff” doesn’t cut it with our neediest students;
maximizing the growth of these kiddos requires carefully designed code-based
instruction and A LOT OF IT!
Simmons, D., Kame’enui,
E., Harn, B., Coyne, M., Edwards, L., & Thomas, C. (2007). The effects of
instructional emphasis and
specificity on
early reading and vocabulary development of kindergarten children. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 40, 331-347.
No comments:
Post a Comment