Excerpt from Models of Teaching (8^th Ed., 2009): Attacking the Struggling  Reader Problem Directly With Models of Teaching 

Another Report of Research 

From Our  

Colleagues and Us 

The “Overage” Beginning Reader: 

An Action Research Test of a 

Multidimensional Approach 

By 

Bruce Joyce, Booksend Laboratories, 

Marilyn Hrycauk, Northern Lights School Division #69, 

and Emily Calhoun, The Phoenix Alliance

Whether one judges by examining the studies reported as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (1998), the studies by state and provincial departments of education or just examines the information available in school districts, the picture is the same: somewhere around one-third of our students have not reached the level of competence needed to educate themselves by accessing the learning resources used in the upper elementary, middle, and high schools. Further, the situation gets worse for those students as their competence falls farther behind their peers, and the massive categorical programs (special education, Title I, and ESE initiatives) have in general been able to do little to alleviate the problem (McGill-Franzen and Allington, 1991).

Consequently, nearly all school districts face a situation where a substantial proportion of their students in grades four to twelve are virtually “beginning” readers, essentially having only the knowledge and skills characteristic of early or middle primary grade students. In some settings, interventions made in the preschool, kindergarten, and primary years have reduced the number (see, Slavin, Madden, Karweit, & Wasik, (1994) and Pinnell, et.al. (1994), but in most districts the number continues to be sizeable and the interventions after the primary grades are largely ineffective.

Perspective

Yet, the research on how to teach reading is substantial, and when synthesized, lays a base from which we can construct curriculums that we can theorize will make a considerable difference. However, these curriculums are not built around off-the-shelf packages of materials that can be adopted with minimal training. To implement those curriculums requires extensive, inquiry-oriented staff development because accomplishing them requires considerable expansion of the repertoire of most teachers. The staff need to study the research, acquire new teaching strategies, and study student learning on a formative as well as a summative basis.

A “Second Chance” to Learn to Read

In a number of reviews (Calhoun, 1997; Joyce, 1999; and Showers, et al , 1998) we have theorized that a multidimensional curriculum containing the following components has a reasonable chance of helping overage beginning readers to accelerate their growth in literacy, regain lost self esteem, and get in reach of academic success and the capability of teaching themselves through reading and writing. The components include

• development of sight vocabulary from the developed listening-speaking vocabulary through the picture-word inductive model (Calhoun, 1997) or an “experience-record approach (Stauffer, 1969) and the study of words encountered through wide reading (Nagy an Anderson, 1984).
• wide reading at the developed level (Duke and Pearson, undated),
• the study of word patterns, including spelling (Ehri, 1999),
• regular (several times daily) writing and the study of writing (Englert, et.al.,1991),
• the study of comprehension strategies (Garner, 1987; Pressley, et.al.,1995), and
• the study, by both teachers and students, on a weekly and monthly basis, of progress, including levels of books the students can read, sight words learned, phonetic and structural analysis skills, information learned, and fluency in writing (Calhoun, 1999). Students study their progress and whether they are ready for exit because they are independent readers of grade-appropriate text.

The Second Chance curriculum requires about 90 minutes per day. For middle and high school students the 90 minute period replaces elective and exploratory subjects. Length of enrollment may vary considerably. The gap between their competence on enrollment and the level needed to manage grade-typical learning resources can be substantial. Eighth or ninth grade students may enter with the level of the average second or third grade student. In addition, most of the students arrive with well-developed phobias about reading and writing and, because of their lack of academic success, considerable resistance to instruction and well developed skills for avoiding instruction of any sort. In several exploratory studies about half the students made considerable progress in a single semester, moving, for example, to the level of the level of the average fifth grade student. The other half responded equally well during the second semester (Showers, Joyce, Scanlon, and Schnaubelt, 1998). Thus, enrollment should be for an initial year with exit provided as adequate competence has been achieved. A rule of thumb is the level of the average student at the end of grade six. At that point, most appear to be able to handle middle and high school learning resources, provided that they apply themselves.

Mode of Inquiry/Data Sources

In the Northern Lights school district Second Chance is nested in a broader program of initiatives, all of which are conducted from an action research frame of reference whereby the teachers and administrators in each initiative study implementation and student learning on a formative basis. The 20 schools of the district include populations of considerable variance in SES and ethnicity terms. Both teacher opinion and provincial assessments indicate that the district has been typical of those in North America: about one third of the students become overage beginning readers.

The components of the program require substantial staff development into research-based curricular and instructional patterns. Some of the components address needs of all students at every level while others address specific levels or students of particular needs:

• Just Read. A district-wide program to increase student independent reading, particularly “at home” reading (Joyce and Wolf, 1996). The rationale is direct: students need to read widely to consolidate skills, to explore the world that lies within books, and Just Read involves the entire school and neighborhood community in an active action research effort to ensure that all students are reading independently.
• Primary Curriculum (K-3). The teachers are studying and beginning to implement strategies, particularly the Picture-Word Inductive Model (Calhoun, 1999; Joyce and Calhoun, 1997), that are designed to increase vocabulary, enhance phonetic and structural analysis, and increase comprehension strategies. Kindergarten teachers are beginning to study how to teach their students to read. The first emphasis of the action research includes the acquisition of vocabulary and phonetic analysis skills. These teachers engage in from ten to fifteen days of staff development that includes demonstrations, the study of the literature on literacy, and support by a cadre of teachers and administrators.
• Early Literacy Tutorial. The focus of this intervention is on students in the primary grades who are not learning to read from the primary curriculum. The Early Literacy Staff study some basic strategies for teaching initial reading. Teachers refer students to them and those students receive one-on-one tutoring for a period of up to 20 weeks. The Early Literacy Tutorial is the first safety net for the students who are not responding satisfactorily in the early years.
• Second Chance: The second safety net, the subject of the present article. The present study involves 12 sections involving 300 students in the Northern Lights School District #69. The Second Chance teachers received 10-15 days of staff development, studied their implementation and the growth of their students by a variety of measures including standard tests (the Canadian Tests of Basic Skills or the Gates-McGinnitie battery administered on enrollment and at the end of the academic year 1999-2000. The 20 schools of the district include populations of considerable variance in SES and ethnicity.

In this report, standard tests are the primary source of data and are interpreted, first, in terms of the characteristics of the students and, second, in terms of their progress. Complete data were available for 250  students in the 12 sections. For each student, learning-history indices were computed providing estimates of student progress compared with the “average” student. Each of the twelve teachers of the sections  studied the growth of each student, the progress of the students in their section, and the progress of the Second Chance initiative as a whole. The study included the acquisition of sight vocabulary, phonetic and structural analysis skills, and gain scores computed from the standard tests. The overall picture that emerged is the emphasis in this paper.

Table I provides an example of the data that were accumulated in each section

All of these students made substantial gains on the Vocabulary subtest, the Comprehension subtest, or both subtests of the Canada Tests of Basic Skills. In this class, there were just three females; thus, there is a big gender difference in enrollment, but no gender difference appears in effects. The mean gain on the Vocabulary subtest was 1.2 and on the Comprehension subtest, 1.5. Gains relative to initial scores are particularly interesting. The initial scores for six students were in the average range of end-of-first-grade students (1.7-2.3). The average gain for this subgroup of students was 2.1. In their previous four or five years of schooling, the average  gain for these six students had been around 0.25 per year, and the prognosis that that level of gain would rise would normally be poor (Juel, 1992).

During this year, or half-year in one case, the student gains were twice the gain of average students for a year, and eight times their own previous
Student Number	Gender	Gd	Length (Months)	Vocabulary (GLE)			Comprehension (GLE)
				Initial	Final	Gain	Initial	Final	Gain
1.	F	5	9	2.3	4.4	2.1	2.9	4.9	2.0
2.	F	5	9	1.9	4.3	2.4	2.9	4.6	1.7
3.	M	5	9	1.7	4.2	2.5	1.4	5.0	3.6
4.	M	5	5	3.3	3.9	0.6	3.0	4.8	1.8
5.	M	5	9	1.4	4.3	2.9	3.0	4.7	1.7
6.	M	5	5	2.8	2.9	0.1	3.2	3.7	0.5
7	M	5	5	1.9	4.0	2.1	2.1	3.5	1.4
8.	M	5	9	2.3	4.3	2.0	3.5	4.8	1.3
9.	M	4/5	7	3.9	3.3	-0.6	3.0	4.1	1.1
10.	M	4/5	5	3.1	4.1	1.0	4.8	5.1	0.3
11.	F	4/5	5	3.6	4.4	0.8	3.0	4.6	1.6
12.	M	4/5	5	2.6	3.0	0.4	2.9	3.5	0.6
13.	F	4/5	5	4.5	4.9	0.4	3.3	5.1	1.8
14.	M	4/5	9	3.9	4.9	1.0	2.7	5.3	2.6
15.	M	4/5	5	2.3	3.0	0.7	2.4	3.6	1.2

Data like those in Table I were merged into the picture that follows.

Results/Evidence Based on the Characteristics of the Students Enrolled

Each school arranged to identify students and enroll them. The resulting sections of Read to Succeed reflected differences in the process undertaken in the schools, especially the priorities that emerged. In all schools there were more overage beginning readers than could be served at any given time and the faculties and administrators had to make some tough decisions about who to enroll. The 250 students are about 10 percent of the district student body from grades four to nine. The overall Second Chance student body looks like this:

• Gender: Two thirds are males. Some sections were virtually all males (11 of 12, in one case) and a few were relatively even (8 of 14 were females in one case).
• Coded as having special needs: Seventy percent. Mostly codes 54 (mild to moderate learning disabilities), 30 percent, and 57 (communication problems), also 30 percent.
• Standard test scores on entry: Forty-six percent of the elementary grade students tested at or below the average for graduating grade two students. For those who were fifth grade students the gain through their four or more years of schooling was about a quarter the gain of the average student (in GLE terms). A similar picture appeared for the entering middle school students.

What was their progress?

• Overall: Fifty-six percent of the gain scores indicated progress of from one and a half times the gains of the average student to three times the gain of average students and 18 percent more achieved gains equal to those of average students (approximately two to four times of the rate of their previous progress).
• Gender: Almost identical progress by males and females as a whole.
• Elementary and middle school sections made almost identical gains. Grade level of students within sections (some included students from two or three grade levels) was not a factor either. For example, grade seven students in sections where there were also grade six and eight students gained about as much as did grade seven students in sections containing only grade seven students.
• Scores on entry were not a factor. Gains were similar for students beginning at 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and so on.
• Special needs codes: Overall, progress of students with and without special needs codes was almost identical across all grades.
• SES of students was not a factor.

Educational Importance

Most important is that research on curriculum for overage beginning readers appears to have reached the point where we can design curriculums that can reach those students and provide them with an opportunity to grow at normal rates and better. Further studies will examine students whose response is slower and the academic progress of all the students in order to improve the curricular framework. Also important is that this “bridge” research, where teachers and administrators in a school district apply scholarship to solve a pressing problem and form communities of inquirers, appears feasible, at least in the Northern Lights setting.

References

Calhoun, E. (1997). Literacy for All. Saint Simons Island, GA: The Phoenix Alliance.

Calhoun, E. (1999). Teaching Beginning Reading with the Picture Word Inductive Model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Duke, N., & Pearson, P.D. (undated). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. East Lansing, MI: College of Education, Michigan State University.

Ehri, L.C. (1999). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and instructional implications. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal.

Englert, C., & Raphael, T. (1989). Developing successful writers through cognitive strategy instruction. In Brophy, J. (Ed). Advances in Research in Teaching. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 105-151.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Joyce, B. (1999). Reading about reading. The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 662-671.

Joyce, B., Calhoun, E. & Hopkins, D. (2000). The New Structure of School Improvement. Philadelphia: The Open University Press.

McGill-Franzen, A. & Allington, R.L. (1991). Every child’s right: Literacy. Reading Teacher, 45, 86-90.

Nagy, W., & Anderson, P. (1987). Breadth and depth in vocabulary knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330.

National Center for Educational Statistics (1998). Long term trends in reading performance. NAEP Facts. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Pinnell, G. (1989). Helping at risk children learn to read. Elementary School Journal, 90(2),161-184.

Pressley, M. et.al. (1995). Cognitive Strategy Instruction that Really Improves Student Performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., Scanlon, M., & Schnaubelt, C. (1998). A second chance to learn to read. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 27-31.

Slavin, R., Madden, N., Dolan, L., and Wasik, B. (1996). Every Child, Every School: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin.

Stauffer, R. (1969). Directing Reading Maturity as a Cognitive-Learning Process. N.Y.: Harper and Row.