Early Reading Interventions: What Works?
Reading has been termed the "gateway to all other knowledge." Students who do not "learn to read" early in their school careers find the path blocked when they cannot "read to learn." Furthermore, failure to read by third grade is associated with significantly higher risk of dropping out, delinquency, and adult illiteracy.
Students who have difficulty learning to read present instructional challenges in the classroom and programmatic and policy challenges at the school and school division levels.
Although there is consensus on the importance of preventing, or at least mediating, early reading failure, debate continues about the relative efficacy of various approaches. Recent observations from scholars examining interventions to prevent early reading failure suggest a growing consensus in favor of research which examines the process and context of schooling, and seeks a more comprehensive understanding of the interaction of multiple variables associated with learning to read.
The purpose of this research brief is to report the findings of the study of early reading interventions commissioned by the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC) and conducted by Anne J. Atkinson of PolicyWorks, Ltd. (1997). The purpose of the study was 1) to examine differences in the programs and practices employed in area schools to teach successful and unsuccessful "at-risk" students and 2) to determine relationships among identified problems, reading interventions, and outcomes. For purposes of the study, students were deemed "at-risk" by virtue of their economic status, qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Successful students were defined as those who scored at or above grade level and unsuccessful students as those who scored below grade level on reading comprehension at the end of second grade.
Data were collected from two sources: student records and teacher interviews. The analysis of student records represented a retrospective review of three and, in many cases, four years of schooling for each student. Successful and unsuccessful at-risk students were compared on a wide range of variables associated with reading achievement including demographic characteristics, status at kindergarten entry, year-to-year performance, educational programs and services they received, and reading outcomes. A total of 147 student records were analyzed (72 success ful and 75 unsuccessful) in site visits to 35 schools in three school divisions.
Classroom teachers interviewed were nominated by their principals on the basis of their experience and knowledge about K-2 reading instruction. A total of 41 teachers from 26 schools in the three participating school divisions were interviewed. Interviews focused on classroom teacher practices in identifying, assessing, and intervening with students experiencing early reading failure, the nature and adequacy of resources to assist such students, and teacher views on effective programs and strategies to prevent early reading failure.
RESULTS
Comparisons of Successful and Unsuccessful At-Risk Students
At the end of three or, for retained students, four years of schooling, students in the successful group were reading, on average, at the 3.4 grade level and students in the unsuccessful group were reading, on average, at the 1.5 grade level. Retrospective examination of these students at kindergarten entry and as they progressed through kindergarten, first, and second grades reveal differences associated with success or lack of success in learning to read by the end of second grade.
Status at Kindergarten
Little or no differences in successful and unsuccessful at-risk students were observed in terms of gender, age at kindergarten entry, or pre-kindergarten experience. Unsuccessful students were nearly twice as likely to have motor skills problems, language problems, or both motor skills and language problems identified by the time they entered kindergarten. Additionally, language or motor skills problems identified by kindergarten were strongly associated with subsequent retention or special education placement in both successful and unsuccessful students. Of students with no problems identified by kindergarten, only 2% were subsequently retained and 129o were placed in special education. Of those with language problems identified by kindergarten, 57% were subsequently retained and 71% were placed in special education. African-American students were overrepresented in the unsuccessful group while Asian and caucasian students were over-represented in the successful group.
K-2 Peformance
Successful students were, in general, less likely to have conduct and study skills problems. Differences in successful and unsuccessful students became more marked by 2nd grade when study skills problems were over 2 1/2 times more prevalent among unsuccessful students. Attentional problems were found to be slightly more prevalent in the unsuccessful group. Medical problems, however, were more prevalent in successful students.
There was little difference in the mobility of successful and unsuccessful students. Mobility, however, was found to be strongly associated with unsuccessful students not receiving additional reading assistance. Of seven unsuccessful students who did not receive additional reading assistance, five had moved.
K-2 Interventions
In the area of school interventions, unsuccessful students were more than three times as likely to have been retained and twice as likely to have been placed in special education. Access to special education services occurred later for unsuccessful students: of the students placed in special education, 61% of successful students began to receive services while in kindergarten while only 25.9% of unsuccessful students began receiving services as early as kindergarten. Other services, however, were being provided. Student records indicate that 90.7% of unsuccessful students received reading assistance beyond the classroom during at least one year. Sixty-one percent received additional reading-related assistance during two or more years. Such services were provided for 36% of the successful students.
Teacher Practices and Views
Indicators of early reading failure identified by knowledgeable teachers were consistent with those identified in the research literature: soundsymbol relationship problems, general readiness problems, language deficits, reading strategies deficits, and little interest in or avoidance of reading-related activities.
Classroom teacher strategies with students who were having difficulty learning to read reflected the use of a "balanced approach." Both phonics and literature-based approaches were used with stronger emphasis placed on phonics at the kindergarten and first grade levels and relatively more emphasis on literature in second grade. When asked which reading programs and practices they viewed as most effective, teachers expressed strong consensus for "a multifaceted approach, blending phonics and whole language" and "combinations of strategies based on individual student needs." Many teachers expressed frustration at the emphasis placed on grading and competing curricular demands. Expressed needs for reduced class sizes and for additional instructional aides appeared to be related to teacher desire for increased time to devote to students who were having difficulty.
On the issue of assessment, teachers expressed strong support for the use of school- or school division-approved inventories or structured assessments. Where such procedures were not in place, teachers expressed discomfort with practices which they deemed "too subjective." The use of more structured assessments was viewed as beneficial in terms of a) increasing use of diagnostic-prescriptive approaches, b) improving monitoring of student progress, and c) improving documentation of teacher efforts. While expressing the desire for more guidance and structure in reading assessment and ongoing monitoring of student progress, classroom teachers clearly wish to retain latitude to exercise professional judgement in the selection of instructional strategies and materials.
When asked to rate the effectiveness of resources for students who were having difficulty learning to read, 55.5% judged resources to be adequate and 14.6% viewed them as very adequate. Lowest ratings were from teachers in schools which recently lost Title I eligibility, creating perceived gaps in reading services. Material resources were, in general, described as bountiful. What teachers identified as lacking were time for one-on-one or very small group instruction with students and, in some cases, the availability of reading expertise to consult. Findings and conclusions support the following recommendations:
- Strengthen teacher skills in the assessment of reading problems and use of effective strategies to address identified deficits.
- Establish policies and practices which provide more structured assessments of student reading and establish protocols for monitoring progress and modifying instruction on an ongoing basis.
- For students who are having difficulty learning to read, increase the amount of time available for instruction in one-to-one or very small group settings.
- Promote innovation in the use of resources and scheduling of time to increase both the types of services available and the duration of these services for students.
Anne J. Atkinson
The information found in this research brief has been synthesized from the following MERC publication. Copies can be purchased using the online order form on the publications page.
Atkinson, A. (1997). Early reading interventions: What works?