Effects of tutoring in phonological and early reading skills on students at risk for reading disabilities

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8222480 Effects of Tutoring in Phonological and Early Reading Skills on Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities Article in Journal of Learning Disabilities · November 2000 DOI: 10.1177/002221940003300606 · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 51 102 3 authors, including: Patricia Vadasy Oregon Research Institute 45 PUBLICATIONS 957 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Patricia Vadasy on 13 May 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Effects of Tutoring in Phonological and Early Reading Skills on Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities Patricia F. Vadasy, Joseph R. Jenkins, and Kathleen Pool Abstract This study examined the effectiveness of nonprofessional tutors in a phonologically based reading treatment similar to those in which successful reading outcomes have been demonstrated. Participants were 23 first graders at risk for learning disability who received in- tensive one-to-one tutoring from noncertified tutors for 30 minutes, 4 days a week, for one school year. Tutoring included instruction in phonological skills, letter-sound correspondence, explicit decoding, rime analysis, writing, spelling, and reading phonetically controlled text. At year end, tutored students significantly outperformed untutored control students on measures of reading, spelling, and decod- ing. Effect sizes ranged from .42 to 1.24. Treatment effects diminished at follow-up at the end of second grade, although tutored students continued to significantly outperform untutored students in decoding and spelling. Findings suggest that phonologically based reading instruction for first graders at risk for learning disability can be delivered by nonteacher tutors. Our discussion addresses the character of reading outcomes associated with tutoring, individual differences in response to treatment, and the infrastructure required for non- professional tutoring programs. R esearch on students at risk for learning disability suggests that ment of supplemental tutoring pro- grams designed to forestall reading prior knowledge, reading strategies, and error correction strategies); coordi- early, explicit instruction in pho- problems. Some of these early inter- nation with the child's classroom pro- nological and decoding skills can help vention programs use highly trained gram; latitude given tutors to make in- these students stay on track to success- teachers as tutors (Clay, 1985), whereas structional decisions; and duration and ful reading acquisition (Adams, 1990; others rely on paraprofessionals and frequency of tutoring-firm conclu- Blachman, 1994; Fielding-Barnsley, 1997; volunteers (Invernizzi, Juel, & Rose- sions about the relative effects of teach- Juel, 1988; Liberman, Shankweiler, mary, 1997). ers and volunteers are not possible. Blachman, Camp, & Werfelman, 1980; The research on tutoring provides Nevertheless, some program differ- Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996; Tor- limited information on the tutor quali- ences were likely a function of tutor gesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994; Wil- fications associated with successful qualification (e.g., the latitude given liams, 1985). Indeed, such instruction reading interventions. Wasik and Sla- tutors to employ a variety of strategies may be critical for first graders who ex- vin's (1993) review of five first-grade in addressing individual student needs hibit very low literacy skills because tutoring programs concluded that vs. utilizing explicitly scripted or pro- they are at serious risk for developing "programs using certified teachers as grammed instruction materials). long-term problems in learning to read tutors appeared to obtain substantially If achievement effects were at all (Juel, 1988; Vellutino et al., 1996). larger impacts than those using para- comparable for teacher-tutors and Early in first grade, most teachers professionals" (p. 196), with effect sizes noncertified tutors, cost factors would can identify children who need more (ESs) ranging from +.55 to +2.37 for the clearly favor using noncertified tutors. intense, individual instruction to ac- former versus ESs from +.20 to +75 for Many schools use volunteer tutors to quire word-level reading skills. How- the latter. However, because the tutors' help struggling readers, and recent ever, competing demands on class- educational background in these stud- federal programs (e.g., America Reads) room teachers' time usually preclude ies was confounded with several po- have encouraged schools to pursue giving the students the level of indi- tentially important factors-that is, the this strategy. Despite the face value of vidualized instruction they require. programs' theoretical orientation; com- one-to-one help, daily tutoring by non- This situation has led to the develop- ponents of reading emphasized (e.g., certified teachers, even for an entire JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 33, NUMBER 4, JULY/AUGUST 2000, PAGES 579-590  JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES 580JOURNAL 580 OF LEARNING DLSABILITIES school year, does not guarantee im- to provide intensive early literacy in- ments, following up on two problems proved reading achievement (Ellson, struction for children who need more that surfaced in the previous field tests: Harris, & Barber, 1968). One reason for focused and individualized help than one involving variability in tutors' im- uncertainty about the effectiveness of classrooms typically provide. The pro- plementation and one involving in- noncertified tutors can be traced to in- gram consists of 100 lessons on phono- structional content. We addressed the dividual differences in their teaching logical awareness, letter-sound activi- first concern, variability in tutors' im- skills. Juel (1996) analyzed video and ties, word identification, text reading, plementation of program protocols, audio recordings of tutoring sessions and writing. Tutors are recruited from through increased training and super- in which college athletes tutored first- the school community and trained to vision. Regarding the second problem, grade children in reading. In examin- work with individual students for one having identified various stumbling ing the performance of more and less school year. Instruction is systematic blocks in teaching and learning in pre- successful tutors (as defined by the and explicit, combining phonemic vious renditions of the program (e.g., achievement of their tutees), Juel noted awareness, phonics, and gradually in- the lack of a soundingout routine), we a relationship between children's read- creasing amounts of reading time- sought to test the efficacy of our re- ing growth and the character of tutor- features that are associated with suc- vised lessons. student verbal interactions. Tutors cessful early reading interventions In addition, we examined two other whose children showed larger reading (Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, issues. The first was the permanence of gains provided significantly more scaf- & Fletcher, 1997; Torgesen, Wagner, tutoring effects. If schools are to mount folded reading and writing experi- Rashotte, Alexander, & Conway, 1997). tutoring programs, it is important to ences and explicit cognitive modeling In the 2 years prior to the study re- determine not only whether such ef- of reading and writing. Juel also found ported here, we tested versions of the forts result in reading improvements that the amount of time tutors gave to treatment, randomly assigning at-risk by year's end, but whether effects are specific activities was significantly re- first graders to tutoring and nontutor- sustained beyond the year of interven- lated to children's reading growth: ing control groups. Tutoring occurred tion. Only a few first-grade literacy Spending more time on letter-sound 4 days a week, one half hour per day, for interventions have followed students and word-reading activities was asso- the school year. Results from the first beyond the year in which they were ciated with larger reading gains. year (Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, & treated (e.g., Madden, Slavin, Karweit, Juel's (1996) findings suggest ways O'Connor, 1997a) showed that tutored Dolan, & Wasik, 1993; Shanahan & that schools might structure the work students outperformed students in the Barr, 1995). In the present study, we fol- of volunteer tutors so that their effects control group on segmentation and lowed children through completion of better approximate those of teacher- spelling posttests, with nonsignificant second grade. tutors (i.e., designing tutoring lessons but positive effect sizes in word recog- The second issue involved the char- that target critical early reading skills nition (.31) and nonword reading (.34). acter of the reading outcomes pro- and incorporate explicit modeling In a second experiment, children duced by our treatment. Torgesen, and response-contingent scaffolding). who received a revised version of the Wagner, and Rashotte (1997) recently Beyond these ideas, Wasik (1998) treatment (additional instruction in de- spelled out a set of implicit assump- suggested additional guidelines for coding, long-vowel words, and word tions underlying early intervention strengthening volunteer-tutor pro- endings, along with different text programs that focus on developing grams: tutor training and supervision selections) performed significantly phonological reading skill (i.e., using by reading specialists, consistent and higher than controls in nonword read- knowledge of the alphabetic principle intensive teaching, use of quality read- ing and spelling (Vadasy, Jenkins, to decode unfamiliar words). Accord- ing materials, ongoing assessment of Antil, Wayne, & O'Connor, 1997b). A ing to Torgesen et al., phonological tutees, consistent attendance by tutors, post hoc analysis of these data revealed reading skill stands at the base of a and coordination of the program with a relation between children's achieve- reading skills hierarchy. For children to classroom instruction. Nevertheless, ment and the quality of tutoring they reach a point in their reading develop- the research base on factors that con- received: Students whose tutors were ment where they can independently tribute to the efficacy of volunteer- "high implementors" (i.e., consistently learn words, they must first develop tutor programs remains thin. followed the lesson formats) scored phonological reading skills (Share, Over the last several years we have significantly higher than students of 1995; Share & Stanovich, 1995). Phono- been developing and testing a tutoring low implementors and students in the logical reading skill allows the de- system called Sound Partners (Jenkins, control group in word reading, non- veloping reader to engage in inde- Vadasy, Firebaugh, & Profilet, in press; word reading, and spelling, with ESs pendent learning trials, which in Vadasy, Wayne, O'Connor, Jenkins, that averaged .83. turn help to forge representations of & Pool, 1998), which uses nonprofes- The present study reports the results words in memory, as amalgamations sional tutors and a structured program of the third iteration of tutoring refine- of word-specific orthographic and  NUMBER 6, 33. NUMBER VOLUME 33, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 581 2WO 581 phonological information (Ehri, 1980; All of the participants except two Rapid Letter Naming. Presented with Ehri & Wilce, 1985). Well-developed were from three schools that served a a card displaying the uppercase letters orthographic-phonological representa- large proportion of students from mi- in random order, students name as tions of words in memory are required nority and low-income backgrounds. many letters as they can during 1 min- to reach the next level in the reading The student populations of these three ute. Letter sounds are also accepted as hierarchy (i.e., automatic, fluent word schools were 67% minority, and 47% correct responses. The score is the recognition). Finally, the ability to were eligible for free or reduced-price number of letters named per minute. process print automatically and effort- lunch. The sample included 23 first lessly frees attentional resources for graders in the treatment group and an Wide Range Achievement Test- comprehension, which sits at the top of equal number in the control group. Revised (WRAT-R) Reading Subtest the reading hierarchy (Samuels & Flor, There were 9 girls and 14 boys in each (Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984). The 1997). Torgesen et al. reminded us that group. Twenty students in the tutored WRAT-R is an individually adminis- the expected relationship between group and 21 students in the control tered, norm-referenced achievement phonological reading skill and word group were members of minority groups. test of basic skills. The Reading subtest knowledge and fluency has only mod- None of the students were identified consists of letters and words that the est empirical support. In light of ques- for special education at entry to the child is asked to name. The number of tions about the permanence and char- program, as this does not typically oc- words and letters correctly identified is acter of treatment effects, we retested cur in this district until third or fourth transformed to an age-based standard students on phonological, word identi- grade. During the year, Title I services score. fication, fluency, and spelling tasks at were provided to 14 students in the tu- the end of second grade, 1 year after tored group and 18 students in the un- Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN; the termination of treatment. tutored group. Title I service delivery Catts, 1993). Presented with a chart varied across schools. In one school, containing pictures of animals (e.g., a funds were used to reduce class sizes pig, a cow, a horse) in three different across the school; in the other schools, colors (red, blue, and black), students Method Title I provided pull-out or in-class name the animals and their colors as small-group instruction. rapidly as they can. The time required Participants to name all 24 items is the score. First-grade children were selected from Pretests four elementary schools in a large ur- Sound Repetition (O'Connor, Jen- ban school district. In September, teach- As Vellutino, Scanlon, and Tanzman kins, & Slocum, 1995). Students listen ers were asked to review their class (1994) noted, various tasks are used to to 12 items consisting of two to four lists and select up to six students they evaluate phonological skills. Most of phonemes each. Items are presented feared would not learn to read by the these tasks, however, do not have doc- with a 1-second delay between pho- end of the year. Teachers from 11 class- umented psychometric properties or nemes, and, after a 2-second delay, stu- rooms identified a total of 64 students, norms. Like most researchers, we used dents repeat the sounds. The score is who were administered pretests. Via tasks that were widely known and a the number of phonemes correctly re- pretest scores, those students were variety of formats to assess phoneme peated. rank ordered on the following four key analysis. Measures of naming rate measures: letter names, WRAT-R were administered at pretest only, as Modified Rosner. Students are given Reading raw score, WRAT-R Spelling we did not expect the intervention to a version of the Rosner Test of Audi- raw score, and PPVT-R raw score (see influence these underlying processing tory Analysis (Rosner, 1979), modified Pretest section). Next, we randomly capacities (Blachman, 1994). by Berninger, Thalberg, DeBruyn, and assigned the 46 students who scored Smith (1987), in which they segment lowest on most of these variables to Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- multisyllable words by deleting one treatment or control groups, then as- Revised (PPVT-R, Dunn & Dunn, 1981). syllable. Five items require deletion of signed the remaining students to a re- The PPVT-R is an individually admin- the initial syllable, and five items re- placement group. Students in the con- istered, norm-referenced test of recep- quire deletion of the last syllable. The trol group received the schools' regular tive vocabulary. From four simple score is the total items correctly seg- (i.e., classroom instruction and Title I black-and-white illustrations, children mented. services) reading instruction. Because select the picture that best illustrates some children moved within the first the meaning of a stimulus word pre- Segmenting Sounds (O'Connoret al., 2 months of tutoring, we replaced two sented orally by the tester. One point is 1995). Students listen to 10 words con- students in the treatment and two stu- awarded for each correct response. sisting of two to three phonemes each. dents in the control group. Age-based standard scores were used. The examiner models onset-rime seg-  JORAL OF. LEANIN DISABILI TIES. _ ....... _ 58 582 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES mentation and asks the student to re- ranged in groups according to basal phonics rules and a subtest of 50 words peat each word in an onset-rime for- reading levels, until 10 consecutive with irregular spelling were analyzed mat. Students receive 1 point for each items are missed. The score is the total separately. Each student was scored on correctly segmented portion of the number of words correctly identified. the total items spelled correctly on word (1 to 2 points for onset-rime seg- each subtest. mentation and up to 3 points for seg- Analytical Reading Inventory All measures were individually ad- mentation into three phonemes). The (ARI; Woods & Moe, 1977). This is a ministered except the writing sample, score is the total number of onset-rimes criterion-referenced, individually ad- which was administered to students in and phonemes segmented. ministered test of oral passage reading. their classrooms. Both primer and first-grade passages WRAT-R Spelling Subtest. The were administered at the end of first Spelling subtest requires the examinee grade. Testers record oral reading flu- Procedure to copy marks, print his or her name, ency (time and accuracy). The score is The tutoring treatment was admin- and print a list of dictated words. The a rate measure of number of words cor- istered for 27 weeks. Students were number of items correct is transformed rectly read per minute. retested in the spring of first and sec- to an age-based standard score. ond grades. Following is a description Yopp-Singer Segmentation Task (Yopp, 1988). Students segment sounds of the tutoring treatment. Alphabet Writing (Berninger, 1990). Students write the alphabet in lower- of 22 orally given words with correc- case letters. Capital letters, omissions, tive feedback. Testing continues until Tutoring Content additions, transpositions, and rever- students miss 10 consecutive items, and the score is the total number of There are 100 scripted lessons, each de- sals count as errors. This task is scored signed to last approximately 30 min- as the number of correct letters written words segmented correctly. utes and consisting of 5 to 10 short in the first 15 seconds, as well as total activities that required between 1 and Curriculum-Based Spelling List. time and total correct. 15 minutes to implement. Lessons fo- Ten words taken from the storybooks used in the lessons compose a written cused on segmenting, blending, letter- First-Grade Posttests spelling test. One point is awarded for sound correspondences, word fami- each word spelled correctly. lies, writing with invented spelling, Students in the treatment and control and reading text with controlled vo- groups were posttested on a variety of Writing Sample-Spelling (Deno, cabulary-skills that have been found norm- and criterion-referenced mea- 1985). Students write for 5 minutes in to be helpful in assisting children who sures assessing phonological, word response to a prompt ("It was a dark are slow to develop reading skill reading, passage reading, and spelling and stormy night"). The writing score (Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Juel, 1996; skills. The Reading and Spelling sub- is the number of words correctly Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Byrk, & Selt- tests of the WRAT-R were readminis- spelled. zer, 1994; Slavin, Madden, Karweit, tered along with the following tests. Livermon, & Dolan, 1990; Torgesen, Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educa- Second Grade Follow-Up Wagner, Rashotte, et al., 1997; Vellutino tional Battery-Revised (WJ-R), Word et al., 1996). The two previous versions Students were retested on the WJ-R Word Attack Subtest (Woodcock & John- of the program emphasized similar Attack subtest and the ARI (using a son, 1989). For this test, the examinee skills. For the current field test, several Grade 2 passage). In addition, we ad- pronounces pseudowords that increase new components were added, and ministered the WJ-R Word Identifica- in difficulty. One point is awarded for several components used in previous tion subtest and the Test of Written each correct response, and the number field tests were revised or expanded. Spelling, described below. of correct items is transformed into age-based standard scores. WJ-R Word Identification Subtest. Explicit Decoding Instruction. The examiner directs the child to read Early lesson versions did not include Bryant Pseudoword (Bryant, 1975). from a list of increasingly difficult specific instruction in sounding out, A list of 50 pseudowords is read until words. The total number of words cor- and tutors did not model a consistent five consecutive items are missed. One rectly identified is transformed to an strategy for students to apply to sound point is assigned to each correct re- age-based standard score. out words. Iversen and Tunmer (1993) sponse. reported accelerated progress for stu- Test of Written Spelling (Larsen & dents receiving a modified Reading Dolch Word Recognition Test (Dolch, Hammill, 1994). Students write words Recovery program that included ex- 1939). The student reads from a list of dictated by the examiner. A subtest of plicit code instruction, and Fielding- 220 short, frequently used words ar- 50 predictable words conforming to Barnsley (1997) reported the benefits of  VOLUNMt 33, NUMBhER b, NOVEMBEK/UECEMBER 2000 583 explicit instruction in decoding, encod- Tutor Recruitment, Training, vations, project staff (Vadasy or Pool) ing, and letter-sound correspondence. and Supervision looked for the following actions: start- We gave weight to these findings in ing lessons on time, making error Tutors were recruited through an- our program redesign, incorporating corrections, following lesson formats, nouncements in school newsletters, into lessons an explicit teaching rou- managing student behavior, using pos- then hired as employees of the schools tine in decoding as well as encoding itive encouragement strategies, and and paid $5 an hour for tutoring and skills using letter tiles. providing a full 30 minutes of instruc- time spent in training. At the begin- tion. A total percentage of these six be- Rime Analysis. Instruction in de- ning of the year, seven tutors were haviors was obtained for each tutor, veloping orthographic coding skills for mothers of children in the schools, and averaging across behaviors (reported word families may help some children one tutor was a father. Two tutors were under Results). Both observers at times develop word recognition skills (Adams, replaced in the middle of the year by observed each tutor, and they fre- 1990; Berninger, 1990; Goswami & an unemployed actor. A certified spe- quently compared their notes. In con- Bryant, 1990), in particular once they cial education teacher was also hired to junction with the observations, tutors have already developed letter-sound tutor, and to provide us with expert were often given brief written or oral analysis skills (Ehri & Robbins, 1992). feedback on instructional content. feedback (e.g., suggestions for another For this field test, lessons were revised Finally, for this field test we in- way to teach a child having difficulty, to increase opportunities to identify creased the intensity of tutor training or praise for a tutor's instructional newly learned rime units in word lists to accommodate the added lesson ac- skills). At other times, project staff and story-reading components. tivities, and to address the problem of modeled a strategy or adjusted a stu- weak implementation observed in pre- Story Reading. Lessons provided dent's placement in the program (e.g., vious years. Tutors received 8 hours of daily practice in reading and rereading directing the tutor to go back to review training before commencing tutoring phonetically regular text selections to previous lessons or lesson components and 6 hours of training during the school maximize opportunities for children to until skills were solidly mastered, or to year. Initial training included explana- apply their developing phonological skip lessons when students had clearly tions, modeling, and role playing of and decoding skills while construct- mastered a skill and needed more chal- each lesson component. Tutors also ing meaning from text (Juel & Roper/ lenging material). received guidelines for behavior man- Schneider, 1985). In this field test we Finally, students were tested every agement, record keeping, and error increased the match between the dis- 10 lessons on mastery of lesson con- correction strategies. Follow-up train- crete reading skills taught in each les- tent. Project staff administered these ing was scheduled during the year, son and those needed to read that curriculum-based tests with items when project staff noted a need to re- day's story. This approach to interven- drawn directly from a recently com- view strategies, when tutors requested tion is supported by the phonological pleted lesson. The mastery tests were a a review or help in a new lesson com- linkage hypothesis (Hatcher, Hulme, & check on the tutor's lesson pacing and ponent, or when tutors reported prob- Ellis, 1994), and by Reading Recovery's the student's acquisition of skills. lems in using lessons or teaching a par- success with rereading familiar books ticular skill. (Clay, 1985). Results Other Revisions. We revised letter- Record Keeping sound instruction to include many Tutors maintained daily logs of atten- On the basis of weekly observations of letter-pair combinations, building upon dance and lesson progress as a mea- tutors by project staff, tutors imple- the systematic English phonologies at sure of treatment intensity. Accord- mented the program with a high de- the letter-cluster level (Venezky, 1970) ing to these logs, children attended gree of fidelity. The average of tutor that, when taught, seem to help stu- from 54 to 89 sessions, with a mean of scores across all observations reveals dents with learning disabilities (Ber- 72 days. Because tutor and student ab- that tutors demonstrated an implemen- ninger et al., 1998). sences reduced treatment intensity, tation rate of 89% on the six established To standardize tutor instruction in tutors were encouraged to make up criteria (e.g., conducted all lesson com- word endings and silent-e words, we missed lessons when possible. ponents according to specification). added practice in these skills prior to Student mastery of instructional con- the time that students encountered tent as measured by the curriculum- these word types in their reading. Fi- Fidelity of Intervention based tests administered to students nally, nonwords were occasionally in- To address our concerns about vari- every 10 lessons was high, with a mean troduced in the lessons to increase able implementation, research staff ob- score of 94% across students and tests. practice opportunities to identify letter served each tutor at least once a week. The lowest average score for an indi- pairs and words by analogy. During these 15- to 30-minute obser- vidual student was 84%.  JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES 584 JOURNAL OF LEARNING D15ABILITIES Group means and standard devia- Table 2 provides the posttest means variance indicated significant group tions for the 10 pretests are shown in and standard deviations, adjusted for differences, Wilks's lambda =.61, F(10, Table 1, along with results of one-way pretests. We used a composite z of pre- 33) = 2.14, p < .05. All univariate tests analyses of variance for each measure. test scores to adjust posttests because significantly favored the treatment One difference (WRAT-Spelling) was some posttests of interest did not have group except the ARI first-grade level, significant, favoring the treatment that same measure administered as a which did not differ between treat- group. pretest. A multivariate analysis of co- ment and control. Effect sizes (i.e., treatment and control adjusted mean differences divided by the pooled un- adjusted standard deviations for treat- TABLE 1 ment and control groups) ranged from One-Way ANOVA of Means of Treatment and Control Groups for .42 to 1.24. The largest effect size was All Pretreatment Means observed for nonword reading (1.24), Treatment Control the smallest for reading in context (.42 and .60). Three measures provided Variable M SD M SD F norm-referenced standard scores; the Age 6.56 0.39 6.66 0.40 0.81 mean standard score for the treatment group at posttest exceeded the 50th PPVT-R standard 83.57 16.57 84.74 13.12 0.07 percentile for WRAT-R Reading and Letter-naming rate 30.68 19.11 33.68 17.07 0.90 Woodcock-Johnson Word Attack, and was within 3 points of this criterion on WRAT-R Reading standard 83.26 9.88 81.22 9.51 0.51 WRAT-R Spelling. Rapid automatized naming 18.62 6.33 20.02 6.84 1.99 Figure 1 shows the distribution of Sound repetition 23.00 5.70 24.62 5.52 0.95 treatment and control students on word identification (WRAT-R Reading) and Modified Rosner segmentation 5.70 3.01 5.30 2.74 0.21 nonword reading (Woodcock-Johnson Segmenting sounds 5.22 5.60 6.00 6.20 0.20 Word Attack). Twelve of 23 tutored stu- WRAT-R Spelling standard 81.13 8.92 75.27 10.06 4.28* dents scored above the 50th percentile on word identification (vs. 2 of 23 stu- Alphabet writing 2.43 3.81 1.70 1.29 0.39 dents in the control group), and 15 of 23 tutored students surpassed this cri- Note. For each group, n = 23. PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised; WRAT-R = Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. terion on nonword reading (vs. 8 of 23 *p < .05 (df = 1, 44). students in the control group). Al- TABLE 2 Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations of Treatment and Control Groups at Posttest Treatment Control Measures M SD M SD F p ES Reading WRAT-R Reading Subtest (standard) 102.45 18.81 88.77 11.38 8.44 .006 .91 Dolch Word List 144.74 54.95 102.67 47.37 8.21 .006 .82 Analytical Reading Inventory (words per minute) Primary level 45.36 34.77 29.42 18.19 3.92 .054 .60 First-grade level 36.57 33.38 25.43 19.69 1.96 .169 .42 Decoding Woodcock-Johnson Word Attack (standard) 109.27 13.66 94.12 10.71 16.93 0.000 1.24 Bryant 19.45 11.65 8.94 7.79 12.78 0.001 1.08 Segmenting and spelling WRAT-R Spelling Subtest (standard) 97.33 16.60 85.30 12.67 7.24 .010 .82 Curriculum-based spelling measure 8.00 1.98 5.95 2.42 10.41 0.002 .93 Words correct (%) on writing measure 0.71 0.22 0.55 0.19 6.69 0.013 .76 Yopp-Singer Segmentation 15.51 3.79 11.15 5.53 9.89 0.003 .85 Note. For each group, n = 23. WRAT-R = Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised.  VOLUME 33 NUBE VOUM 33, 6, NOEBRDCME NUMBER 6, 200 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 20GO 585 vTtg-s------ e--e 585 though the effect of treatment on both 90) on word identification; all scored at ond grade. A multivariate analysis of measures is readily apparent, there or above the 25th percentile on non- covariance, controlling for the pretest was nevertheless considerable varia- word reading. composite z score, was significant, tion in the children's response to treat- Wilks's lambda = .54, F(9, 26) = 2.45, ment, with standard scores ranging p < .05. Univariate tests were signifi- from 72 to 141 in word reading and Follow-Up at Second Grade cant for word attack and spelling (p < from 90 to 141 in nonword reading. We were able to locate and retest 20 .05), as shown in Table 3. Seven tutored students scored below treatment students and 17 students in the 25th percentile (standard score of the control group near the end of sec- Discussion 150 n Lesson Revisions and 0 140 - 0 ProgramImplementation We undertook the present experiment, 130 0 00 0 in part, to study treatment effects after 0 addressing problems observed in in- 00 8 120 structional content and implemen- lo tation of tutoring for students at risk In1 8o 0 110 100 80 co L for learning disability. Regarding revi- sions in lesson content, the children's performance (mean of 94%) on the pe- 901- o 90 r riodic mastery tests given every 10 les- sons suggests that they acquired the skills targeted by the program. Re- 80- I 80 garding fidelity of implementation, we 00 0 found that providing more training in 70 - lesson components before tutors began working with children, along with in- Tutored Control Tutored Control creased supervision, resulted in more accurate implementation, relative to levels observed in prior field tests. WRAT READING WJ-R WORD ATTACK Whereas in the previous field test only 30% of tutors were observed to imple- ment the majority of the lesson activi- FIGURE 1. Individual performance on two word-level measures of reading. ties consistent with program protocols TABLE 3 Adjusted Means and Standard Deviations of Treatment and Control Groups at Grade 2 Follow-Up Treatment Control Measures M SD M SD F p ES Reading Woodcock-Johnson Word Identification 97.05 15.63 94.49 11.57 .31 .580 .19 (standard) Analytical Reading Inventory, Second-grade level 57.42 38.87 61.10 40.39 .09 .764 -.09 Decoding Woodcock-Johnson Word Attack (standard) 102.32 14.93 91.64 9.20 6.46 .016 .87 Spelling TWS-Predictable (standard) 91.15 11.12 82.35 8.51 6.88 .013 .89 TWS-Unpredictable (standard) 88.55 11.52 81.36 7.25 4.88 .034 .75 Note. Treatment group n = 20; control group n = 17. TWS = Test of Written Spelling.  ^s JORA OF LERNN DIABLT -Tsso--s-.-TT-IES 58 586 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES (Vadasy et al., 1997b), in this field test sure (WRAT-Spelling), the treatment toring reports (Invernizzi, Juel, & 71% of tutors were observed to be high group seemed to have an advantage Rosemary, 1997; Juel, 1996; Vellutino implementors. Moreover, anecdotal (p < .05). This advantage translated et al., 1996). Most of the interventions evidence (e.g., tutors who increasingly into a 2-point difference between groups in Table 4 were delivered by certified followed program elements and im- on raw WRAT-R Spelling scores. The teachers. On the dimension of treat- plemented them with greater skill) treatment mean was 17 and the control ment intensity (minutes per week and suggests that the frequent supervision mean was 15. A student who copied all number of weeks), our treatment is and technical assistance contributed to of the marks correctly and was able to near the median, relative to previous improved implementation. Obtaining print two letters in his or her name studies. On the dimension of effective- more accurate program implementa- earned 20 points on the Spelling sub- ness, our effect sizes are just above the tion was important because a previous test. This spelling pretest advantage median on each measure (word, non- finding had indicated a relation be- for the treatment group may qualify word, and composite reading). tween fidelity of implementation and the results, but we have attempted to Two tutoring studies included mea- reading outcomes (Vadasy et al., adjust for any pretreatment differences sures that we also employed (Iversen 1997b). Although these two modifica- with an analysis of covariance. &Tunmer, 1993; Juel, 1996). Posttest re- tions (revised lesson content and in- At the end of first grade, tutored sults from those studies and ours are creased supervision) are confounded children significantly surpassed con- shown in Table 5. Dolch Word Recog- with respect to their effects on the chil- trols on a broad range of reading and nition results from Iversen and Tun- dren's reading and spelling achieve- spelling measures. Relative to national mer's Standard Reading Recovery ment, the results of the periodic per- norms, mean posttest performance of group were virtually identical to ours, formance tests and the tutors' higher the treatment group surpassed the 50th but their Modified Reading Recovery fidelity of implementation suggest percentile on WRAT-R Reading and group, which included explicit train- that, together, the changes were suc- WJ-R Word Attack. It is instructive to ing in phonological recoding, earned cessful. compare our results with those of other higher scores. We also rescored our intensive first-grade reading interven- participants' WRAT-R Reading subtest tions that have reported positive effect using the scoring system reported by Treatment Effects sizes. Table 4 shows results for other Juel (1996). Her word recognition Comparisons of pretests revealed no first-grade studies that have tested posttests from the WRAT-R were simi- hint of differences between the treat- tutoring against a comparable untu- lar to ours, but our spelling scores ment and control groups on 9 of 10 tored control group. Requiring a con- seemed to be somewhat higher. Pretest measures (all Fs < 1.0), but on 1 mea- trol group excludes several recent tu- word identification levels were compa- TABLE 4 Intensity and Effects of One-to-One Intervention in First-Grade Tutoring Studies Effect size Sessions/ Minutes/ Number Composite Study Tutors week week of weeks Real word Nonword reading ElIson, Harris, &Barber (1968) Paraprofessionals 5 75 35 0.10a NA 0.01 0.26b NA 0.36 Hatcher, Hulme, &Ellis (1994) Teachers 2 60 20 0.30 0.30 0.35 Iversen&Tumner (1993) Teachers 4 120 12-20 3.41c 1.32 2.39 3.40d 1.25 2.68 Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Byrk, Teachers 5 150 20 NA NA 0.73 &Seltzer (1994) Silver, Hagin, &Beecher (1981) Teachers 3-5 120 35 0.94 1.39 1.06 Slavin et al. (1990) Teachers 5 100 35 0.58 1.39 0.48 Vadasy et al. (1998) Paraprofessionals 4 120 27 0.89 1.16 0.85 Wallach &Wallach (1976) Paraprofessionals 5 150 35 0.64 NA NA Note. NA indicates the information was not available. aProgrammed tutorng group (one session daily). bDirected tutoring group (one session daily). cStandard Reading Recovery. dModified Reading Recovery. ---- __-1-1-1 --- _------ __- ......------ --- --  VOLUME NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER NUMBER 6, 587 VOLUME 33, NU-MBER 2000 587 rable in Juel's and our study (2.85 vs. ing skills did not automatically trans- vantage to word learning, fluency, and 1.87, respectively), as were spelling pre- late into superior word recognition skilled comprehension. test levels (1.33 vs. .78, respectively). and fluent reading. One year after Although there is risk in comparing treatment, the tutored group still en- performance from samples that may Response to Treatment joyed a large advantage in phonologi- differ on unknown characteristics, it is cal reading skills and spelling of reg- There is widespread belief that if chil- nevertheless interesting to note the ular words, but it performed similarly dren at risk for learning disabilities comparability in posttest performance to the control group in both word could receive early intervention (e.g., across first-grade tutoring studies that recognition and fluency. Not only did daily explicit, intensive, one-to-one target children at risk in reading. the treated group fail to use its superior tutoring in phonological skills over the phonological reading skill to increase course of several months), many read- its advantage in word learning, but it ing difficulties could be overcome, es- Follow-Up Testing and the also appears to have lost most of its pecially if intervention began in first Characterof Treatment Effects original advantage. We must, however, grade, before the cascading effects of Tests at the end of the treatment period acknowledge that our regrettable deci- instructional failures are felt (Stano- showed the strongest reading effects sion to change word recognition tests vich, 1986). As Figure 1 illustrates, on phonological reading skill (i.e., at second-grade follow-up testing (i.e., many children in this study responded naming nonwords), followed by word using the Woodcock-Johnson rather positively to tutoring, achieving read- recognition, then reading fluency. For than the WRAT-R) resulted in a con- ing skills that were at or above grade an approach like ours, which empha- founding of the word recognition mea- level. Indeed, a number of our students sized phonological decoding skills, sure with the treatment and control emerged as remarkably fearless de- these results were consistent with ex- differences measured at two points in coders. Nevertheless, we also observed pectations. But as Torgesen, Wagner, time. Nevertheless, these results, com- a small but significant group of chil- Rashotte, et al. (1997) indicated, focus- bined with those of other investigators, dren who were unable to master first- ing instruction on phonological read- suggest that researchers need to revisit grade literacy skills, despite 27 weeks ing skill derives from the idea that the assumed role of phonological read- of one-to-one instruction. Five stu- these skills facilitate development of ing skill in advancing related reading dents (22%) scored in the lowest 25th accurate and fluent reading, which in skills. Additional instruction may be quartile in reading, as did 5 students in turn frees attention for comprehension. required to encourage children to use spelling, suggesting that some children Each of these stages (phonological these skills to improve word learning require more intensive or longer assis- reading, accurate word recognition, during independent learning trials, or tance than this program provided, or fluent reading in context) is considered to help them create more complete rep- different assistance altogether. necessary, if not sufficient, for the de- resentations of words in memory dur- Variable response to early interven- velopment of subsequent stages. Like ing assisted learning trials. Or, if vol- tion appears to be the norm. In their other recent studies (Lovett et al., 1994; unteer tutors can successfully help study of first graders with reading im- Olson, Wise, Ring, & Johnson, 1997; at-risk students develop phonological pairments who were provided one se- Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, et al., reading skill, then the expertise of mester of daily 30-minute one-to-one 1997), our second-grade follow-up re- reading specialists might be needed to tutoring, Vellutino et al. (1996) found sults indicated that phonological read- help these children extend this ad- that 33% still scored below the 30th TABLE 5 Posttest Means (for Raw Scores) and Standard Deviations on Common Measures in First-Grade One-to-One Interventions WRAT-R Word Recognition WRAT-R Spelling Doich Yopp Iversen &Tumner (1993) Modified Reading Recovery a153.88 (44.61) b1 6 .88 (4.53) Standard Reading Recovery a143.41 (40.41) b17 .63 (4.46) Juel (1996) Overall 20.55 (9.35) 12.44 (5.64) Vadasy et al. (1998) 22.04 (10.05) 28.83 (3.83) 144.74 (54.95) 15.51 (3.79) Note. Parentheses denote SD. 'End of year measures. bDiscontinuation measures.  LEARNING DISABILITIES 588 588 JOURNAL OF JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABIUTIES percentile, and 15% scored below the pervision was more intermittent. Re- schools, however, we have observed 15th percentile, on standardized tests. latedly, they were able to significantly that even very enthusiastic teachers are O'Connor (1997) observed that about affect first-grade literacy outcomes for unable to spare the time to provide suf- 10% of students who received an inten- children at risk for reading failure. This ficient supervision. sive one-to-one intervention in first grade constitutes a good news/bad news sit- Another infrastructure element is failed to benefit significantly, as mea- uation: Tutors can provide the kind of funding to hire tutors. Schools partici- sured on tests of rapid letter naming, critical instruction that spells the dif- pating in our research devised two segmenting, and standardized read- ference between success and failure for strategies to continue the program af- ing. Vandervelden and Siegel (1997) some children, but the tutors must re- ter grant funds were no longer avail- noted that 2 of the 10 lowest scoring ceive considerable training, support, able. One group of schools reallocated kindergartners in their 12-week phone- and supervision. With less intensive Title I funds to pay parent tutors and mic awareness intervention failed to supports, as we reported previously instructional assistants to tutor for 1 or improve their phoneme recognition (Vadasy et al., 1997b), tutors may be far 2 hours each day. Another group of skills. Even the strong positive effects less effective. Large individual differ- schools raised supplementary funds found for Reading Recovery appar- ences exist among those who turn out through grants from local founda- ently exclude a subset of children who for tutoring; some nonprofessional tu- tions or obtained assistance from their do not respond to treatment (Shanahan tors require significant guidance to be Parent-Teacher-Student Associations & Barr, 1995). effective. At the same time, we also ob- to hire parent tutors from the com- Juel (1996) suggested that interven- served a group of individuals with im- munity. tions longer than 1 year may be needed pressive talents for teaching students Our approach to early intervention by children attending schools with a with low reading skills, including the using nonprofessional tutors includes large population of children from low- ability to pace instruction briskly, ad- most of the features that Wasik (1998) SES homes. Such children often enter just to students' needs for modeling and identified in her review of volunteer school with fewer literacy experiences, scaffolding, and manage behavior- tutoring programs. Like all of the pro- along with more significant health and observations consistent with Juel (1996). grams she reviewed, our program was social welfare needs (Bowey, 1995). Nonprofessional tutors can develop not coordinated with classroom read- Multiyear treatments may succeed in strong teaching repertoires, especially ing instruction. While we agree that returning some children to a typical if they stay with the program beyond such a match is desirable, the tremen- developmental trajectory (Blachman, 1 year and continue to receive support dous diversity across classroom teach- 1994), but even extended, state-of-the- from reading teachers (Invernizzi, Rose- ers' literacy instruction (ranging from art treatments seem to fall short for a mary, Juel, & Richards, 1997). Nonpro- literature-based to basals to explicit small percentage of children (Torgesen, fessionals who tutored for more than phonics approaches) makes achieving Wagner, & Rashotte, et al., 1997; Vel- 1 year tended to be more successful, in this match difficult, unless reading lutino et al., 1996). Early tutoring can part because they seemed to gain a teachers can adjust tutoring lessons ac- function as a screening mechanism to deeper understanding of reading ac- cording to each child's classroom cir- identify children who require more ex- quisition. cumstances and progress (e.g., Inver- pert and intensive instruction (Vellu- Besides providing information on nizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 1997). Because tino et al., 1996). In fact, several Title I treatment efficacy, field tests disclose we lacked sufficient resources to adjust and special education teachers told us challenges that schools face in bringing each child's program in this manner, that they regarded a student's failure research-based practices to scale. To es- we opted to provide tutors with one set to improve in our program to be an in- tablish and maintain a systematic tu- of structured materials and explicit dicator for special education assess- toring approach like ours requires con- teaching strategies, along with help in ment. siderable infrastructure that extends implementing them. Our results sug- beyond the lesson materials. There gest that positive outcomes can be must be individuals who can recruit achieved using a standard tutoring ap- Infrastructurefor reliable and conscientious tutors, pro- proach across schools and classrooms. Volunteer Nonprofessional vide training and supervision, inte- Tutoring Programs grate tutoring into the schools' sched- When nonprofessional tutors in this ules, give technical assistance on Conclusions study received regular supervisory instructional and management prob- support, they demonstrated better lems, and help in assessing student This study adds to the findings that ex- teaching skills and more accurately im- progress. In several schools that are plicit training in phonological skills plemented elements of this tutoring now implementing this treatment, Ti- improves word-level reading and spell- program, relative to the levels ob- tle I and special education teachers ing skills. Results suggest that some served in previous field tests, when su- have assumed these tasks. At other Grade 1 effects are not sustained at the  VOLUME 33, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000 -589 end of second grade. Our change in disabilities by assessing and remediating high in phonemic awareness and alpha- word recognition measures in Year 2, phonemic skills. School Psychology Review, bet knowledge. Scientific Studies of Read- however, makes it more difficult to in- 16, 554-565. ing, 1, 85-98. terpret the Grade 2 findings. Together Berninger, V.W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Beeler, T., Brooks, A., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). with findings from our previous re- Reed, E., & Graham, S. (1998). Early in- Early interventions for children with read- search (Vadasy et al., 1997a, 1997b), our tervention for spelling problems: Teach- ing problems: Study designs and prelim- results indicate that programs using ing spelling units of varying size with a inary findings. Learning Disabilities, 8, nonteacher tutors can produce broad multiple connections framework. Journal 63-71. and meaningful reading improve- of EducationalPsychology, 90, 1-19. Goswami, U., &Bryant, P. (1990). Phonolog- ments for first-grade students at risk Blachman, B.A. (1994). What we have learned ical skills and learning to read. Hove, En- for reading disability, but only if the from longitudinal studies of phonologi- gland: Erlbaum. programs provide carefully designed, cal processing and reading, and some un- Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. structured lessons, along with regular answered questions: A response to Tor- (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure training and supervision for the tutors. gesen, Wagner, and Rashotte. Journal of by integrating the teaching of reading Findings from this series of studies Learning Disabilities,27, 287-291. and phonological skills: The phonologi- Bowey, J.A. (1995). Socioeconomic status cal linkage hypothesis. Child Development, have implications for instructionally differences in preschool phonological sen- 65, 41-57. sound public policy regarding tutors. sitivity and first-grade reading achieve- Invernizzi, M., Juel, C., & Rosemary, C. A. ment. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 87, (1997). A community volunteer tutorial 476-487. that works. The Reading Teacher, 50, 304- ABOUT THE AUTHORS Bradley, L., &Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and 311. Patricia F Vadasy is a senior research associ- reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor: Invernizzi, M., Rosemary, C., Juel, C., & ate at the Washington Research Institute. Her University of Michigan Press. Richards, H. C. (1997). At-risk readers specializationsare early readinginstructionand Bryant, N. D. (1975). Diagnostic test of basic and community volunteers: A 3-year per- implementation of research-based practices. decoding skills. New York: Columbia Uni- spective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, Joseph R. Jenkins is a professor in special edu- versity, Teachers College. 277-300. cation in the College of Education at the Uni- Catts, H. W. (1993). The relationship be- Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phono- versity of Washington, Seattle. His specializa- tween speech-language impairments and logical processing skills and reading re- tions are learning disabilities and instruction reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and covery program. Journal of Educational and assessment. Kathleen Pool is a first-grade Hearing Research, 36, 948-958. Psychology, 85, 112-126. teacher at Captain Johnston Blakely Elemen- Clay, M. (1985). The early detection of read- Jastak, S., &Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). The wide tary, BainbridgeIsland, WA. Her specialization ing difficulties (3rd ed.). Tadworth, Surrey: range achievement test-Revised. Wilming- is early reading instruction. Address: PatriciaF. Heinemann. ton, DE: Jastak Associates. Vadasy, Washington Research Institute, 150 Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based mea- Jenkins, J. R., Vadasy, P. E, Firebaugh, M., & Nickerson St., Ste. 305, Seattle, Washington surement: The emerging alternative. Ex- Profilet, K. (in press). Tutoring first-grade 98109 (e-mail: [email protected]). ceptional Children, 52, 219-232. struggling readers in phonological read- Dolch, E. W. (1939). A manual for remedial ing skills. Learning Disabilities Research reading. Champaign, IL: Garrard Press. and Practice. AUTHORS' NOTE Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabodypic- Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: ture vocabulary test-Revised. Circle Pines, A longitudinal study of 54 children from This research was supported in part by Grant MN: American Guidance Service. first through fourth grades. Journalof Edu- No. H023R20019 from the U.S. Department of Ehri, L. C. (1980). The development of or- cational Psychology, 80, 437-447. Education to the Washington Research Insti- thographic images. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cog- Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutor- tute, and by the Paul G. Allen CharitableFoun- nitive processes in spelling (pp. 311-338). ing effective? Reading Research Quarterly, dation. London, England: Academic Press. 30, 268-289. Ehri, L. C., & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners Juel, C., & Roper/Schneider, D. (1985). The REFERENCES need some decoding skill to read words influence of basal readers on first-grade by analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Think- 27, 13-26. 134-152. ing and learning about print. Cambridge, Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1985). Movement Larsen, S. C., & Hammill, D. D. (1994). Test MA: MIT Press. into reading: Is the first stage of printed of written spelling (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Berninger, V. W. (1990). Multiple ortho- word learning visual or phonetic? Read- PRO-ED. graphic codes: Key to alternative instruc- ing Research Quarterly, 20, 163-179. Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Blachman, tional methodologies for developing the Ellson, D. G., Harris, P., & Barber, L. (1968). B. A., Camp, L., &Werfelman, M. (1980). orthographic-phonological connections A fieldtest of programmed and directed Steps towards literacy. In P. Levinson & underlying word recognition. School Psy- tutoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, C. Sloan (Eds.), Auditory processing and chology Review, 19, 518-533. 307-367. language: Clinical and research perspec- Berninger, V. W., Thalberg, S., DeBruyn, I., Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1997). Explicit in- tives (pp. 189-215). New York: Grune & & Smith, R. (1987). Preventing reading struction in decoding benefits children Stratton. 590 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Deluca, T., Lac- opment: Accommodating individual dif- ing skills. Manuscript submitted for pub- erenza, L., Benson, N. J., &Brackstone, D. ferences into a model of acquisition. Is- lication. (1994). Treating the core deficits of devel- sues in Education, 1, 1-58. Vandervelden, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). opmental dyslexia: Evidence of trans- Silver, A. A., Hagin, R. A., & Beecher, R. Teaching phonological processing skills fer of learning after phonologically and (1981). A program for secondary preven- in early literacy: A developmental ap- strategy-based reading training pro- tion of learning disabilities: Research in proach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, grams. Developmental Psychology, 30, academic achievement and in emotional 63-82. 805-822. adjustment. Journal of Preventive Psychia- Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., try, 1, 77-87. E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Dolan, L. J., &Wasik, B.A. (1993). Success Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles for all: Longitudinal effects of a restruc- Livermon, B. J., & Dolan, L. (1990). Suc- of difficult-to-remediate and readily re- turing program for inner-city elementary cess for All: First-year outcomes of a mediated poor readers: Early interven- schools. American Educational Research comprehensive plan for reforming urban tion as a vehicle for distinguishing be- Journal, 30, 123-148. education. American Educational Research tween cognitive and experiential deficits O'Connor, R. E. (1997, February). Layers of Journal,27, 255-278. as basic causes of specific reading dis- intervention. Paper presented at the an- Spear-Swerling, L., &Sternberg, R. J. (1996). ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, nual meeting of the Pacific Coast Re- Off track: When poor readers become 'learn- 88, 601-638. search Conference, La Jolla, CA. ing disabled'. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., & Slocum, Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in M. S. (1994). In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of T. A. (1995). Transfer among phonologi- reading: Some consequences of indi- reference for the assessment of learning dis- cal tasks in kindergarten: Essential in- vidual differences in the acquisition of abilities: New views on measurement issues structional content. Journal of Educational literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, (pp. 279-332). Baltimore: Brookes. Psychology, 87, 202-217. 360-406. Venezky, R. (1970). The structure of English Olson, R. K., Wise, B., Ring, J., & Johnson, Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, orthography. The Hague: Mouton. M. (1997). Computer-based remedial C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of pho- training in phoneme awareness and pho- Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1976). Teach- nological processing and reading. Journal nological decoding: Effects on the post- ing all children to read. Chicago: University of Learning Disabilities,27, 276-286. training development of word rec- of Chicago Press. ognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, Wasik, B. A. (1998). Volunteer tutoring pro- 235-254. C. A. (1997). Prevention and remediation grams in reading: A review. Reading Re- Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., of severe reading disabilities: Keeping search Quarterly, 33, 266-292. Byrk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Compar- the end in mind. Scientific Studies in Read- ing, 1, 217-234. Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Pre- ing instructional models for the literacy venting early reading failure with one-to- education of high-risk first graders. Read- Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, one tutoring: A review of five programs. ing Research Quarterly, 29, 9-39. C. A., Alexander, A. W., & Conway, T. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179-200. Rosner, J. (1979). Helping children overcome (1997). Preventive and remedial interven- tions for children with severe reading dis- Williams, J. P. (1985). The case for explicit learning disabilities (2nd ed.). New York: abilities. Learning Disabilities,8, 51-61. decoding instruction. In J. Osborn, P. Wil- Walker. Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L., son, &R. Anderson (Eds.), Reading educa- Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F (1997). The im- Wayne, S., & O'Connor, R. E. (1997a). tion: Foundations for a literate America portance of automaticity for developing Community-based early reading inter- (pp. 205-213). Lexington, MA: D.C. expertise in reading. Reading and Writing vention for at-risk first graders. Learning Health. Quarterly, 13, 107-122. Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Re- DisabilitiesResearch and Practice, 12,29-39. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. covery: An independent evaluation of the Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L., Wayne, (1989). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational effects of an early instructional interven- S., & O'Connor, R. E (1997b). The effec- battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching tion for at-risk children. Reading Research tiveness of one-to-one tutoring by com- Resources. Quarterly, 30, 958-996. munity tutors for at-risk beginning read- Woods, M. L., & Moe, A. J. (1977). Analyti- Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding ers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, cal reading inventory. Sydney, Australia: and self-teaching: Sine qua non of read- 126-139. Charles E. Merrill. ing acquisition. Cognition, 55,151-218. Vadasy, P. E, Wayne, S. R., O'Connor, R. E., Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and relia- Share, D. L., &Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cog- Jenkins, J. R., & Pool, K. (1998). Sound bility of phonemic awareness tests. Read- nitive processes in early reading devel- Partners: One-to-one tutoring in early read- ing Research Quarterly, 23, 159-177.  COPYRIGHT INFORMATION TITLE: Effects of tutoring in phonological and early reading skills on students at risk for reading disabilities SOURCE: Journal of Learning Disabilities 33 no6 N/D 2000 WN: 0030602284006 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. Copyright 1982-2000 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved. View publication stats