Educational therapy

Chapter 5

Educational therapy Louise Spear-Swerling Department of Special Education, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT, United States

Ellen Garvey is a clinical psychologist at an agency that does independent evaluations of children with learning problems. Recently Dr. Garvey evaluated two boys, Jamie and Eli, who both happened to be fourth graders although they were from different school districts. Each had been referred based on concerns about his reading comprehension. Dr. Garvey noticed that the boys had almost opposite patterns of performance in their evaluations. Jamie had serious difficulties with word decoding and spelling, but on tests of oral language comprehension, he had strengths in all areas except for his weak phonological skills. Jamie’s reading comprehension was indeed poor, but that weakness was clearly due to his poor decoding. In contrast, Eli had strong decoding skills and grade-appropriate spelling, as well as good performance on phonological-processing measures. However, his poor reading comprehension was accompanied by multiple oral language weaknesses in areas such as vocabulary and syntax. Furthermore, Dr. Garvey noticed that each boy also had nearly opposite patterns of performance in mathematics and written expression. Whereas Jamie had difficulties with calculation skills, he had a strong understanding of mathematics word problems that were read aloud to him. He knew which information was relevant, which operation to use, and so on, even though frequent calculation errors sometimes caused him to come up with the wrong answer to the problem. Eli had the opposite pattern in mathematics; his calculation skills were grade appropriate, but he had weak problem-solving skills. In written expression, although Jamie was a poor speller, he had good ideas for writing and knew what he wanted to say, although he could not always get this information down on paper without adult help because of his poor spelling. Eli’s spelling was a strength, but his ability to put his thoughts into writing—for example, his word choice and sentence structure—was a significant weakness. Dr. Garvey was intrigued by these patterns, in part because she had seen similar patterns in other work with children during her training. The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment of Childhood Learning and Attention Problems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815755-8.00005-8 © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

99

100

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

This chapter describes the educational usefulness of reading profiles in understanding a variety of learning problems—including some difficulties in mathematics as well as literacy. An understanding of the different reading profiles underlying Jamie’s and Eli’s difficulties could help Dr. Garvey integrate a wide array of assessment data and provide valuable implications for making educational recommendations. I begin with a description of important component abilities in reading, mathematics, and written expression, and how different profiles manifest as different patterns of strengths and weaknesses across these component abilities. The next section of the chapter focuses on features of effective educational therapy, in mathematics and writing as well as reading, for students with different profiles. The concluding section of the chapter presents ways to communicate with parents and help them find appropriate treatment for their children.

Important component abilities in achievement at the elementary level In reading, a component ability has been defined as one that can have an independent influence on performance and development in reading comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990). Components of writing and mathematics can be conceptualized in a similar manner, as abilities that can have an independent influence on performance and growth in broad written expression or overall math achievement. Components of oral language also play key roles in academic achievement and are fundamental to understanding the different reading profiles that will be discussed later. I focus on component abilities important to achievement at the elementary level, because most research has centered upon this level. However, the componential approach outlined here can be helpful in understanding struggling learners of all ages, including secondary students, because these learners often have weaknesses in foundational components of reading, writing, or mathematics. Table 5.1 summarizes these component abilities, with a brief explanation of each one, including sample assessment tasks and a few examples of standardized tests for assessing each component.

Important components of oral language and reading Many research studies, scholarly reviews, and meta-analyses (e.g., Foorman et al., 2016; National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000; National Research Council, 1998; Stanovich, 2000) have emphasized the importance of five components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics (decoding), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Three of these components involve oral language abilities rather than actual reading. Phonemic awareness involves sensitivity to and the ability to manipulate sounds in spoken words—for example, the ability to segment a spoken word into its constituent sounds

TABLE 5.1 Important components of reading, written expression, and mathematics. Domain/components

Description (example of assessment task)

Examples of standardized tests/subtests

Reading and oral language

Phonemic awareness

Awareness of, sensitivity to, and the ability to manipulate, individual phonemes (sounds) in spoken words (e.g., in phoneme deletion tasks, child is asked to say “wrote.” Now say wrote without the /t/,” i.e., row)

CTOPP-2 Phonological Awareness; WJ-IV Segmentation

Phonics (also called word decoding or word attack)

Knowledge of letter sounds and the ability to apply that knowledge in reading unfamiliar printed words (e.g., child is asked to decode nonsense words such as streck)

WJ-IV Word Attack; WIAT-III Pseudoword Decoding

Fluency

The ability to read text accurately, with ease, and with appropriate speed; fluent oral reading also includes good phrasing and intonation (prosody) (e.g., child is asked to read a grade-appropriate passage orally under timed conditions)

GORT-5 Rate; WJ-IV Sentence Reading Fluency; WIAT-III Oral Reading Fluency

Vocabulary

Knowledge of the meanings of individual words, usually assessed orally (e.g., child is asked to point to the correct picture when the examiner says a word)

WIAT-III Receptive Vocabulary; PPVT-5

Comprehension

The ability to understand sentences or passages read aloud (listening comprehension) (e.g., child listens to a passage read aloud by the examiner and then answers questions about it)

WJ-IV Oral Comprehension; WIAT-III Oral Discourse Comprehension (Continued )

TABLE 5.1 (Continued) Domain/components

Description (example of assessment task)

Examples of standardized tests/subtests

Mathematics

Math concepts

Grasp of key concepts in math such as place value, meaning of operations, or fractions (e.g., child is asked to point to a picture that represents a specific fraction)

KeyMath 3—Basic Concepts subtests

Fact fluency (automatic recall)

Ability to recall from memory the answers to basic facts in addition, subtraction, multiplication, division—such as 4 1 4, 16 2 9, 5 3 5 (e.g., child is given a series of facts to solve in writing under timed conditions)

WJ-IV Math Facts Fluency; WIATIII Math Fluency subtests

Procedural knowledge

Knowledge of the series of written steps needed for solving a multidigit calculation problem such as addition with regrouping (e.g., child is given a series of multidigit calculations to solve in writing, usually untimed)

WJ-IV Calculation; WIAT-III Numerical Operations

Problem-solving

Ability to solve word problems appropriate to the child’s grade (e.g., child is given a series of word problems to solve, with problems read aloud so that reading is not required, and with consideration of possible impact of calculation weaknesses on answers)

WJ-IV Applied Problems; KeyMath 3—Applications Subtests

Written expression

Basic writing skills

Foundational skills such as spelling, handwriting (keyboarding), capitalization, punctuation, and sentence structure (e.g., child is given a series of written sentences and must identify the spelling, grammar, or capitalization error, then tell how to correct it)

WJ-IV Spelling; WJ-IV Editing; WIAT-III Spelling

Text composition

The ability to translate one’s thoughts into language as well as organize and sequence one’s ideas in writing (e.g., child is asked to respond to a prompt in writing on a particular topic, such as his/her favorite game)

WIAT-III Essay Composition; TOWL-4 Story Composition

Writing processes

The ability to use planning, revision, editing, and other processes involved in producing a lengthy piece of writing (e.g., a checklist or rubric might be employed to evaluate the child’s use of these processes)

Usually assessed informally

Note: CTOPP-2, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, 2nd edition; GORT-5, Gray Oral Reading Test, 5th edition; PPVT-5, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 5th edition; TOWL-4, Test of Written Language, 4th edition; WIAT-III, Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 3rd edition; WJ-IV, Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement/Oral Language.

104

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

(e.g., fish 5 /f/, /i/, /sh/). Phonemic awareness and other phonologicalprocessing abilities, such as phonological memory, have a strong relationship to the development of decoding skills. Vocabulary involves knowledge of word meanings and is usually assessed orally in order to avoid confounding vocabulary knowledge with decoding skill. Comprehension involves broad listening comprehension and, like vocabulary, is important to assess orally as well as through conventional reading comprehension measures. The other two components of reading involve print. Phonics or decoding is the ability to read unfamiliar words using knowledge of letter sounds and the alphabetic code. Decoding skills generally are assessed through the use of nonsense words (e.g., plake), which unlike real words, a child cannot have memorized. Fluency is the ability to read grade-appropriate passages not only with accuracy, but also with reasonable ease and speed. Prosody, or the ability to read aloud with appropriate intonation and phrasing, is an important characteristic of fluent oral reading. In addition to the components of language just mentioned—phonological abilities, oral vocabulary, and broad listening comprehension—further evaluation of individual students’ oral language abilities may sometimes be warranted. In particular, for students at risk of significant oral language problems, evaluation in specific areas of language (e.g., pragmatic language or syntax) may provide important insights into the student’s academic difficulties.

Important components of math At the elementary level, important components of mathematics consist of basic math concepts, automatic recall of facts (fact fluency), procedural knowledge, and the ability to solve word problems (National Math Advisory Panel [NMAP], 2008). Examples of essential math concepts in these grades include an understanding of place value and base ten; the meaning of operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division; and fraction concepts. Facts are basic whole-number equations in the four operations— for instance, 2 1 3, 10 2 4, 6 3 5, 1243—whose answers ideally should be memorized in order for children to fluently perform more advanced computations. To perform multidigit calculations easily, children need not only fluent fact recall, but also procedural knowledge, such as how to regroup to solve an item like 500 2 124, or how to perform the series of steps needed to solve a long division problem. Word problems involve applying calculation skills, but they also require reasoning about a problem. These reasoning skills include recognizing the correct operation needed to solve a problem, the relevant information for solving the problem, and the series of steps for solving a multistep problem, such as adding several numbers then subtracting from that total.

Educational therapy Chapter | 5

105

Important components of written expression Research on written expression (e.g., Abbott, Berninger, & Fayol, 2010; Berninger, 2009; Graham, MaCarthur, & Fitzgerald, 2007) has highlighted the importance of at least three component abilities in written expression achievement: basic writing skills, text composition, and writing processes. Basic writing skills include not only spelling and handwriting (or keyboarding), but also conventions such as capitalization, punctuation, and sentence structure (e.g., writing complete sentences as opposed to fragments or runons). Text composition requires translating one’s thoughts into language as well as organizing those thoughts—for example, choosing the appropriate word to convey one’s meaning or sequencing one’s ideas in a way that will make sense to the reader. Writing processes such as planning, revising content, and editing for mechanics are also critical to good written expression. Except in the earliest grades, few students produce a strong piece of writing in a single draft or without any advance planning.

Developmental shifts and interrelationships In each academic domain, although all components are ultimately important to children’s achievement, each component is not equally important at all stages of typical children’s development. Rather, the importance of a given component often shifts with development. In reading, phonemic awareness and decoding skills are especially central to the early stages of learning to read, when children are learning the alphabetic code (Foorman et al., 2016; NRP, 2000). In the later grades, when typical readers have well-developed decoding skills and the comprehension demands of the texts used in school escalate, vocabulary and comprehension abilities become increasingly important to further growth in reading (Chall, 1983). Similarly, the ability to use written expression processes such as planning and revision is somewhat less central to success in writing in the earliest grades, but becomes especially important in adolescence (Graham & Perin, 2007), when students are expected to produce lengthier, more complex pieces of writing. At any stage of development, components also interact with each other in important ways. A particularly common dynamic across all academic domains involves the way that difficulties in a lower-level foundational skill can impair performance in a higher-level component area. For example, labored decoding may drain a child’s attentional resources for understanding a text, leading to poor reading comprehension even though the child’s oral language comprehension abilities are strong. Similarly in mathematics, poor fact fluency can create a drain on the student’s ability to perform more complex calculation procedures or solve word problems (Namkung & Fuchs, 2016); in written expression, weaknesses in basic writing skills can negatively affect a student’s text composition and motivation to write

106

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

(Abbott et al., 2010). If clinicians recognize this dynamic and identify component weaknesses correctly, then accommodations or assistive technology can often help students function in higher-level areas while they continue to work on their foundational weaknesses in intervention. Various components also have important interrelationships across domains. Decoding and spelling abilities correlate strongly with each other; children who are poor decoders are almost always poor spellers as well (Ehri, 2005). Broad language comprehension plays a key role not only in reading comprehension but also in math problem-solving (Fuchs, Gilbert, Fuchs, Seethaler, & Martin, 2018). Children with limitations in vocabulary will likely have difficulties with word choice in writing, as well as with reading comprehension and perhaps also mathematics problem-solving. These interrelationships help explain why, as Dr. Garvey found, information about individual poor readers’ profiles also has implications for understanding and successfully addressing difficulties they may have in writing or mathematics.

Common profiles of academic difficulties Interdisciplinary research on language and reading (e.g., Catts, Compton, Tomblin, & Bridges, 2012; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Cutting et al., 2013; Kieffer, 2010; Norbury & Nation, 2011; Spear-Swerling, 2004, 2015; Valencia, 2011) suggests that at least three profiles of reading difficulties are common. These profiles involve specific word recognition difficulties (SWRDs), specific reading comprehension difficulties (SRCDs), and mixed reading difficulties (MRDs). Children can certainly be identified with other kinds of learning disorders, such as mathematics or writing disabilities that are not associated with poor reading. Nevertheless, reading problems are very common among students with learning disorders, and poor reader profiles are quite useful for understanding these students’ academic difficulties. The profiles are summarized in Table 5.2 and discussed further below.

Three common profiles of poor reading SWRDs involve core weaknesses in decoding, usually related to phonological weaknesses, coupled with at least average vocabulary knowledge and broad language comprehension (Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003). In addition to their difficulties reading individual words, children with SWRDs also frequently have problems with reading fluency and reading comprehension. However, their difficulties in these latter areas are associated entirely with problems in word reading, not language comprehension. Poor fluency may be due either to inaccurate or nonautomatic reading of individual words. Likewise, for these children, poor reading comprehension is caused entirely by problems in word reading; if children can decode a text accurately and with reasonable fluency, then they

TABLE 5.2 Common profiles of reading difficulties with frequently associated difficulties in math and writing. Reading profile

Word recognition

Phonemic awareness

Reading comprehension

Reading fluency

Oral comprehension

Mathematics

Written expression

Specific word recognition difficulties (SWRDs)

Below average, because of inaccurate or nonautomatic decoding

Usually below average; other phonologicalprocessing abilities (e.g., phonological memory) may also be weak

Usually below average, due to problems with word reading, not broad language comprehension; some students can compensate and score in average range in reading comprehension

Usually below average, due to problems with inaccurate or nonautomatic word reading, not broad language comprehension

Average or better broad oral comprehension and vocabulary

May be unimpaired, but any math difficulties tend to involve fact fluency and calculation, not core problemsolving abilities

Basic writing skills, especially spelling, below average; other components of writing may be unimpaired

Specific reading comprehension difficulties (SRCDs)

Average or better

Average or better

Below average, but not because of decoding; often due to language comprehension weaknesses

May be unimpaired, but any difficulties are based in language, not word reading

Usually below average in one or more areas such as vocabulary, syntax, pragmatics

May be unimpaired, but difficulties in problem-solving most common

Text composition often below average; basic writing skills such as spelling often unimpaired

Mixed reading difficulties (MRDs)

Below average, because of inaccurate or nonautomatic decoding

Usually below average; other phonologicalprocessing abilities may also be weak

Below average, due to a combination of poor word reading (decoding) and language comprehension weaknesses

Usually below average, due to a combination of poor decoding and language comprehension weaknesses

Usually below average in one or more areas such as vocabulary, syntax, pragmatics

May have generalized difficulties in both calculation and problemsolving

Usually, generalized difficulties in both basic writing skills and text composition

108

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

can comprehend it. Jamie, the first child described at the outset of this chapter, had a profile of SWRD. SWRD is a common profile in students with dyslexia, which was Jamie’s diagnosis. SRCDs involve the opposite profile, one that is distinct from dyslexia (Cutting et al., 2013). Poor readers with SRCDs have at least average decoding and phonological skills, but nevertheless, their reading comprehension is impaired (Leach et al., 2003). Usually students’ reading comprehension difficulties are associated with oral language weaknesses in areas such as vocabulary, broad listening comprehension, or higher-level language abilities such as pragmatics (Catts et al., 2006; Norbury & Nation, 2011). Therefore these students tend to display comprehension weaknesses not only during reading but also in listening activities, such as during teacher read-alouds or class discussions. If students with SRCDs have problems with reading fluency, those problems are based in language, not decoding. For example, students with this profile might read text slowly because they are having trouble comprehending it (Valencia, 2011). Eli’s profile exemplified SRCDs. He had a reading disability, but one different from dyslexia. Children with a mixed profile, or MRDs, have a combination of the above types of difficulties (Catts et al., 2006; Leach et al., 2003). They not only have weaknesses in decoding and phonological skills but also have a core comprehension component to their reading problems. Clinicians might encounter a profile of MRD in students with broad language disabilities or in some students with autism spectrum disorders (Norbury & Nation, 2011). Although students with MRDs often have weaknesses in listening comprehension, their reading comprehension typically is more impaired than their listening due to the additional influence of poor decoding. Fluency problems in students with MRDs may relate to both factors, poor decoding and language weaknesses. Knowledge about individual students’ profiles can help clinicians understand and integrate a wide array of assessment data, with important implications for instruction, assessment, and accommodations (Catts, Kamhi, & Adlof, 2012; Spear-Swerling, 2015). To be effective, interventions must properly target a child’s component weaknesses. Children with SWRDs and MRDs generally benefit from phonics interventions, whereas those with SRCDs do not, because their difficulties lie outside the domain of decoding (Aaron, Joshi, Gooden, & Bentum, 2008). Students with MRDs need more than phonics intervention to be successful; they also require intervention targeting the source(s) of their comprehension weakness, such as vocabulary, background knowledge, syntax, or comprehension monitoring (Oakhill, Cain, & Elbro, 2015). In assessment, oral reading fluency CBMs may be very useful for monitoring progress in children with SWRDs and MRDs but probably not for students with SRCDs, who will require assessments more focused on comprehension. Students with SWRDs often benefit from accommodations that involve listening to text that is too difficult for them to read, whereas for those with SRCDs, merely hearing a text read aloud is less helpful (Erickson, 2013).

Educational therapy Chapter | 5

109

Implications of the profiles for math and written expression Reading profiles involve constellations of strengths and weaknesses in important cognitive-linguistic abilities that underlie literacy and math achievement. Therefore the profiles have implications for children’s functioning in math and written expression as well as reading. These implications are summarized in the two right-hand columns of Table 5.2. Children with SWRDs such as Jamie usually have weaknesses in basic writing skills, especially spelling. However, with remediation of or assistive technology for basic writing skills, their text composition can often be good. In math, the phonological weaknesses characteristic of many children with SWRDs may sometimes affect fact recall and calculation skills (Peng et al., 2016; Simmons & Singleton, 2008); if the child has co-occurring ADHD, calculation seems especially likely to be affected (Fuchs et al., 2008). However, because these children’s broad language abilities are unimpaired, core problem-solving abilities often are a strength, especially with remediation of their calculation weaknesses or a calculator to compensate for them. Conversely, children with SRCDs such as Eli have good phonological spelling skills, but their underlying language weaknesses—such as poor vocabulary knowledge or syntactic weaknesses—can be expected to affect their writing as well as their reading. Vocabulary and other language problems may also affect problem-solving in mathematics (Fuchs et al., 2018). For example, if children do not understand the meaning of words such as increase and decrease, or if they have trouble understanding the syntax of word problems, then they may have difficulty choosing the correct operation or filtering out irrelevant information. Children with a mixed profile may tend to display relatively broad types of achievement weaknesses, with difficulties in many component areas. As is true for the other profiles, these difficulties can range from very mild to severe. Neither Jamie nor Eli had any co-occurring conditions such as ADHD or executive function difficulties, which could also affect a child’s profile. For instance, some students with co-occurring dyslexia and ADHD might display a mixed profile, with word reading problems due to dyslexia, and with ADHD contributing to problems in both word reading and comprehension. As another example, a student with dyslexia who comes from a low-income background might have experientially based vocabulary limitations; this kind of student might also display an MRD profile rather than the usual SWRD profile because of his or her weakness in vocabulary. Moreover, whatever their profile, students with serious reading difficulties may sometimes receive instruction in math or writing that is less than ideal. For example, the intensity of instruction needed to improve the student’s reading may allow for limited time to address other academic areas, or poor reading may interfere with the student’s ability to benefit from general education math or writing instruction. All of these factors—co-occurring disabilities, experience, and instruction— may affect a child’s profile of difficulties and should be taken into account.

110

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

Finally, the purview of this chapter involves children with learning problems, so the examples provided emphasize various disabilities. However, reading profiles also yield important insights about more experientially based reading problems. Such problems include those characteristic of English learners or children from poverty backgrounds (e.g., Kieffer, 2010). Profiles thus have broad utility for many types of practitioners (Spear-Swerling, 2015).

Effective educational therapy Effective educational interventions for students with different poor reader profiles involve a range of explicit, systematic teaching approaches, with greater levels of intensity for students with greater levels of difficulty. As part of explicit teaching, visual aids or manipulatives benefit many children’s learning, in both literacy and mathematics.

Characteristics of explicit, systematic teaching Explicit, systematic teaching approaches have been found especially valuable to at-risk and struggling readers (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Brady, 2011; Hooper et al., 2013; Kilpatrick, 2015; NRP, 2000) and mathematics learners (Gersten et al., 2009; NMAP, 2008). Characteristics of this kind of instruction are displayed in Table 5.3, with examples for some specific components of reading, mathematics, and written expression. In explicit instruction, important concepts and skills are taught directly by the teacher through clear explanation and modeling; children are not expected to develop these skills solely through exposure or incidental teaching. For instance, for written expression, the teacher explicitly models and explains important skills such as proper letter formation in handwriting or planning strategies for text composition, rather than expecting children to largely infer these skills from exposure. Systematic means that skills are taught according to a logical sequence, one that also takes into account research on children’s development. A related characteristic is that instruction ensures mastery of prerequisite skills before children move on to a more complex skill. For example, in reading, children are not expected to decode difficult short-vowel words such as splint before they can decode simpler words such as sit or spin. In mathematics, they are not expected to perform long division when they have not yet mastered the multiplication or subtraction skills required for long division. To ensure mastery of prerequisite skills, ongoing formative assessment and a criterion for mastery are essential. Without formative assessment, teachers often cannot reliably determine if an individual child has mastered a particular skill, and without a criterion for mastery, it will be difficult to know when it is appropriate to move on to a more complex skill. Mastery criteria vary somewhat depending on the skill being evaluated and the

TABLE 5.3 Characteristics and examples of explicit instruction in different academic domains. Characteristic

Examples in reading

Important skills and concepts are taught directly by the teacher

G

G

Instruction is systematic, with important prerequisite skills taught before more complex skills

G

G

Examples in mathematics

Vocabulary: Teacher explains the meaning of essential words that children need to comprehend a text Comprehension: Teacher explains usefulness of a narrative graphic organizer and models how to use it to help understand a specific text

G

Decoding: Children are taught sounds for the letter patterns oa and ea before being expected to decode words (e.g., float, steam) with these patterns Fluency: Accurate text reading at a given level is developed before children practice building speed of text reading at that level

G

G

G

Examples in writing

Procedural knowledge: Teacher explains and models the procedure for multiplying by a two-digit multiplier (e.g., 32 3 45) Concepts: Teacher models how to represent a three-digit number with base ten blocks, explaining how the representation links to the written numeral

G

Procedural knowledge: Children are taught procedures for twodigit addition without regrouping before they learn procedures for regrouping Problem-solving: Children are taught easier problem types (e.g., one-step, no irrelevant information) before harder problem types (e.g., two-step, with irrelevant information)

G

G

G

Basic writing skills: Teacher explains a spelling rule (e.g., for adding endings to a base word) and models how to apply it to appropriate words Writing processes: Teacher explains why planning processes are important and models a planning strategy such as outlining Basic writing skills: Children are taught the most common conventions such as ending punctuation before less common ones such as using quotation marks Text composition: Children are taught to write correct sentences before more lengthy, complex pieces of writing (Continued )

TABLE 5.3 (Continued) Characteristic

Examples in reading

Appropriate examples are used in instruction

G

G

Prompt corrective feedback is provided to children’s errors

G

G

Examples in mathematics

Decoding: Teacher provides examples of silent e words that avoid phonetically irregular words such as have or done Vocabulary: Teacher provides appropriate examples and nonexamples of a new vocabulary word such as vehicle

G

Fluency: If a child misreads a word when reading text aloud, teacher points to the word and provides cues for correction as needed; child then rereads the sentence to establish fluency Comprehension: Teacher asks frequent comprehension questions during children’s reading and provides feedback, or cues children to reread a relevant part of the text, if they have misunderstood something in it

G

G

G

Examples in writing

Procedural knowledge: Teacher avoids examples with zeroes in introducing a new skill, because zeroes tend to be confusing to children Problem-solving: If the teacher is teaching a new problem type such as subtraction comparison, problems fit this structure; they may later be mixed with previously mastered problem types for cumulative review

G

Fact fluency: Teacher monitors whether a child is applying the counting-down strategy correctly, and provides feedback if the child is getting the wrong answer (e.g., because s/he is starting with the wrong number) Concepts: Teacher assesses whether students understand that the denominator of a fraction shows how many equal parts into which a whole is divided; appropriate feedback is provided to those who do not

G

G

G

Text composition: Teacher provides multiple examples of good text models (e.g., for a good concluding paragraph) and explains why they are effective Writing processes: Teacher provides and explains an example of an effective strategy for editing one’s work

Basic writing skills: Teacher provides targeted feedback to individual students about specific errors in spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure in written compositions Text composition: Teacher provides targeted feedback to individual students about specific problems in clarity of writing, word choice, or organization

Children perform at an appropriate criterion level of mastery before moving on to the next skill

G

G

Decoding: Children demonstrate mastery of consonant-vowelconsonant words (e.g., lap, fit, men) before being expected to decode more difficult short-vowel words with consonant clusters (e.g., strap, thump) Fluency: Children meet benchmarks for fluent reading of easier texts (e.g., Grade 2) before practicing fluent reading of more difficult ones (e.g., Grade 3)

G

G

Fact fluency: Children demonstrate a high level of accuracy solving subtraction facts under untimed conditions before they are expected to solve subtraction facts quickly under timed conditions Problem-solving: Children demonstrate mastery of basic one-step word problems before they are expected to solve twostep problems

G

G

Basic writing skills: In spelling, children master spelling onesyllable base words before learning to spell those words with endings Writing processes: Children master specific conventions (such as specific capitalization rules, e.g., capitalizing names) before being expected to edit their compositions for those conventions

114

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

instructional program, but at a minimum, are usually set at 80% or higher. For a very basic foundational skill such as letter or numeral recognition, a mastery criterion close to 100% may be desirable, but if the criterion is set this high for an area such as reading comprehension, math problem-solving, or text composition, making progress will be difficult. If a teacher is using an explicit, systematic program, it will usually provide mastery criteria for moving on to the next step. Example choice is also very important in explicit, systematic teaching. For instance, continuous-sound phonemes such as /s/ or /f/ are easier to blend than stop consonants such as /g/, /b/, or /t/; therefore particularly for children with phoneme blending difficulties, decoding instruction begins with words such as sun or fan before introducing words such as tap or big. In mathematics, children often find problems containing zeroes more confusing than other examples, even ones that involve the same procedure. Therefore a teacher who is introducing children to two-digit subtraction with regrouping would start with an item such as 52 2 26 rather than 50 2 26. Another characteristic of explicit, systematic teaching involves the provision of prompt corrective feedback to errors. If a child trying to decode fun misread the word as “fan,” a teacher might point to the vowel to draw the child’s attention to it, asking, “What sound does short u make?” If a young math student failed to regroup on an item like 52 2 26, yielding the answer 34, the teacher might draw the child’s attention to the ones column, asking, “Can you subtract 6 from 2?” For written expression, the teacher would provide targeted feedback about students’ compositions that would help individual students improve their writing. Intensity of intervention is an important consideration. A child with mild learning needs might make good progress with a small-group intervention that meets two or three times a week, whereas one who is further behind or who has more severe difficulties might make little or no progress under these conditions. Intensity of instruction is most often manipulated by decreasing group size, increasing children’s amount of intervention time, or increasing explicitness of intervention (e.g., providing more scaffolding by the teacher). Intensity is an important variable for clinicians to consider not only when first making recommendations, but also when a child’s current educational therapy does not appear to be effective. In the latter case, sometimes the problem is not an inappropriate intervention, but rather insufficient intensity of intervention.

The benefits of visual aids and manipulatives Visual aids and manipulatives are useful for many components of literacy and mathematics. Graphic organizers—such as those for narrative texts or different types of informational texts—are known to improve comprehension (NRP, 2000), and manipulatives such as the Story Grammar Marker (Moreau

Educational therapy Chapter | 5

115

& Fidrych, 1994) can be beneficial for teaching comprehension as well. Graphic organizers are also very useful in writing instruction (Troia, 2014). If structured using appropriately patterned words, word-building activities with letter tiles can be quite effective for decoding and spelling instruction (McCandliss, Beck, Sandak, & Perfetti, 2003). Visual aids or manipulatives also are vital in math, particularly for teaching basic concepts and problemsolving (NMAP, 2008). For example, children who are learning fraction concepts can be taught how to draw simple pictures to represent different fractions such as half, one-thirds, two-thirds, and so on; in problem-solving, pictures can be useful for reasoning about a problem, such as determining the correct operation to use to solve it. These kinds of aids are quite compatible with explicit, systematic teaching and should be integrated with it as suitable for an individual student’s needs.

Appropriate curricula and materials Even for a very accomplished teacher, it is quite difficult to teach skills in a highly explicit, systematic manner without using a structured curriculum and set of materials. Multiple commercial programs in reading and mathematics—and to a lesser extent, in writing—incorporate the features of explicit, systematic teaching. There is not a single best program, although clinical judgment may suggest that a particular program is a better fit to an individual student. For example, a child whose decoding problems are accompanied by severe weaknesses in phonemic awareness may benefit from a decoding program emphasizing that area, whereas for a poor decoder with good phonemic awareness and problems centering upon multisyllabic words, a different decoding program might be more appropriate. Clinicians should speak with knowledgeable educators about the features of different programs, examine such programs themselves, and consult helpful web resources for evidence-based information about effective interventions. Good web resources for this purpose include the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) practice guides (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx), the Center on Instruction (www.centeroninstruction.org), the Iris Center at Vanderbilt University (https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/), the VaughnGross Center and Meadows Center at University of Texas at Austin (https:// www.meadowscenter.org/vgc/), and the Florida Center for Reading Research (www.fcrr.org).

Application to children with different poor reader profiles Children with different reading profiles need interventions focused on their specific component weaknesses in reading, writing, and (sometimes) math. In addition, like all children, those with learning disorders require continued instruction in and opportunities to develop their strengths. However, learning

116

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

in children’s unimpaired component areas can often continue primarily in the general education setting, with appropriate accommodations and assistive technology to ensure access. Specific word recognition difficulties. Children with SWRDs require highly explicit, systematic phonics instruction targeted to their current skill levels. A beginning decoder may need to start phonics instruction with very basic consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words, whereas an older poor decoder may have mastered decoding one-syllable words and may require a focus on two-syllable or multisyllabic words. Criterion-referenced phonics assessments should be used to help target instruction appropriately. For Jamie, these assessments showed that although he had mastered decoding of CVC and other short-vowel words, he still needed work on many other types of one-syllable words such as those with silent e and vowel team patterns; therefore his intervention had to start with these types of words. It is important to note that, while research reviewed by the National Reading Panel (2000) did not find significant differences in efficacy among different types of systematic phonics approaches, post-NRP research (e.g., Brady, 2011; Christensen & Bowey, 2005) favors synthetic-phonics approaches that teach letter sounds and phoneme blending over larger-unit approaches such as onset-rime or word families. In these latter approaches, phonics instruction focuses on larger units such as onsets and rimes, which are intrasyllabic linguistic units intermediate between phonemes and syllables, or on whole words. For example, to decode an unfamiliar vowel team word such as float, in an onset-rime approach Jamie would learn the sound for the onset fl- and the rime oat, as well as how to blend those two parts; in a word families approach, he would learn highly patterned rhyming words (e.g., boat, coat, goat), with an expectation that he would then be able to infer how to decode float by analogy. However, in a phoneme-level synthetic-phonics approach, intervention would emphasize learning sounds for common letters and letter patterns, as well as phoneme-level blending skills, from the start. For a word such as float, Jamie would learn the sound for the letter pattern oa, as well as how to blend it with previously learned single consonant sounds (i.e., f, l, t) to produce the whole word float. In addition to learning the important skill of phoneme blending, Jamie would also apply his decoding skills to many other words with oa such as throat, soap, road, groan, oak, soak, and so on. Eventually, as he progressed to more advanced stages of decoding, Jamie also would learn to recognize and decode larger units in words, such as morphemes involving common roots, prefixes and suffixes. This type of initial phoneme-level synthetic-phonics approach is the one most likely to benefit Jamie (Brady, 2011). As part of phonics instruction, many children with SWRDs require phonemic awareness instruction. Furthermore, even older children beyond the initial stages of learning the alphabetic code may benefit from advanced phonemic awareness intervention to build orthographic mapping and automatic

Educational therapy Chapter | 5

117

word recognition (Kilpatrick, 2015). Applications to text reading, including oral reading of text with a knowledgeable teacher who provides appropriate corrective feedback, are essential to include in lessons in order to build fluency. Both repeated reading of the same text and continuous wide reading (e.g., of a range of texts) may help improve students’ reading rate (NRP, 2000; Wexler, Vaughn, Roberts, & Denton, 2010). Children with SWRDs typically have problems in spelling and basic writing skills, although sometimes children’s writing problems are overlooked until they reach the later elementary grades, and writing receives more emphasis in schooling. Explicit teaching of spelling should be integrated with children’s phonics interventions, so that as children are learning to decode a particular word pattern, they also learn how to spell that pattern. For common phonetically irregular words (e.g., the, have, was, were), multisensory techniques such as repeatedly tracing and saying the letters in the word can be helpful. Once children have mastered basic letter-sound correspondences and spellings of simple words, they should learn common spelling generalizations, such as rules for adding endings to a base word (e.g., stop 1 -ing 5 stopping). Children’s writing instruction should also include explicit, systematic teaching of other basic writing skills such as handwriting, keyboarding, punctuation, and capitalization. If a child’s difficulties are accompanied by calculation weaknesses, explicit teaching of basic numerical skills should be helpful (Peng et al., 2016). Depending on the child’s specific needs, these skills may include basic number concepts (e.g., quantity comparisons) and fact strategies such as counting up in addition, counting down in subtraction, and counting by series for multiplication and division (e.g., counting by 5s, 10s, 2s, and 3s). For basic number concepts and fact accuracy, visuals and manipulatives are important. Once children can solve facts accurately, timed practice activities to build automatic recall, starting with an easier subset of facts and building to additional facts as a child demonstrates fluency on easier subsets, can be beneficial. Teachers should also provide explicit, systematic instruction on procedures, such as those for regrouping (see, e.g., Stein, Kinder, Silbert, Carnine, & Rolf, 2018). Specific reading comprehension difficulties. Children with this profile need instruction that is targeted to their specific comprehension weaknesses, which may vary for different children with SRCDs. Evaluation of areas such as vocabulary, syntax, and pragmatics should be used to help target the specific comprehension weaknesses of individual students. Eli’s difficulties revolved around vocabulary knowledge and understanding complex syntax, so he required explicit instruction in those areas. A child with a different underlying pattern of comprehension weaknesses—for example, age-appropriate vocabulary knowledge and syntactic competence but weaknesses in pragmatic language—needs a somewhat different focus.

118

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

Oral language interventions are especially important to integrate in therapy for students with SRCDs. These students appear to do better with intervention that combines oral language with reading comprehension intervention, as opposed to interventions focused on reading comprehension alone (Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, & Hulme, 2010). Furthermore, with proper coordination across academic domains, addressing individual children’s underlying language weaknesses can potentially benefit not only their reading comprehension, but also their problem-solving in math (Fuchs et al., 2018). An example suggested by Fuchs et al. (2018) involves connecting teaching of comparison word problems in math, in which children have to compare two quantities, with compare-and-contrast informational text structure in reading. For students with SRCDs who have poor reading fluency, therapy focused on language comprehension and vocabulary are likely to benefit fluency much more than interventions aimed at accuracy or rate of word reading. Vocabulary interventions should include both general and domainspecific types of words. For instance, in mathematics, teachers should provide explicit teaching of important math vocabulary, such as words that signal different operations (e.g., total, difference) as well as fundamental math terminology (e.g., for children learning fractions, numerator and denominator). Another important area to address for vocabulary development involves morphological awareness, that is, teaching of common roots, prefixes, and suffixes, and how to use them to infer meanings of unfamiliar words. If a student is taught that the root geo means “earth,” that knowledge can be used to help infer the meanings of words such as geology, geologist, or geode. Morphological interventions improve vocabulary with transfer to reading comprehension and appear especially beneficial for struggling learners (Goodwin & Ahn, 2013). Integration of reading comprehension and written expression activities can further develop each area. Teaching students how to write a summary of a text they have read or to use new vocabulary words in writing can help improve the students’ reading, as well as their writing (Graham & Hebert, 2010). As another example, teaching students about important cohesive words in text can improve not only students’ reading comprehension (Oakhill et al., 2015), but also their written expression. For instance, words such as because, therefore, and consequently tend to signal a cause-andeffect relationship. Understanding the relevance of these words can help students comprehend a text better; learning to use the words effectively can benefit the clarity and organization of their writing. With regard to organization of writing, graphic organizers that facilitate reading comprehension may be equally useful for text composition and can also facilitate planning processes in writing (Troia, 2014). Finally children with SRCDs benefit from explicit comprehension strategy instruction, such as explicit teaching about text structure, summarization

Educational therapy Chapter | 5

119

strategies, and comprehension monitoring (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; NRP, 2000). Again, some of these strategies, such as knowledge about text structure, can potentially improve their writing as well. Recent research suggests that it is not the specific strategies themselves that foster comprehension development, but rather that learning strategies may be a vehicle to promote a more strategic approach to reading in general and more active engagement with the text (Compton, Miller, Elleman, & Steacy, 2014). Educational therapy should therefore not overemphasize comprehension strategy instruction (Willingham, 2006/2007) and should also address other important aspects of comprehension development such as background knowledge, as appropriate to individual students’ needs. Mixed reading difficulties. Students with MRDs require a combination of the types of therapy benefiting students with SWRDs and SRCDs. Again, individual students’ treatment should be targeted to their specific weaknesses in different components of reading, writing, and if relevant, mathematics. Multicomponent interventions that address multiple areas of difficulty, such as basic writing skills and text composition (e.g., Hooper et al., 2013), or word reading and comprehension (e.g., Gelzheiser, Scanlon, Vellutino, Hallgren-Flynn, & Schatschneider, 2011), may be especially helpful for students with MRDs. In addition, because students with MRDs can have many needs across multiple academic areas, setting priorities for therapy is especially important. Consider a sixth grade student whose decoding skills are extremely low, but who also has mild vocabulary limitations. This type of student would benefit from a strong initial treatment emphasis on decoding, but still with some attention to oral vocabulary development that should facilitate the student’s reading comprehension in more advanced text as the student’s decoding improves. Priorities can be revised as the student progresses, and his or her most important needs change. For students with MRDs it is especially important to seek ways to address multiple areas efficiently. One good example involves the use of morphological interventions. These interventions can promote students’ word reading and spelling development, as well as their vocabulary development; for example, as they learn the meaning of roots such as geo or psych, they also learn how to read and spell the roots. Other examples of ways to integrate instruction across multiple areas include integration of reading comprehension and text composition or reading comprehension and math problemsolving, using the kinds of activities mentioned previously in this section.

Communicating with parents and finding appropriate therapy Clinicians like Dr. Garvey can use poor reader profiles to help communicate children’s needs to their parents, which can enable parents to better advocate for their children. For instance, if a child with dyslexia has a profile of SWRDs, it is important for parents to understand that although the child may

120

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

perform poorly on measures of reading comprehension, the true problem is decoding, not comprehension. It is also helpful for parents to know if a child’s difficulties in fact fluency and spelling are likely connected to dyslexia, but if other components of math (e.g., problem-solving) and writing (e.g., core text composition abilities) are unimpaired. To enable parents to find appropriate therapy, clinicians should be aware of basic legal provisions for students with disabilities, such as a student’s right to a free appropriate public education and the parents’ right to refer the child for comprehensive evaluation at any time. In the case of independent evaluations such as those done by Dr. Garvey, educators in public school districts are not necessarily obligated to implement evaluators’ recommendations. However, if clinicians frame recommendations in specific, educationally useful ways, this increases the likelihood that educators will pay attention to them. If a child appears to have a disability, but the school district does not agree that he or she is eligible for services, parents can either pursue due process or seek other ways to provide treatment, such as private tutoring. An option for parents who cannot afford private tutoring is to look for services through a good university assessment clinic or reading clinic, where children work with master’s candidates under supervision, and services are provided for free. However, if a child’s difficulties are severe, clinicians should ensure that parents understand the need for appropriate intensity of treatment. For instance, a student with severe dyslexia may need one-to-one or very small-group intervention almost every day, something that is difficult to provide entirely via private tutoring given the expense and after-school time involved. Parents seeking a good tutor should look for specific expertise, training, or program certification on a prospective tutor’s re´sume´. The tutor’s expertise should match the child’s needs. For example, for a child with dyslexia like Jamie, a tutor with training in the Orton-Gillingham approach (see www.ortonacademy.org), the Wilson Reading System (Wilson, 2017), or another systematic phonics program could be an excellent choice, whereas for a child with a specific reading comprehension disability like Eli, parents would want to seek expertise in teaching broad language and comprehension skills. An effective tutor should provide explicit, systematic teaching in the child’s weak areas, with appropriate progress-monitoring assessments to monitor growth and to adjust instruction as needed. Readministration of standardized tests every year or two is useful for more long-term monitoring. Effective therapy should result in meaningful gains being demonstrated on these kinds of measures. Lastly, progress in therapy may be influenced by a wide range of variables, including the nature of the child’s disabilities and his or her weak component areas. Students with problems that are relatively severe or that involve complex comorbidities will tend to progress more slowly than those with milder disorders. Likewise, it is often easier to achieve good progress in

Educational therapy Chapter | 5

121

certain component areas, such as building accuracy in decoding and calculation procedures, than in others, such as fluency in reading or math. Nevertheless, information about common poor reader profiles provides a valuable starting point for clinicians to determine appropriate recommendations for treatment and progress monitoring in children with a variety of learning disorders.

References Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67 84. Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281 298. Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford. Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 69 80. Brady, S. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Indications from post-NRP research. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 69 96). New York: Psychology Press. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278 293. Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Tomblin, J. B., & Bridges, M. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 166 181. Catts, H. W., Kamhi, A. G., & Adlof, S. M. (2012). Defining and classifying reading disabilities. In A. G. Kamhi, & H. W. Catts (Eds.), Language and Reading Disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 47 78). New York: Pearson Education. Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Christensen, C. A., & Bowey, J. A. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime, graphemephoneme correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327 349. Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children’s reading-comprehension difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological Science, 21, 1106 1116. Compton, D. L., Miller, A. C., Elleman, A. M., & Steacy, L. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 55 73. Cutting, L. E., Clements-Stephens, A., Pugh, K. R., Burns, S., Cao, A., Pekar, J. J., et al. (2013). Not all reading disabilities are dyslexia: Distinct neurobiology of specific comprehension deficits. Brain Connectivity, 3, 199 211. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167 188. Erickson, K. (2013). Reading and assistive technology: Why the reader’s profile matters. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 39, 11 14.

122

The Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., et al. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Government Printing Office. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Stuebing, K., Fletcher, J. M., Hamlett, C., & Lambert, W. (2008). Problem solving and computational skill: Are they shared or distinct aspects of mathematical cognition? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 30 47. Fuchs, L. S., Gilbert, J. K., Fuchs, D., Seethaler, P. M., & Martin, B. (2018). Text comprehension and oral language as predictors of word-problem solving: Insights into word-problem solving as a form of text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22, 152 166. Gelzheiser, L. M., Scanlon, D., Vellutino, F., Hallgren-Flynn, L., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Effects of the interactive strategies approach extended: A response and comprehensive intervention for intermediate-grade struggling readers. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 280 306. Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., . . . Scott, L. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RTI) for middle and secondary schools. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. ,http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading-comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279 320. Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 257 285. Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation time to act report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Graham, S., MaCarthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), (2007). Best practices in writing instruction. New York: Guilford. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Hooper, S., Costa, L., McBee, M., Anderson, K., Yerby, D., Childress, A., & Knuth, S. (2013). A written language intervention for at-risk second grade students: A randomized controlled trial of the process assessment of the learner lesson plans in a tier 2 response-to-intervention model. Annals of Dyslexia, 63, 44 64. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127 160. Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Researcher, 39, 484 486. Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Hoboken NJ: Wiley & Sons. Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211 224. McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 75 104.

Educational therapy Chapter | 5

123

Moreau, M. R., & Fidrych, H. (1994). The story grammar marker: Teacher’s manual. Springfield, MA: MindWing Concepts. Namkung, J. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2016). Cognitive predictors of calculations and number line estimation with whole numbers and fractions among at-risk students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 214 228. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Norbury, C., & Nation, K. (2011). Understanding variability in reading comprehension in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: Interactions with language status and decoding skill. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 191 210. Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. New York: Routledge. Peng, P., Namkung, J., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Patton, S., Yen, L., . . . Hamlett, C. (2016). A longitudinal study on predictors of early calculation development among young children at risk for learning difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 221 241. Simmons, F. R., & Singleton, C. (2008). Do weak phonological representations impact on arithmetic development? A review of research into arithmetic and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 14, 77 94. Spear-Swerling, L. (2004). Fourth-graders’ performance on a state-mandated assessment involving two different measures of reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 25, 121 148. Spear-Swerling, L. (2015). The power of RTI and reading profiles: A blueprint for solving reading problems. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press. Stein, M., Kinder, D., Silbert, J., Carnine, D., & Rolf, K. (2018). Designing effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach (5th ed.). New York: Pearson. Troia, G. (2014). Evidence-based practices for writing instruction (Document No. IC-5). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website ,http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration/.. Valencia, S. W. (2011). Reader profiles and reading disabilities. In R. Allington, & A. McGillFranzen (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading disabilities (pp. 25 35). New York: Routledge. Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Denton, C. (2010). The efficacy of repeated reading and wide reading practice for high school students with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 2 10. Willingham, D. T. (2006/2007). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies. American Educator, Winter, 39 45, 50. Wilson, B. A. (2017). Wilson reading system (4th ed.). Oxford, MA: Wilson Language Training Corporation.