What Should Reading Instruction Look Like for 4th Graders with Severe RD?; Educators Knowledge & Literacy Practices; SLD in Children who are ELLs; Book Content Matters; The Endrews Supreme Court Case
A Couple Notes
1) To recent subscribers- the link to the original article is the underlined web address at the end of each citation.
2) If you’re a teacher/tutor/practitioner reading this newsletter you may be thinking: there’s a lot of great research here, but how do I implement the latest research into my teaching? This is tricky because there is not an easy answer. But, here’s my attempt at a short answer: If I were a practitioner, I would not put too much stock or importance in the results of one single study unless it is a well-designed Randomized Control Trial Study or Meta-Analysis (a Meta-Analysis is a study that analyzes the results of several research studies). I’ve started listing RCTs and Meta-Analyses at the top of the newsletter preceded by ‘RCT’ or ‘Meta-Analysis’ for this reason. If you want to see the longer answer to the question you can read more at the bottom of the newsletter.
RCT: Determining Optimal Intervention ‘Intensity’ for 4th Graders with Severe Reading Difficulties
Donegan et al. conducted two separate RCTs that examined intervention intensity and 4th graders with severe reading difficulties. In this study, ‘severe reading difficulties’ was defined as readers who scored less than the 15th percentile on the Gates McGinitie Reading Test and less than or equal to the 30th percentile on the Test of Word Reading Efficiency. In the first RCT, trained researchers provided the intervention group with 30 min daily sessions of Voyager Passport instruction (Voyager Sopris Learning, 2008). It was delivered in groups of 4-7 children with less of a focus on foundational skill work. Using the standard intervention ‘dosage’ described above, the intervention group did not show differences from the control group (who received regular school reading curricula - the researchers did not state what the exact curricula was). In a second RCT, the intervention ‘dosage’ or ‘intensity’ was increased to 45 minute daily sessions of Voyager Passport, delivered in groups of 2-3 students, with more time focusing on foundational skill work. This time, there were statistically different outcomes from the control group, with the intervention group showing improvement in word reading outcomes (but not reading fluency or comprehension). This suggests that upper elementary students with severe reading difficulties require smaller groups, higher ‘dosage’ and more time spent on foundational skill work. Citation: Donegan, R.E., Wanzek, J. and Al Otaiba, S. (2020), Effects of a Reading Intervention Implemented at Differing Intensities for Upper Elementary Students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35: 62-71. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12218
Educator Knowledge Influences Classroom Practices
Piasta et al. measured 437 early childhood educators’ (taught children aged 3-5) content knowledge and then observed them in the classroom. They found that there was a linear relationship between content knowledge and both quality and quantity of classroom literacy practices, with more knowledge leading to more positive outcomes. Teacher knowledge was assessed using the 1994 Moats survey. Citation: Piasta, S.B., Soto Ramirez, P., Farley, K.S. et al. Exploring the nature of associations between educators’ knowledge and their emergent literacy classroom practices.Reading & Writing 33, 1399–1422 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-10013-4ORF & Reading Comprehension: The NAEP Study
Determining Learning Difficulties in Children Who Are ELLs
Determining whether students have specific learning disabilities can be difficult if they are also English Language Learners (ELLs). Swanson et al. found that ELL students at risk for specific learning disabilities can be statistically separated (a discrete ‘latent class’) from the greater heterogenous sample and that short-term memory and naming speed predicted which ELL students would be classified as having specific learning disabilities. Citation: Swanson, H. L., Kong, J., Petcu, S. D., & Asencio Pimentel, M. F. (2020). Can Difficulties in Language Acquisition and Specific Learning Disabilities Be Separated Among English Learners? Exceptional Children, 86(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919893931
Content of Books, Not Just # of Books Matters for Low-Income Families
There’s a lot to unpack in this study, but the main takeaway is that both content (expository/informational) and narrative books are important; yet, low-income, ethnic-minority families might not have access to enough narrative books in English and their home language. Citation: Luo, R., Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., & Mendelsohn, A. L. ( 2020). Children’s Literacy Experiences in Low‐Income Families: The Content of Books Matters. Reading Research Quarterly, 55( 2), 213– 233.https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.263
Oral Reading Fluency Findings from NAEP Testing
This correlational study found that Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) explained Reading Comprehension skill, even after 4th graders were allowed to familiarize themselves with the passage. The authors examined a sub-sample of 1,713 students (out of the 140,000 who participated in the 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing. Given their findings, the authors state it might make more sense for children to be assessed using an easy narrative passage (versus challenging grade-level texts), and be allowed to familiarize themselves with it, since foundational issues with word-reading will still be apparent by analyzing their words per minute (WPM). Citation: Sabatini, J., Wang, Z., & O’Reilly, T. ( 2019). Relating Reading Comprehension to Oral Reading Performance in the NAEP Fourth‐Grade Special Study of Oral Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 54( 2), 253– 271. doi:10.1002/rrq.226
When I taught Special Education I always wanted more information on relevant court cases/rulings and Teaching Exceptional Children had an article that might be of interest to practitioners (though even as a parent/researcher I found it interesting!)
Implications of the Endrews vs Douglas County School District Case
This article looks at the implications of the Endrews court case 3 years later. In brief, the parents of Drew, a 4th grader with ASD & ADHD, wanted his school district to reimburse them for tuition at a private school. The school district disagreed, saying they had provided Drew with free appropriate public education (FAPE). The parents argued that he was not making progress on his IEP goals under the district’s FAPE and that this “minimal” FAPE did not constitute a “true” education. In 2017, the Supreme Court agreed that a minimal interpretation of FAPE is not enough; children must be making progress on their IEP goals. The authors of this article highlight 8 implications of this court case, including but not limited to; create IEP goals that are “ambitious, measurable, and challenging”; use instruction backed by peer-reviewed research; monitor progress in a systematic manner and change instruction if a student is not making progress, and; be able to explain (to a judge) specifically how the student’s IEP will help them make progress. Citation: Yell, Mitchell L.; Bateman, David. Teaching Exceptional Children, May/Jun2020, Vol. 52 Issue 5, p283-290, 8p; DOI: 10.1177/0040059920914259
***** Important Note on A Hierarchy of Scientific Studies *****
If you’re a teacher/tutor/practitioner reading this newsletter you may be thinking: There’s a lot of great research here, but how do I implement the latest research into my teaching? This is tricky because there is not an easy answer. At the top of the newsletter I gave the short answer, but the short answer glosses over some important subtleties, so here is the longer answer.
While most research papers have a section on practical implications, there isn’t a way to see if these implications actually pan out without conducting more research in the form of a randomized control trial (RCT). A double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT is often considered the gold-standard of experimental research (for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial). (Also, The What Works Clearinghouse website has a great free, video-based tutorial on different group-design studies here: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/onlinetraining)
This past week I was trying to find an old post I forgot to save in the Science of Reading (SOR) Facebook group when I came across a different post from a few months ago. In the comments section of the post a lively discussion (some might call it an argument) had erupted between two reading researchers. It was fascinating and I read the back-and-forth with rapt attention. Both researchers made great points. The ‘discussion’ centered around the hierarchy of scientific studies when determining important policy. For example, are there times when a strong prospective correlational cohort study can yield more evidence than a poorly designed RCT?
The researchers did not come to an agreement and that was fine with me for two reasons: (1) sometimes the process is more important than the end product, and; (2) science does not move forward without respectful disagreement or critique. However, their discussion made me think about the newsletter. I’ve decided to list RCTs and Meta-Analyses (a meta-analysis is a study that analyzes the results of several studies on a similar topic) at the top of the newsletter and case studies/expert opinion pieces at the bottom and all other studies in between. Please note that I do not intend to rate the studies by their methodological rigor or quality. This means that if there are two RCT studies in one week, the one listed first is not necessarily a “better” study.
However, you should keep in mind that sometimes this hierarchy is not always “real.” For example, one diagram that shows the “hierarchy of evidence pyramid” in a new way can be seen below (full article found here https://ebm.bmj.com/content/21/4/125) in Figure 1.
Part A of Figure 1 shows the old version with straight lines implying that RCTs are always “better” than cohort studies or correlational studies. The authors propose a new metaphor (one with wavy lines) in part B of Figure 1 to show that sometimes, depending on the quality and methodological rigor of the study, a case-controlled cohort study might provide more evidence than a poorly designed RCT.
Figure 1. The proposed new evidence-based medicine pyramid. (A) The traditional pyramid. (B) Revising the pyramid: (1) lines separating the study designs become wavy (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), (2) systematic reviews are ‘chopped off’ the pyramid. (C) The revised pyramid: systematic reviews are a lens through which evidence is viewed (applied). From: Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, et al. New evidence pyramid. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2016;21:125-127 (https://ebm.bmj.com/content/21/4/125)
So, to finally answer the question I posed at the outset: If I were a practitioner, I would not put too much stock or importance in one single study (unless it is a well-designed RCT or meta-analysis). Rather, I would look at “bodies of research” or theories that have accumulated a lot of empirical/experimental evidence to support them. A website like the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) is a good place to start. Though it should be noted that the WWC has been criticized as being too strict, and sometimes not enough studies meet their requirements for synthesis. This is important because “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (Or, in other words, perhaps researchers never ran studies on intervention X, that doesn’t mean intervention X doesn’t work, just that no one tested it.)
Sorry this turned out to be long, but I didn’t want to oversimplify the science. I wanted to show why there isn’t one easy answer, and how I decided to tackle the issue in the newsletter going forward.
If you believe I have misstated something or have a better way of delineating which studies are more important for changing classroom practices please reach out to me (you can simply reply to this email and it will go directly to me).
-Neena