METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

            This is an experimental study with the purpose of assessing two different reading method treatments on first-grade students and determining the effects of these treatments within and among the two groups.  The method of instruction is the independent variable.  The dependent variable is the improvement scores of students, as measured by a pretest and posttest, on decoding, as measured by real word identification and nonsense word attack subtests, encoding (spelling ability and phonics points), and oral reading fluency skills.  The sample population includes four intact classrooms- two that will receive the intervention teaching methods and two that will not.  This chapter presents a restatement of the problem being studied, along with a restatement of the research questions and null hypotheses.  It also includes a description of the research design, the sample population, test instrument measurements and data treatment from those tests, as well as how the data from those tests is to be analyzed. The chapter concludes with a summary of the pilot study. 

Restatement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to determine whether and to what extent the decoding, encoding and oral reading fluency skills of first-grade students in a Bob Jones Academy reading program are affected depending upon one of two treatments of classroom instruction received:  (1) classroom reading program with no supplemental multisensory instruction or reinforcement, (2) classroom reading program supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher with additional classroom teacher reinforcement.  These students will be evaluated using a combination of researcher-created and professionally developed pretests and posttests to examine differences in achievement between the two groups in decoding abilities, which will be measured by word attack (nonsense words) and word identification (real words) subtests, as well as encoding abilities and oral reading fluency. 

Restatement of Research Questions

This study attempts to answer the following questions related to the addition of supplemental multisensory instruction aligned with the classroom reading curriculum:

1. Does supplemental multisensory instruction improve overall student performance in decoding, encoding and oral reading fluency of first-grade students as measured by a pretest and posttest?
2. Does supplemental multisensory instruction improve performance in decoding, encoding and oral reading fluency abilities of first-grade students in the bottom 50^th percentile of total reading scores, relative to their peers, on the Stanford Achievement Test within the first grade as measured by a pretest and posttest?
3. Does supplemental multisensory instruction improve performance in decoding, encoding and oral reading fluency abilities of first-grade students in the top 50^th percentile of total reading scores on the Stanford Achievement Test within the BJA first grade as measured by a pretest and posttest?

Restated Null Hypotheses

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the improvement scores on the decoding word identification (real word) subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between all first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group). 

Ho2: There is no significant difference in the improvement scores on the decoding word attack (nonsense word) subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between all first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho3: There is no significant difference in the improvement scores of words spelled correctly on the encoding subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between all first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho4: There is no significant difference in the improvement scores of phonics points on the encoding subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between all first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho5: There is no significant difference in the improvement scores on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between all first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho6: Among the bottom 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores on the decoding word identification (real word) subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho7: Among the bottom 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores on the decoding word attack (nonsense word) subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho8: Among the bottom 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores of words spelled correctly on the encoding subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher.

Ho9: Among the bottom 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores of phonics points on the encoding subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher.

Ho10: Among the bottom 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho11: Among the top 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores on the decoding word identification (real word) subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho12: Among the top 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores on the decoding word attack (nonsense word) subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only (control group) and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher (treatment group).

Ho13: Among the top 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores of words spelled correctly on the encoding subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher.

Ho14: Among the top 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores of phonics points on the encoding subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher.

Ho15: Among the top 50^th percentile of students, relative to their peers, within each BJA first grade class on the Stanford Achievement Test total reading scores, there is no significant difference in the improvement scores of DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency subtest, as measured by the pretest and posttest, between those first-grade students receiving classroom reading instruction only and first-grade students receiving classroom instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher instruction supplemented with a multisensory component taught by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teacher.

Acquisition of Permission

            Permission to conduct the study was secured via personal communication by Dr. Dan Barbrow, principal at the elementary school at Bob Jones Academy and Mrs. Patty Fitzgerald, the primary center (grades K4 through 2) supervisor. The four participating first grade teachers also consented to be a part of the study via personal communication.  A meeting was held between the researcher, administration, and teachers of the treatment groups in the spring of the 2012-2013 school year to discuss scheduling considerations and implementation of the study for the following year.  An outline of the study was given to each person with discussion on the potential timeline for the study to take place in the classrooms (see Appendix A- Dissertation Study Plan).  The researcher also described the multisensory techniques that would be used in the classrooms and how they relate to the current reading curriculum. The administration and participating teachers were all in agreement on the timeline and format of the intended study within the first-grade classrooms.  Dr. Barbrow asked the researcher, and the researcher agreed, to attend each first-grade open house meeting during the fall of the 2013-2014 school year to inform parents of the study.  During the open house, a brief explanation of the study was given describing the intention to measure student response to supplemental multisensory methods of phonics instruction added into the reading program.  Parents were assured that each child’s information would be kept anonymous and that there would not be any instruction taken away from the current curriculum as part of this study.  They were also informed of their right to opt their child out of the research-specific assessments by signing and returning the Request to Opt-Out of Research Study Assessments form (see Appendix B).             

Description and Selection of Population and Sample

            The sample population includes first-grade students in four classes at Bob Jones Academy in Greenville, South Carolina.  There are a total of four classes in the first-grade averaging between seventeen and twenty students per class with similar overall class averages on standardized achievement test scores.  The two treatment classes were chosen based on teacher-expressed interest in the integration of supplemental multisensory methods within the existing curriculum.  The other two first grade classes make up the control group. 

            The students in this study attend a Christian school that seeks to integrate a biblical worldview within all subject matter.  Bob Jones Academy has high standards for student conduct including respect, attentiveness, punctuality, and hard work.  While student demographics coupled with the school’s learning environment provide rich educational opportunities, the focus of this study is to examine the development of learning as a result of the experimental instructional intervention in relation to students without the experimental intervention.  All students begin with some level of background knowledge.  The purpose of this study is to determine the extent of progress from that initial knowledge base that is related to the intervention.  

Research Design

Methods within the Design

            “Experimental designs provide the strongest, most convincing arguments of the causal effect of the independent variable because they control for the most sources of internal validity” (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010, p. 278).  Within educational research, studies are often conducted on in-tact classes which limit some of the strength of the true experimental design due to the lack of randomization of subjects.  This research study is a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control design, using treatment and control groups, which is a strong alternative structure that controls for most sources of invalidity (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010).  The use of a pretest-posttest control design provides the advantage of measuring improvement that students gain as a result of the intervention.

All students within the sample population will be given four separate pretests and four separate posttests.  The pretests include two decoding subtests, one that assesses word identification and fluency using real words (word identification subtest), and one that assesses the ability to connect letter(s) with sounds by decoding nonsense words (word attack subtest); an encoding subtest that is measured in two parts: phonics points and words spelled correctly, and a subtest that assesses oral reading fluency (the DORF subtest).  The posttests will cover the three same areas of study—decoding, encoding and oral reading fluency—and will include the same types of tests but the tests themselves will be variations from the pretest in order to eliminate recognition of the words from the pretest.

This study includes one treatment group and one control group. The treatment group consists of two classes of first-grade students from Bob Jones Academy (BJA) and the control group consists of the other two classes of first-grade students.  The two classes within the control group will receive daily instruction from the BJ reading curriculum without any additional multisensory supplemental instruction.  The two classes within the treatment group will also be receiving daily instruction from the Bob Jones (BJ) reading curriculum that the researcher will then supplement with multisensory methods for 15-20 minutes, three times a week for 12 weeks. The classroom teachers in the treatment group will also reinforce the multisensory methods introduced by the researcher by using an implementation checklist with specific instructions as to methods and time frames for this reinforcement (see Appendix C).  All four classroom teachers will be covering the phonics skills in the order and within the time frame prescribed within the BJ reading curriculum scope and sequence. This will ensure that all four classes (treatment and control) are being taught the same lesson from the BJ reading curriculum on the same day. 

The researcher’s intervention involves supplementing the teaching of the phonics-curriculum concepts from the scope and sequence by using multisensory encoding and decoding instruction that includes a kinesthetic-tactile component.  Decoding instruction consists of drilling sounds, blending individual phonemes to form words, using finger-tapping and touching letter tiles as sounds are given, and reading words from word cards.  Encoding instruction consists of segmenting individual phonemes within words and correctly associating the letter(s) with these phonemes through kinesthetic-tactile methods of finger-tapping, writing, and forming letter tiles.

The classroom teacher will reinforce those methods that focus on both decoding and encoding and will include methods with a kinesthetic-tactile component as well by following the implementation checklist mentioned above (see Appendix C).  The decoding reinforcement activities will include working on individual grapheme-phoneme (letter-sound) correspondences through a daily drill of letters, their associated keywords, and the sounds they make.  Encoding will be reinforced by the teacher saying the word, students repeating and tapping out the sounds in the word and then writing the word either in the air or on a gel board.  A detailed description of the multisensory methods that will be used by the researcher and the classroom teachers is provided below in the “Description of Supplemental Multisensory Instruction.” 

Sample Population Confidentiality and Reliability of the Design

All student data will be kept confidential by assigning each student a code number that will be unknown to the researcher.  Records will be divided by class, and by upper and lower 50^th reading percentile within each class.  Since the DORF (oral reading fluency) subtest, the decoding word identification (real word) subtest and the decoding word attack (nonsense word) subtest must be assessed by the person administering the test as the test is proceeding, the researcher will not administer or score these tests in order to eliminate research bias.  Inter-rater reliability of these individually administered tests will be established through the pilot study.  The encoding subtest will be administered by the classroom teachers and directions will be given following a scripted format.  Because the actual scoring of the encoding subtest requires advanced knowledge of phonics concepts that will be taught during the study, the researcher will score each test.  However, prior to scoring, a separate evaluator will remove personal information from each individual test (ie. student names) and assign a code number that will be unknown to the researcher.  The separate evaluator will also keep a list as to which class (treatment or control) each test came from and those codes within each class that fall in the top 50^th reading percentile and the bottom 50^th reading percentile.  After all tests are scored, the separate evaluator will group each code number with its associated test score according to treatment or control group, and within those groups, according to which percentile (bottom 50^th or top 50^th on the Stanford Achievement Score) the code number belongs, for the researcher to analyze the data.  This process will help eliminate any research bias. 

The encoding subtest as well as the decoding word identification (real word) and decoding word attack (nonsense word) subtests were created by the researcher.  Test validity for each of these was confirmed by an expert panel of three experienced first grade teachers who have taught the same phonics concepts that will be covered in the study, as well as two reading professionals with advanced degrees who are teaching on the university level.  The split-halves method (even-odd) was also used to determine the reliability of the test.   

Description of Bob Jones Phonics and Reading Program

The Bob Jones 1^st grade reading program consists of six basal readers that increase in difficulty throughout the year.  The reading program also has a phonics curriculum that is aligned with the basal readers.  This phonics curriculum teaches students to identify the common phonograms, a letter or combination of letters that represent a sound, within words.  They use word families containing words that end in similar phonograms to help students practice identifying the similar phonogram and reinforcing the particular sound within words.  For example, after the phonogram –ick is taught, students will practice reading through words such as sick, tick, and lick.  Reinforcement includes reading through word family lists, completing worksheets, reading stories in the basal readers, and participating in learning center activities.

Description of Supplemental Multisensory Instruction

The multisensory instruction will follow a format similar to what is used in the Wilson Reading Series curriculum.  The researcher’s lessons, as well as the classroom teachers’ reinforcement lessons will be divided into two sections: encoding and decoding.  Encoding is the ability to hear a sound(s) and identify the appropriate letter(s) that matches the sound(s).  Decoding is the ability to recognize a letter(s) and identify the appropriate sound(s) that it makes. The difference between the methods used in this study and the Wilson method is that the sequence of skills directly relates to the basal readers in the BJ core classroom curriculum, as opposed to the Wilson method, which teaches these skills in a different order.  The goal is to help the students establish a better connection between sound and print through explicit and systematic multisensory instruction aligned with the classroom basal reading curriculum.  It is explicit in that student attention is focused on specific learning outcomes within a structured environment.  It is systematic in that skills are taught sequentially with each new concept building upon previously learned material.  Each of the researcher’s lessons will include one or more elements from the decoding sections and one or more elements from the encoding section and will be taught for the time frames listed beside the methods below.

The decoding section will consist of five elements:

1. Letter name and sound recognition (one minute). Students will give the name/keyword/ sound for each color-coded sound card that is shown.  These sounds will be introduced in the same order as those in the BJ Phonics curriculum.  Two formats for this skill instruction will be used.  First, students will go through a quick drill of the sound cards in the beginning of each lesson.  Second, the researcher will recite a letter(s) name to the students.  They will repeat the name and pull out the corresponding letter(s) tile(s) from their magnetic letter boards.
2. Blending sounds to form words (two minutes). In initial lessons, students segment sounds within a word using a finger-tapping procedure.  The researcher will use sound cards to spell a word on the dry-erase board that contains phonics skills from current and previous lessons.  Students will practice tapping out these sounds and reading the entire word. 
3. Reading Words (2-8 minutes depending on the activity) – Students read words containing word structure elements from current and previous lessons. Although students will go through a quick drill each day in order to apply knowledge of phonics rules to the reading of words, they will do a variety of other activities related to analyzing word structure using word cards.

The encoding section consists of three elements:

1. Letter name and sound recognition (in reverse) (two minutes)- The researcher gives the sound and students identify corresponding letter(s) using color-coded cards or tiles from their magnetic letter boards
2. Blending sounds to form words (in reverse) (five minutes)- The researcher will dictate three to five words (real or nonsense), containing phonics skills from current and previous lessons to the students. The students will repeat the word, tap out the sounds within that word, and pull out the corresponding letter tiles.
3. Written work (five to ten minutes)- This aspect of encoding instruction will be taught in two formats. First, the researcher will dictate three to five sounds that correspond to the phonics rules taught during the study, which focuses the instruction on letter-sound association. Students will repeat the sound and write the letters for these sounds.  Second, the researcher will dictate to the students three to five words containing phonics skills from current and previous lessons in order to analyze word structure.   The students will repeat the word, tap out the sound within that word, and write the word on a dry-erase board, composition paper, or gel board.

Test Instruments and Data Collection

 Overview of Pre- and Posttests

As discussed in the research design section above, the format for the pretest-posttest instrument is divided into three categories: decoding, encoding, and oral reading fluency.  The pretests and posttests are alternate forms in order to reduce the possibility of students remembering content from one test to another.  Reliability for the alternate forms was established through the split halves method (even-odd).  The pretest-posttest design will be used for two purposes.  First, it is used to determine a baseline level of knowledge for each child’s decoding, encoding, and oral reading fluency skills.  This information will be used to calculate the level of improvement that is gained in a posttest score comparison. Second, it is used to determine within-group variances based on the variables listed in the null hypotheses.  

Decoding subtests. To assess decoding skills, the researcher developed a word identification subtest and a word attack subtest.  The purpose for choosing a researcher-developed test is to provide a more precise assessment of student mastery of the specific classroom curriculum phonics skills that will be taught during the study.  Words are placed in order according to when they were covered in the study.  Therefore, the first few words on the test contain phonics rules that will be covered in the beginning of the study.  Likewise, the last few words contained phonics rules that will be covered at the end of the study. 

            Word identification subtest.  The word identification subtest involves the student’s timed ability to decode isolated, commonly understood (real) words (see Appendix E).  Measurement of a student’s isolated word knowledge can be considered a reliable indicator of a student’s oral reading rate.  Morris et al. (2010) conducted a study to test the validity of timed word recognition assessments in predicting oral reading rate.  The results showed a significant prediction for second graders’ oral reading abilities (p ˂ .05).  In the present study, the researcher-created word identification subtest contains words with the phonics skills that will be taught progressively throughout the study.

            Evaluation of word identification subtest responses. Students will be evaluated by the number of complete words read correctly within a one-minute time sample.  If the student hesitates more than 3 seconds, the evaluator will score the word as incorrect and instruct the student to read the next word.

Word attack (nonsense word) subtest.  The word attack subtest measures the student’s ability to decode nonsense words (see Appendix E).  The word attack subtest is a critically important method of testing decoding ability because it forces students to rely upon their understanding and application of the phonics rules, they have been taught in order to sound out the words.  Since the student is completely unfamiliar with these words, they cannot rely on sight or previous familiarity of those words in the process of decoding.  The ability, then, to translate nonsense words into sounds “indicates the presence of a unique process for recognizing printed forms-that is, assembling the pronunciation of a letter string by applying knowledge of typical correspondences between grapheme units and sounds” (Schrank, Wendling, & Woodcock, 2008, p. 26).  This researcher-created subtest will be similar in format to the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELS) Nonsense Word Fluency subtest.  Established reliability for this DIBELS subtest for first grade is .83.  The criterion-validity of the DIBELS NWF with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised Readiness Cluster scores is .59 for the middle of first grade (Good & Kaminski, 2002).

            Evaluation of word attack (nonsense word) subtest responses.  According to the DIBELS scoring guidelines, the benchmark goal for middle first-grade students is 50 correct letter sounds per minute.  In this researcher-created subtest, students will be presented with a list of nonsense words containing phonics rules that for the pretest, have not yet been taught but will be during the course of the study, and, for the posttest, have been taught during the study.  The students will be asked to verbally produce the individual letter sound (or letter clusters) or read the entire nonsense word.  For example, if the student is presented with the word “lin” the student could say /l/ /i/ /n/, or say the word “lin” and receive credit for all three sounds (3/3).  On the evaluator’s form, each word is color-coded according to the number of phonemes in that particular word (see Appendix D). Scores are based on whether the student correctly sounded out each phoneme in that word; and thus, partial creditcan also be awarded for each word.  Similar to the previous example of the nonsense word “lin,” if the student pronounces it as /l/ /i/ /m/, then the student only receives credit for identifying the /l/ and /i/ sounds and receives a score of 2/3.   After one-minute, the evaluator will place a line under the last word read within that time sample, but each student will read until either the whole list has been read or a ceiling of five consecutive wrong answers (measured by incorrect reading of the nonsense word) is reached, whichever comes first. This enables the researcher to evaluate the timed reading of nonsense words and measure the level of decoding ability according to the phonics skills that are covered within this list.  Five consecutive wrong answers is a common stopping point for diagnostic evaluations such as the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test and the Brigance Diagnostic Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills (Woodcock, 2011; Brigance, 1999).  Insertions and self-corrections are ignored.  Hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as incorrect.  The total amount of phonemes in each word for the entire test will be tabulated and student scores will reflect how many phonemes were correctly identified.

Validity and reliability of decoding (word identification and word attack) subtests.  The researcher-created decoding subtests were reviewed by a panel of three experts in the field of lower elementary reading in order to establish the tests’ validity.  Everyone on this panel has taught these BJ phonics rules from the reading curriculum for over 8 years and is knowledgeable in her understanding of the phonics rules contained in the words within these decoding subtests.  Because the researcher is supplementing and the classroom teachers are reinforcing phonics concepts that are already being taught with the current curriculum, the words on these decoding assessments contain the same phonics rules that are addressed in the BJ Reading curriculum scope and sequence.  It is important to note that standards in this curriculum are aligned in similar format with state and national standards.  According to the BJ Press website,

BJ Press has consulted national and state standards when developing new textbooks and revising previous editions.  Many BJU Press textbooks include charts that illustrate our adherence to national standards wherever possible.  We often consult the standards from the “big three” states- Florida, California, and Texas- in addition to consulting standards from other states who are viewed highly for their standards in a particular content area

(p. 1). 

The panel has compared each word in these decoding subtests with the BJ Reading curriculum scope and sequence to confirm that the assessments will cover those skills taught during the study.  Consistency of measurement reliability for all subtests will be established through its administration to ten first-grade students.  A separate split-halves method will be conducted on both alternate forms and compared to determine content reliability of both tests.  Data analyses will be conducted using SPSS software, and Spearman Brown Coefficient will be used to determine the correlation coefficient.

Encoding subtest. The second category of evaluation involves a measurement of encoding ability (see Appendix F).  Encoding, which is very similar to spelling, requires the ability to discern language by segmenting sounds (phonemes) and translating them to letters (graphemes).  The Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement (WJ III) evaluates student ability to map sounds to letters through an encoding (spelling) test containing nonsense words.  The difference between the WJ III and the researcher-created subtest will be that real words will be used for the researcher-created encoding subtest, and they will only contain phonics rules taught during the study.  Each encoding test will be administered by the classroom teachers.  Student response sheets will be collected by an alternate evaluator and assigned a code number that is unknown to the researcher to prevent possible bias during researcher-scoring of student results. Similar to the word identification and word attack subtests, encoding pretest and posttest will be alternate forms evaluating the same skills.

Evaluation of encoding subtest responses. Because systematic and explicit multisensory language instruction involves the study of word patterns and the reciprocal relationship between decoding and encoding (Weiser, 2010), the following format for the encoding evaluation form was chosen to reflect this understanding.  The researcher created a table similar in format to the Words Their Way Elementary Spelling Inventory (Bear et al., 2008) that will evaluate students’ abilities to spell each word correctly and their knowledge of word patterns that are taught during the study. 

In the same way as the Words their Way evaluation form, the researcher-created evaluation form assesses student understanding of phoneme-grapheme relationships using invented and developmental spelling knowledge.  It does so by separating each word into its individual phonemic components.  These phonemic components, which correspond with the phonics and spelling skills that are to be taught during the study, are placed on a grid across the top of the form.  Evaluation will consist of the following letter- sound association skills and understanding of the following spelling rules: beginning sounds, short vowels, final sounds, blends, digraphs, glued sounds, long vowels, diphthongs, consonant-le sounds, suffixes, doubled consonants, soft c/soft g, r-controlled, and trigraphs.  Student scores are separated into two separate components on this test.  The first component consists of words that are spelled correctly.  The second component consists of the individual phonemic elements within each word (called “phonics points” on the subtest).  Students may be given credit for applying the correct phonics rule to the word even if the word is spelled incorrectly.  For example, the word “fight” contains three separate phonemic components: /f/, /ī/, /t/.  The student can receive full phonics points credit for spelling this word as “fight” or “fite” because correct phonics rules are being used to spell the word. 

Validity and reliability of encoding subtest.  According to Pearson Instructional Resources (2013), the Words Their Way spelling program is now listed as part of an “Instructional Intervention Tool on the National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) website” (p. 1).  Sterbinsky (2007) conducted a study to determine validity and reliability for the elementary-age version of Words Their Way Spelling Inventory, which is similar in format to the researcher-created encoding subtest.  Eight hundred sixty-two students were evaluated.  According to Sterbinsky (2007), “examination of the internal consistency of the instrument yielded an overall reliability coefficient of .915 (Cronbach’s alpha)” (p. 9).  Test-retest reliabilities ranged from .931 to .974 and were statistically significant at the p˂.001 level. 

Validity for the researcher-created test and evaluation form was established by the same expert panel of three professionals in the field of lower elementary reading that reviewed the decoding subtest.  Each word on the pretest and its variation on the posttest and the scoring guidelines for those words on the evaluation form were carefully compared to the word study skills that are covered in the BJ Reading curriculum scope and sequence to determine that skills assessed are those that will be taught during the study. The encoding subtest pretest and posttest will be administered by the classroom teachers.  Directions will be administered following a scripted format similar to the recommendations of the Words Their Way scripted instructions (see Appendix M). Because the actual scoring of the encoding subtest requires advanced knowledge of phonics concepts that will be taught during the study, the researcher will score each test. 

Prior to scoring, a separate evaluator will remove personal information (i.e., student names) from each individual test and assigned a code number that will be unknown to the researcher.  The separate evaluator will keep a list as to the assigned code number for each student, and whether the student was in the treatment or control group.    During the scoring process, the researcher will not know whether the test came from the treatment group or the control group.  After all tests are scored and prior to data analysis by the researcher, the separate evaluator will group each code number with its associated test score according to treatment or control group, and within those groups, whether each student was in the bottom 50^th or the top 50^th percentile relative to their peers on the Stanford Achievement Reading Test..  This process helps to eliminate any research bias.  Consistency of measurement reliability for the subtest will be established through its administration to ten first-grade students.  Separate split-halves method will be conducted on both pretest and the alternate-form posttest and compared to determine reliability of both tests.  Data analyses will be conducted using SPSS software, and Spearman Brown Correlation Coefficient will be used to determine the correlation coefficient.

Oral Reading Fluency Subtest.  The third category of evaluation involves a measurement of each student’s ability to accurately decode (read) connected text.  With application to reading, the skill most often measured to indicate reading proficiency is oral reading fluency.  A reliable indicator of student reading fluency is the assessment of how many words are read correctly in a one-minute oral reading sample (Deno, 1982; Morris et al., 2010; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999).  The posttest reading sample will be a variation on the pretest reading sample, testing the same phonics skills that have been covered during the study. 

            Evaluation of the oral reading fluency subtest assessment. Students will be assessed in this format using the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) assessment, which is a standardized, individually administered test of accuracy and fluency of connected text.  The DORF assessment will measure how well a student reads aloud a passage for a one-minute period.  All omissions, substitutions, and hesitations of more than three seconds will be considered errors.  Self-corrections within three seconds are considered accurate.  The oral reading rate is the number of words read correctly from the passage in one-minute.  Each student will read three passages.  Each passage will be read for one-minute and scored separately.  The average of the three scores will be taken as the student’s oral reading fluency ability. 

Validity and reliability of oral reading fluency subtest. DORF assessments are modeled after the Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) of reading, which is a form of progress monitoring assessments.  These tests use a prescriptive form of measurement procedures (Stecker, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005) and are used to assess student progress towards end of the year skills rather than the short-term objectives that the student has learned.  The DORF has twenty alternate oral reading fluency passages for first grade.  Test-retest reliabilities of CBM reading measures using alternate forms of different reading passages assessing the same level ranged from .89 to .94.  Additionally, eight different studies using DORF CBM reading measures reported coefficients ranging from .52 to .91 (Good & Kaminski, 2002). 

Validity was established by testing the readability estimates.  The Spache readability estimate was used to “revise and refine reading passages…because a second-grade analysis of the relation between readability formulas and empirical pattern of children’s reading found the most support for the SPACHE formula” (Good & Kaminski, 2002, p. 2).  Therefore, using this readability formula, alternate form passages were revised and refined to precisely measure fluency of skills to be taught during the study. 

Data Analysis of Study Assessments

An analysis of data will be conducted during the spring of the 2013-2014 school year, following the intervention study in the classrooms.  Pretest and posttest assessments for the encoding will be scored by the researcher, while pretest and posttest assessments for the decoding word identification, word attack, and oral reading fluency subtests will be scored by two separate evaluators.  Student scores on the Word Identification subtest will be calculated by the total number of words read within a one-minute time sample.  Student scores on the encoding skills subtest components, “words spelled correctly” and “phonics points” will be calculated using the evaluation guide established by the researcher (see Appendix F).  Student scores on the DORF will be calculated by the answer key established by the instrument.  The data will be entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical software.  Parametric statistical procedures will be used to analyze data and test the null hypotheses. 

Content validity for the word attack, word identification, and encoding researcher-created subtests, was created using the Spearman Brown Coefficient.  An Independent T test for null hypotheses one through five, was used to determine significant difference in improvement scores between the pre- and posttest assessment on group means for the word identification, word attack, encoding, and oral reading fluency evaluations. 

Pilot Study

            A pilot study has been performed in order to determine appropriate reliability of instrument measures and to test statistical analysis procedures for measuring student differences.  The independent variable was the teaching methods and included two levels: (classroom curriculum reading instruction only for the control group and classroom curriculum reading instruction supplemented with multisensory instruction by the researcher and reinforced by the classroom teachers for the treatment group).  The dependent variable was improvement scores from pretest to posttest on the following four subtests: word identification, word attack, encoding, and oral reading fluency. The pilot study included the improvement scores on each of the four subtests from 10 first-grade students, five of which were in the treatment group and five of which were in the control group. 

Reliability for Researcher-Created Subtests

Content reliability.    Statistical correlation coefficients were run for the three researcher-created subtests used in the pilot study: word identification, word attack, and encoding.  Because each subtest had an alternate form, data was analyzed on both pretest and posttest for each of these three subtests.  According to Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs (2003) the rule of thumb is .70 – .90 for ‘high positive correlation’ and .90 + for ‘very high positive correlation’ when establishing content reliability.  The data analysis of the Spearman Brown Coefficient yielded .875 for the pretest and .950 for the posttest indicating strong content reliability (see Appendix G).  The data analysis for the word attack subtests yielded .882 for the pretest and .845 for the posttest, which also indicates acceptable content reliability (see Appendix H).  The data analysis for the encoding subtests yielded .845 for the pretest and .752 for the posttest (see Appendix I).  Therefore, content validity was established for all three researcher-created subtests.

Inter-rater reliability.  Two evaluators conducted the study assessments for three of the subtests: word identification, word attack, and oral reading fluency.  Statistical correlation was conducted using Interclass Correlation Coefficient in SPSS.  Average measures for the word identification pretest were 0.980 and the posttest was 0.995 (see Appendix J).  Average measures for the word attack pretest were 0.997 and the posttest was 0.996 (see Appendix K).  Average measures for the oral reading fluency pretest were 0. 997 and the posttest was 0.999 (see Appendix L).  According to Landis and Koch (1977), 0.81-1.0 is an ‘almost perfect’ agreement. Therefore, inter-rater reliability for all three subtests was established through the pilot study.

Data Analysis for the Pilot Study

            An analysis of the data for the word identification subtest indicated that there was no significant difference in the constructed mean scores for the two groups: treatment and control (see Appendix O).  However, the equality of means approached significance at 0.58. The null hypothesis stating there was no significant difference between the treatment and control group in decoding word identification skills was accepted. The word attack subtest yielded a .0140 (see Appendix P).  Therefore, the null hypothesis stating there was no significant difference between the treatment and control group in decoding word attack was also accepted.  Analysis of the encoding data also revealed no significant differences between the two groups.  The encoding test words spelled correctly component yielded 0.18 and the phonics points’ component yielded 0.158 (see Appendix Q).  Both null hypotheses stating there were no significant differences between the two groups in encoding skills were accepted.  The oral reading fluency test (see yielded a 0.139 indicating there was no significant difference between the two groups (see Appendix R).  The null hypothesis stating there was no significant difference between the two groups in oral reading fluency skills was accepted. All statistical analyses were set at the .05 level of significance and equal variances were assumed for each subtest. 

Sample Size for Study

Four factors must be considered when determining sample size: the level of significance, the power of the test, the standardized effect size, and the treatment levels.  Using table C.12. from Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, (2003, p. 654) the following values were used to establish sample size for this dissertation study: 

• The level of significance (α)= .05
• The power of the test = .80 (4:1 ratio of β to α; β = .20)
• The standardized effect size= 1.0 σ²
• Treatment levels (k)= 3

The appropriate sample size for this study would be a minimum of 20 students. 

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Alexander, A., & Slinger-Constant, A. M. (2004). Current status of treatments for dyslexia: Critical review. Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10), 744-758.

Allor, J. H. (2002). The relationships of phonemic awareness and rapid naming to reading development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 47-57.

American Psychological Association. (2013). Single parenting and today’s family. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/single-parent.aspx

Anthony, J. L., Williams, J. M., McDonald, R., Corbett-Shindler, D., Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Phonological processing and emergent literacy in Spanish-speaking preschool children. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 239-270.

Assumption. (2013). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from http:www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption

Badian, N. (1998). The prediction of good and poor reading before kindergarten entry: A 9-year follow-up. Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 98-123.

Badian, N. (1998). The prediction of good and poor reading before kindergarten entry: a 9-year follow-up. Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 98-123.

Baker, M. (2010). The impact of socioeconomic status on high-stakes testing reexamined. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.readingperiodicals.com/201009/2179884861.html

Barajas, M. S. (2011). Academic achievement of children in single parent homes: A critical review. The Hilltop Review, 13-21. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=hilltopreview

Basabara, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). Examining reading comprehension: Do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 349-379. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9372-9

Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling (5th) [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from pdtoolkit.wtw5e.pearsoncmg.com/…files/ESI%20Feature%Guide_0.pdf

Bentin, S. (1992). Phonological awareness, reading, and reading acquisition: A survey and appraisal of current knowledge (SR-111). Retrieved from Haskins Laboratories Report on Speech Research: http://www.haskins.yale,edu/sr/SR111_13.pdf

Bhat, P. W., Rapport, M. J., & Griffin, C. C. (2000). A legal perspective on the use of specific reading methods for students with learning disabilities. Education Full Text, 23(4), 283-297. doi:10.2307/1511350

Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a one-year follow up. Journal of Education Psychology, 96(3), 444-461. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Blake, J. (1989). In Family size and achievement. Retrieved from http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft6489p0rr/

Booth, J., & Burman, D. (2001). Developmental and disorders of neurocognitive systems for oral language and reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(3), 205-215. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Brattesam, K. A., Weinstein, R. S., & Marshall, H. H. (1984). Student perceptions of differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectation effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 236-247.

Brigance, A. H. (1999). Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills (Revised) [Measurement instrument]. Oceanside, CA: Curriculum Associates.

Brunswick, N., McCrory, E., Price, C. J., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (1999). Explicit and implicit processing of words and pseudowords by adult developmental dyslexics: A search for wernicke’s Wortschatz? Brain, 122, 1901-1917. Retrieved from http://www.drru-research.org/data/resources/30/Brunsick-et-al-1999.pdf

Campbell, M. L. (2004). Effects of adding multisensory components to a supplemental reading program on the decoding skills of treatment resisters (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace.

Chapman, M. (2012). Phonemic awareness: Clarifying what we know. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 7(1-2), 91-114. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Retrieved from Learning Skills and Research Center: http://sxills.nl/lerenlerennu/bronnen/Learning%20styles%20by%20Coffield%20e.a.pdf

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Coleman, J. S. (1998). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Conderman, G., & Strobel, D. (2006). Problem solving with guided oral reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(1), 34-39. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Cummings, K., Kaminski, R., Roland, H., Good, L., & O’Neil, M. (2010). Assessing phonemic awareness in preschool and kindergarten: Development and initial validation of first sound fluency. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(2), 94-106. doi:10.1177/1534508410392209

Dahl, M. (2011). Multisensory approaches to teaching reading: A neurodevelopmental review. Retrieved from http://centerforneuraldevelopment.com/files/3870462/uploaded/MultisensoryApproachestoTeachingReading.pdf

DeFries, J. C., & Alarcon, M. (1996). Genetics of specific reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2, 39-47.

DeGarmo, D. S., Forgatch, M. S., & Martinez, C. R. (1999). Parenting of divorced mothers as a link between social status and boys’ academic outcomes: Unpacking the effects of socioeconomic status. Child Development, 70, 1231-1245.

Deno, S. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49(1), 36-45. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Deutsch, G. K., Dougherty, R. F., Bammer, R., Siok, W. T., Gabrieli, J. D., & Wandell, B. (2005). Children’s reading performance is correlated with white matter structure measured by diffusion tensor imaging. Cortex, 41, 354-363.

Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. S. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book reading on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104-122.

Downey, D. B. (2001). Number of siblings and intellectual development: The resource dilution explanation. American Psychologist, 56(6-7), 497-504.

Entwisle, D., & Alexander, K. (1996). Family type and children’s growth in reading and math over the primary grades. Journal of Marriage & Family, 58(2), 341-355.

Fisher, S. E., & DeGries, J. C. (2002). Developmental dyslexia: Genetic dissection of a complex cognitive train. Neuroscience, 3, 767-780.

Foy, J. G., & Mann, V. A. (2006). Changes in letter sound knowledge are associated with development of phonological awareness in preschool children. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2), 143-161. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00279.x.

Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Reading and the brain: What early childhood educators need to know. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 103-110. doi:10.1007/s10643-010-0387-s

Friesen, A., & Butera, G. (2012). “You introduce all of the alphabet….but I do not think it should be the main focus”: Exploring early educators’ decisions about reading instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(6), 361-368. doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0530-0

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28, 659-671.

Fuchs, D., Compton, D., Fuchs, L., Bryant, J., Hamlett, C., & Lambert, W. (2012). First grade cognitive abilities as long-term predictors of reading comprehension and disability status. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 216-231. doi:10.1177/0022219412442154

Galaburda, A. M., Rosen, G. D., & Sherman, G. F. (1990). Individual variability in cortical organization: Its relationship to brain laterality and implications to function. Neuropsychology, 28, 529-546.

Gelbrich, J. (1999). American education: Colonial America. Foundational Perspectives in Education. Retrieved from http://catalog.oregonstate.edu/CourseDetail.aspx?subjectcode=TCE&coursenumber=416

Gombert, J. E. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning to read: Implication as for subtypes of dyslexia. Current Psychology Letters, 1, 1-8. Retrieved from http://cpl.revues.org/202

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Administration and Scoring Guide for Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th) [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/materials/admin_and_scoring_6th_ed.pdf

Goswami, U. (2003). Early phonological development and the acquisition of literacy. In Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 111-125). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Developmental dyslexia: An update on genes, brains, and environment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 91-125.

Hazelrigg, A. (2008). Second language reading research: A critical review. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database. (ED502487)

Heim, S., & Keil, A. (2004). Large-scale neural correlates of developmental dyslexia. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 13, 125-140.

Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P. D., & Nagy, W. E. (1987). Incidental acquisition of word meanings from expositions with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-284.

Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Retrieved from http://www.cuc.edu.ve/upc/PNFT/INGLES/Teaching_and_Learning_Vocabulary.pdf

Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hooks, P., & Jones, S. (2002). The importance of automaticity and fluency for efficient reading comprehension. Perspective, 28(1), 9-14.

Hudson, R., High, L., & Al Otaiba, S. (2007). Dyslexia and the brain: What does current research tell us? Reading Teacher, 60(6), 506-515. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Institute of Educational Sciences. (2010). Orton-Gillingham-based Strategies (Unbranded). Retrieved from http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_orgongill_070110.pdf

International Dyslexia Association. (2007). What Are the Signs of Dyslexia. Retrieved from http://interdys.org/SignsofDyslexiaCombined.htm

International Dyslexia Association. (2009). Multisensory structured language teaching [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from International Dyslexia Association: Retrieved from http://www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/MSLTeaching.pdf

International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council. (2013). Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education for students with dyslexia and related disorders. Retrieved from IMSLEC: http://www.imslec.org/imslec.asp

International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council. (2013). Multisensory structured language: Content and principles of instruction. Retrieved from http://www.imslec.org/directory.asp?action=instruction

International Reading Association. (1998). Phonemic awareness and the teaching of reading: A position statement from the board of directors of the international reading association [Position statement]. Retrieved from www.reading.org

Israel, G. D., Beaulieu, L. J., & Hartless, G. (2001). The influence of family and community social capital on educational achievement. Rural Sociology, 66(1), 43-68.

Janzen, J., & Stoller, F. L. (1998). Integrating strategic reading in L2 instruction. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12(1), 251-269. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Klingberg, T., Hedehus, M., Temple, E., Salz, T., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2000). Microstructure of tempo-parietal white matter as a basis for reading ability: Evidence from diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neuron, 25(2), 493-500.

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.

Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172-192.

Lehr, F., Osborn, J., & Hiebert, E. H. (2003). A Focus on Vocabulary. Research-Based Practices in Early Reading Series. Retrieved from http://vineproject.ucsc.edu/resources/A%20Focus%20on%20Vocabulary%20PREL.pdf

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Retrieved from Wallace Foundation: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf

Leonard, C. M., Eckert, M. A., Lombardino, L. J., Oakland, T., Kranzler, J., Mohr, C. M., Freeman, A. (2001). Anatomical risk factors for phonological dyslexia. Cerebral Cortex, 11(2), 148-157. doi:10.1093/cercor/11.2.148

Lundberg, I. (2009). Development and aging: Early precursors and enabling skills of reading acquisition. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(6), 611-616. doi:10.111/j.1467-9450.2009.00778.x

Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1-14. Retrieved from EBSCO ERIC database

Manganaro, S. (2011). The effects of adding a multisensory component to spelling instruction for primary grade student with disabilities (Masters’ thesis). Retrieved from http://www.caldwell.edu/

Marullis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300-335. doi:10.3102/0034654310377087

McClelland, J. (1989). Gillingham: Contemporary after 76 years. Annals of Dyslexia, 49(), 3-49.

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Miller-Shaul, S. (2005). The characteristics of young and adult dyslexic readers on reading and reading-related cognitive tasks as compared to normal readers. Dyslexia, 11(2), 132-151. doi:10.1002/dys.290

Molfese, V., DiLalla, L., & Brunce, D. (1997). Prediction of the intelligence test scores of 3-to 8-year-old children by home environment, socioeconomic status, and biomedical risks. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 219-234.

Moore, Q., & Schmidt, L. (2004). Do maternal investments in human capital affect children’s academic achievement? Retrieved from http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/schmidtmoore_schmidt.pdf

Morris, D., Trathen, W., Lomax, R., Perney, J., Kucan, L., Frye, E. M., Schlagal, R. (2010). Modeling aspects of print-processing skill: Implications for reading assessment. Reading and Writing, 25(1), 189-215. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9253-z

Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning. Urban Education, 34(3), 292-337.

Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal of Education Psychology, 67, 259-370. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). National household education survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/research/summaries/abstract/58

National Institute for Literacy. (2002). Research building blocks of teaching children to read: Put reading first (kindergarten through grade 3). Retrieved from lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/PRFbooklet.pdf

National Reading Panel. (2000). Five components of reading instruction: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.scsk12.org/SCS/subject-areas/kweb/images/NationalReadingPanel_FAQ.pdf

National Reading Panel. (2002). National reading panel report: Teaching children to read [Policy brief]. Retrieved from www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/summary.htm

Negin, G. A. (1991). A multisensory supplement to reading instruction. Clearing House, 64(6). Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Nicolson, R., & Fawcett, A. (1999). Developmental dyslexia: The role of the cerebellum. Dyslexia, 5(3), 1999. Retrieved from from ERIC EBSCO database

Noble, K. G., Farah, M. J., & McCandliss, B. D. (2006). Socioeconomic background modulates cognition-achievement relationships in reading. Cognitive Development, 21, 349-368. Retrieved from http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~mfarah/Development-Reading.pdf

O’Connor, J. & Wilson, B. (1995). Effectiveness of the Wilson reading system used in public school training. In McIntyre, C. & Pickering, J. (eds.) 1995. Clinical Studies of Multisensory Structured Language Education. Salem, OR: International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council.

Orton, S. (1925). Word blindness in school children. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 14(5), 285-516.

Paracchini, S., Scerri, T., & Monaco, A. (2007). The genetic lexicon of dyslexia. Annual Review Genomics Human Genetics. 8, 57-79.

Pearson Instructional Resources. (2013). Retrieved fromhttp://www.pearsonschool.com/indes.cfm?locator=PSZs84&PMDbSiteID=2781&PMDbProgramId=82341

Petrilli, M. J. (2011). All Together Now? Educationnext, 11(1). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/all-together-now/

Petropoulos, C. (2012). Teaching reading: The contribution of multisensory training to the knowledge and thinking of first-grade teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Pliszka, S. R. (2004). Neuroscience for the mental health clinician. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=1XC3ToCFxjYC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=loop+%20between%20Wernicke%20and%20Broca%20and%20reading&f=false

Pong, S. (1997). Family structure, school context, and eight grade math and reading achievement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(3), 734-746.

Raschle, N. (2011). Structural brain alterations associated with dyslexia predate reading onset. NeuroImage, 57(3), 742-749. doi:10.1016j.neuroimage.2010.09.055

Response to Intervention. (2012). The ABC’s of RTI in elementary school: A guide for families [policy brief]. Retrieved from National Center on Response to Intervention: http://www.rti4success.org/

Richards, C., Pavri, S., Golez, F., Canges, R., & Murphy, J. (2007). Response to intervention: Building the capacity of teachers to serve students with learning difficulties. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 55-64. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Ritchey, K., & Goeke, J. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of literature. Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 171-183. Retrieved from EBSCO ERIC database

Roth, F., Troia, A., Worthington, C., & Handy, D. (2006). Promoting awareness of sounds in speech (pass): The effects of intervention and stimulus characteristics on the blending performance of preschool children with communication impairments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 64-68. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Scarborough, H. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 115-136.

Scheffel, D. L., Shaw, J. C., & Shaw, R. (2008). The efficacy of a supplemental multisensory reading program for first-grade students. Retrieved from http://www.orton-gillingham.net/greeley_research.pdf

Schrank, F. A., Wendling, B. J., & Woodcock, R. W. (2008). Manual and Checklists. Woodcock Interpretation and Instructional Interventions Program [Measurement instrument]. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Scott, M. E., DeRose, L. F., Lippman, L. H., & Cook, E. (2013). Children’s living arrangements and educational outcomes around the world. Retrieved from World Family Map: http://worldfamilymap.org/2013/articles/essay/two-one-or-no-parents

Semingson, P. (2011, January 1). Phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and phonics [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McJldlFIpC8

Share, D., Jorm, A., Maclean, R., Matthews, R., & Waterman, B. (1983). Early reading achievement, oral language ability, and a child’s home background. Australian Psychologist, 18, 75-87. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K. R., Menci, W. E., Fulbright, R. K., & Skuklarski, P. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 101-110.

Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1301-1309.

Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2007). What neuroscience really tells us about reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 74-76. Retrieved from EBSCO ERIC database

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.

Snowling, M., & Stackhouse, J. (2001). In Dyslexia, speech, and language a practitioner’s handbook: Whurr Pub.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Mathew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-347.

Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measures to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in Schools, 42(8), 795-819.

Sterbinsky, A. (2007). Words Their Way Spelling Inventories: Reliability and Validity Analyses. Retrieved from Center for Research in Education Policy: https://rti.pearsoned.com/docs/RTIsite/Reliability_and_Validation_Study_Report.pdf

Stewart, E. (2011). The impact of systematic multisensory phonics instructional design on the decoding skills of struggling readers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PROQUEST database

Stoodley, C., & Stein, J. (2013). Cerebellar function in developmental dyslexia. Cerebellum, 12(2), 267-276. doi:10.1007/s12311-012-0407-1

Sutherland, M. J., & Smith, C. D. (1991). Assessing literacy problems in mainstream school: A critique of three literacy screening tests. Educational Review, 43(1), 39-49. Retrieved from EBSCO ERIC database

The Learning Point. (2004). A closer look at the five essential components of effective reading instruction: A review of scientifically based reading research for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org/search/?cx=008073105100398762841%3A8rzki1bfp88&cof=FORID%3A11&q=reading+comprehension&sa=

Torgesen, J. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55-64.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., Conway, T., & Rose, E. (2001a). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 35-58.

Tracey, D. H., & Young, J. W. (2002). Mothers’ helping behaviors during children’s at-home oral reading practice: Effects of children’s reading ability, children’s gender, and mothers’ educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 729-737. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Trepanier, K. (2009). The effectiveness of the orton gillingham instructional program when used in conjunction with a basal reading program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Turan, F., & Gozde, G. (2008). Early precursor of reading: Acquisition of phonological awareness skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 279-284. Retrieved from ERIC EBSCO database

Underwood, V. (2010). The effect of guided reading instruction on reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PROQUEST database

Vagi, S. (2007). Socioeconomic status and achievement in math and reading in kindergarten through elementary school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PROQUEST database

Vellutino, F., Fletcher, J., Snowling, M., & Scanlon, D. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40.

Weiser, B. L. (2010). Examining the synergistic relationship of encoding and decoding instruction and its effect on first graders struggling with reading (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PROQUEST database

What works clearinghouse: Students with learning disabilities. (2010). Retrieved from EBSCO ERIC database

White, K. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461-481.

White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 281-290.

Wiig, E., & Menyuk, P. (2004). Components of language and reading instruction [Supplemental material]. In P. Popp (Comp.), Reading on the go! Volume 1: Students who are highly mobile and reading instruction (Ch. 5). Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina.

Williams, F. (2009). The effects of multisensory phonics and visualization interventions on struggling readers’ word identification, fluency, and comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PROQUEST database

Wilson, B. A. (1989). Wilson reading system. In Instructor manual. Milbury, Ma: Wilson Language Training.

Wilson, D. (2011). Successful educational leadership at high performing schools. US-China Education Review, 8(3), 393-398.

Wilson Language Series. (2010). The Wilson History. Retrieved from http://www.wilsonlanguage.com/history2.asp

Wise, J., Sevcik, R., Morris, R., Lovett, M., Wolf, M., Kuhn, M., Schwanenflugel, P. (2010). The relationship between different measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension in second-grade students who evidence difference oral reading fluency difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services and Schools, 41(3), 340-348. doi:10.1044/0161-1461

Woodcock, R. W. (2011). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (3rd) [Measurement instrument]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Woodward, M., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2009). Reading intervention models: Challenges of classroom support and separated instruction. Reading Teacher, 63(3), 190-200. doi:10.1598/RT.63.3.2

Yang, Y. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies. Reading Psychology, 27, 313-343. doi:10.1080/02702710600846852

[ca. 1853]. The Old Deluder Act (1647). Unpublished manuscript, Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (1853), II: 203, Massachusetts Bay, MA.