Advances in Contemporary Reading Instruction: HOW ...

Advances in Contemporary Reading Instruction:HOW BRAINSPRING PROGRAMS CREATE SKILLED READERS

Research Division, Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy (CReATE) and Laurel Wagner, Vice President, Brainspring

WHITE PAPER 2020

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan

http://brainspring.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 Introduction

5 The Science of Reading

8 Effective Reading Instruction

10 Dyslexia

11 Middle and Secondary School Students with Reading Deficits

12 The Phonics First ® and Structures ® Programs

16 Phonics First ®, Structures ® and Response to Intervention

17 Tier I Core Tier II Intervention Tier III Remediation

18 Empirical Support for Phonics First ® and Structures ®

19 Executive Summary

21 About the Author

22 Reference List

25 Contact and Media Information

Advances in Contemporary Reading Instruction:

HOW BRAINSPRING PROGRAMS CREATE SKILLED READERS

WHITE PAPER 2020

©2020 Brainspring | BRAINSPRING.COM | 844-680–7094 | Troy, Michigan 2


Learning to read is not a ‘natural’ process. Most children must be taught to read through a structured and protracted process in which they are made aware of the sounds and the symbols that represent them, and then learn to apply these skills automatically and attend to meaning. (L.C. Moats)

Learning to read, a foundational principle for educational success,

remains a struggle for many students in

the United States. In fact, approximately

two-thirds of fourth graders do not

demonstrate grade-level reading

accuracy, fluency, or comprehension

skills (NCES, 2019). Further, the US

has the lowest rates of adolescent

literacy among English-speaking

countries (OECD, 2015). These startling

statistics underscore the imperative

of enhancing reading instruction,

Introductionwhich has emerged as a national

priority. In the last several decades,

legislative efforts and governmental

reviews generated initiatives focused

on improving literacy skills in children.

The National Reading Panel et al.

(2000; NRP) reviewed 100,000 studies,

synthesized effectiveness data from

extant reading programs, and ultimately

provided a strong scientific consensus

for phonics instruction when teaching

children to read. The results of the NRP’s

efforts informed the research-directed



educational policy, No Child Left Behind

(NCLB), which was signed into law in

the early 2000s. NCLB established

strict guidelines for reading instruction

in states and public schools and sought

to improve accountability, as well as

support the implementation of effective

literacy programs in the classroom

(e.g., Jorgensen & Hoffmann, 2003;

No Child Left Behind, 2002). Reading

First was mandated by NCLB and

administered by the federal Department

of Education to support the provision of

scientifically sound literacy instruction

in early elementary grades (Gamse

et al., 2008). Since the early 2000s,

tremendous advances have been made

across disciplines, including cognitive

neuropsychology, developmental

psychology, educational intervention, and

program evaluation research, which has

markedly improved our understanding

of the science of reading and effective

instructional practices, including the use

of structured, sequential, multisensory

reading programs (NICHD, 2000).

In this paper, we will review the science

of reading and the empirical support

of structured literacy programs for

both children and adolescents. Next,

we will describe the Phonics First ®

and Structures ® supplemental reading

programs (developed by Brainspring)

and how these programs align with

scientific research. We will examine the

role of Phonics First ® and Structures ® in

supporting beginning, at-risk, struggling

and dyslexic/learning disabled students

in the context of the Response to

Intervention (RTI) initiative. Lastly, we

will discuss Brainspring’s state-of-the-art

research initiative, underway in 2019.

WE WILL:

✔ Review science of reading and the empirical support of structured literacy programs.

✔ Describe Brainspring’s supplemental reading programs and how they align with scientific research.

✔ Examine the role of Brainspring’s supplemental reading programs in supporting students in the context of the RTI initiative.

✔ Discuss Brainspring’s state-of-the-art research initiative.



The Science of Reading

During the past three decades, a convergence of evidence has

identified the skills necessary to develop

strong reading abilities (e.g., Hougan,

2015; Moats, 1999, 2000; National

Reading Panel et al., 2000). The science

of reading indicates that children develop

literacy in a series of rough phases,

the first of which involves learning the

alphabetic code (Ehri, 2015). This early

phase encompasses knowledge of the

structure of language, listening skills,

phonological awareness (especially

phonemic awareness described as the

ability to hear and manipulate individual

phonemes which are the smallest unit of

sound), and the alphabetic principle. The

acquisition of the alphabetic principle is

the critical foundation for the development

of reading proficiency (Castles et al.,

2019). This principle establishes that

the visual symbols of the writing system

(graphemes) represent the sounds of the

language (phonemes). Phonics instruction

is the intentional and purposeful teaching

of letter-sound relationships.

The next phase in the acquisition of

reading skills is the transition from

mastering the alphabetic code to the

knowledge of word meanings, which

support overall reading comprehension.

Children continue to utilize alphabetic

decoding as they learn to read whole

words and understand their meanings.

Orthographic mapping is the process by

which children develop sight vocabulary,

allowing for immediate and effortless

retrieval of written words (Kilpatrick, 2015;

Nation & Castles, 2017). Orthographic

mapping follows the acquisition of letter-

sound knowledge and decoding skills

and occurs when children turn unfamiliar

written words into immediately accessible

sight words (Kilpatrick, 2015). This allows

the reader to better focus attention on

constructing the meaning of the text.

Another critical concept that supports

the development of word meaning is

morphology, defined as the study of

morphemes (the smallest unit of meaning

in a language). Researchers have found

that awareness of morphology is critical in

advancing a student’s reading skills both

for decoding and comprehension (Nagy

et al., 2006; Soifer, 2005).



Comprehension, a highly complex

endeavor, is the ultimate objective of

reading, although many of the underlying

linguistic and cognitive processes

involved remain poorly understood

to date. Researchers have proposed

several theoretical models that describe

how children learn to read for meaning.

Stemming from and supported by the

research of Gough and Tunmer (1986;

see Figure 1), and more recently by

Catts et al. (2006), the Simple View of

Reading model proposes that reading

comprehension (RC) is a product of

the students’ decoding (D) ability and

language comprehension (LC) ability

(D x LC = RC). A balance of mastery on

both sides of the equation, decoding and

language comprehension, is necessary

to achieve skilled and deep reading

comprehension.

A more in-depth model, termed the

Reading Rope, delineates the essential

elements that are critical in the

development of reading comprehension

skills (Scarborough, 2001, see Figure

2). The rope

consists of lower

and upper strands. The

lower strands, termed word-recognition

(phonological awareness, decoding, and

sight recognition of familiar words), work

together as the reader becomes accurate,

fluent, and increasingly automatic

with repetition

and practice.

Concurrently, the

upper strands, termed the language-

comprehension strands (background

knowledge, vocabulary, language

structures , verbal reasoning, and literacy

knowledge), reinforce one another and

Figure 1: From Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

PHONOLOGIC ORTHOGRAPHIC MORPHOLOGIC

DD x LCLC = RCRC

SEMANTIC SYNTACTIC



subsequently weave together with the

word-recognition strands to produce

a skilled reader. This convergence of

strands does not happen overnight;

it requires instruction and practice

over time.

Evidence supports the Reading

Rope model. The lower strands of

the rope include the foundational

processes involved in learning to read

(e.g., phonological and phonemic

awareness, alphabetic principle,

morphology), which are supported

by the most rigorous evidence base

(Foorman et al., 2016) in the science

of reading literature. The upper strands

of the reading rope include constructs

related to language comprehension

skills, believed to be supported by the

knowledge of linguistic, orthographic,

and/or background knowledge. Further,

vocabulary proficiency, as well as

figurative expressions, idioms, grammar,

and syntax are theorized to support

reading comprehension, although these

contributory factors have been less

studied in the science of reading

(Oakhill et al., 2014; Foorman et

al., 2016). Oakhill et al. (2014)

propose that general cognitive

factors, such as executive function

skills, also are implicated in

reading comprehension, with

working memory receiving the

most attention in the literature on

children’s reading development.

LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE (facts, concepts, etc.)

VOCABULARY (breadth, precision, links, etc.)

LANGUAGE STRUCTURE (syntax, semantics, etc.)

VERBAL REASONING (inference, metaphor, etc.)

LITERACY KNOWLEDGE (print concepts, genres, etc.)

THE MANY STRANDS

WOVEN INTO SKILLED READING

SCARBOROUGH’S

READING ROPE(2001)

Fluent execution and coordination of

word recognition and text comprehension.

WORD RECOGNITION

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS (syllables, phonemes, etc.)

DECODING (alphabetic principle, spelling–sound correspondences)

SIGHT RECOGNITION (of familiar words)

SKILLED READING

INCREASINGLY STRATEGIC

INCREASINGLY AUTOMATIC

Brainspring.com©2020 Brainspring

Figure 2: From H.S. Scarborough (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.

SCARBOROUGH’S READING ROPE



As discussed above, the science of reading has been largely

established (e.g., Berninger et al., 2006;

Ehri, 1991, 1994, 2015; National Reading

Panel et al., 2000) and has driven

the development of effective literacy

instruction and reading intervention. To

date, there is general scientific agreement

about what these effective components

include (e.g., Archer & Hughes, 2011;

Brady, 2011; Foorman et al., 2016; NRP

et al., 2000; Torgesen, 2004). More

specifically, empirical evidence supports

highly explicit, systematic reading

instruction, with a focus on foundational

phonological awareness and phonics

skills, such as decoding and spelling,

as well as explicit teaching of other

essential components of literacy such

as morphology, syntax, vocabulary, and

comprehension (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2018;

Gersten et al., 2008; Torgesen, 2004).

This instructional emphasis is especially

critical for at-risk students and those

with reading disabilities (i.e., dyslexia).

Moreover, intervention studies provide the

most robust support for the relationship

between phonological abilities and

reading skills in children (e.g., Blachman

et al., 2004; Ring et al., 2017), clearly

documenting improved phonological

awareness, phonological decoding,

and reading skills following instruction

in both phonological awareness and

systematic phonics (i.e., letter-sound

correspondences).

In summary, deep and thorough knowledge of letters, spelling patterns, and words, and of the phonological translations of all three, are of inescapable importance to both skillful reading and its acquisition. By extension, instruction designed to develop children’s sensitivity to spellings and their relations to pronunciations should be of paramount importance in the development of reading skills. This is, of course, precisely what is intended of good phonics instruction. (Adams, 1990, p. 416)

Effective Reading Instruction



The importance of teachers possessing a strong scientific knowledge base in how literacy develops cannot be underestimated; students’ successful acquisition of literacy skills is heavily dependent on teachers’ training, experience, and overall understanding of the science of reading. The National Council on Teacher Quality (2006) examined the content of reading courses in higher education teaching programs. In an examination of elementary reading courses (in a sample of 72 teacher education programs), results indicated that fewer than 15% of college courses

were found to teach all of the scientific components of reading.

Future teachers need the knowledge and skills to understand sound reading strategies for themselves and to be able to transmit these to their students. (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2006, p. 19)

If educational programs lack the critical

content needed to train future teachers

comprehensively, then schools must be

prepared to provide in-depth professional

development to their educators,

accompanied by evidence-based

published programs. The Phonics First ®

and Structures ® professional

development programs provide teachers

with a strong foundation in the structure

of language, and a research-based

scope and sequence of instruction.

Teachers learning the Phonics First ®

and Structures ® programs not only learn

a curriculum, but they develop a deep

understanding of the reading process so

that instructional decisions are always

grounded in research and effective

practice. Teachers and Administrators

who have participated in Phonics First ®

and Structures ® professional

development report that they learned far

more than a curriculum. They learned

how to teach children to read (Brainspring

Research Report, 2014).15%

85%

ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON

TEACHER QUALITY, A SAMPLING OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

SHOWED FEWER THAN 15% OF COLLEGE

COURSES TEACH ALL OF THE SCIENTIFIC

COMPONENTS OF READING.



tools 95 years ago (Orton, 1925; Ring et

al., 2017; Shaywitz, 1998; Uhry & Clark,

2005). Currently, Orton-Gillingham is

the basis of many published reading

programs, given its durability and

extensive research base. Findings have

indicated that individuals with dyslexia

can successfully learn to read when

provided systematic and explicit reading

instruction, such as that provided in

multisensory language or structured

literacy programs (Lyon & Weiser,

2013; Pennington et al., 2019). In fact,

Shaywitz et al. (2004) found that children

with dyslexia, who completed a year-

long phonologically based intervention,

exhibited changes in their neural circuitry

following program participation (i.e.,

increased activation in the left inferior

frontal and middle temporal gyri during

a letter identification task). These data

indicate that the brain activity of children

with dyslexia appeared more like the

brain activity of skilled readers, following

an appropriate intervention.

must be more explicit, frequent, and

repetitive than what is typically taught

in the average classroom (Torgesen et

al., 1994). One of the most frequently

used remedial teaching methods

targeting reading deficits is the Orton-

Gillingham (OG) multisensory language

approach (Gillingham & Stillman,

1956). The multisensory aspect of the

methodology is posited to be critical,

given that multisensory instruction is a

hallmark of brain-based learning. Jensen

(2008) asserts that using a multisensory

educational approach helps to “wire-

together” the circuitry needed for learning.

Dr. Samuel T. Orton and colleagues

recognized that children with dyslexia

would benefit from tutoring with

systematic phonics-based reading

instruction (Orton, 1925); thus, Dr. Orton

developed a methodological approach

delivering evidence-based instructional

DYSLEXIA

Dyslexia is a type of language-based

disorder, defined as a Specific Learning

Disability in reading (SLD reading;

American Psychiatric Association [APA],

2013), which negatively impacts a child’s

ability to read and spell (e.g., Shaywitz

& Shaywitz, 2005). It is postulated to be

the most common neurodevelopmental

disorder affecting children. Depending

on the definition employed, prevalence

rates range from 10 to 25% of the

population (Pennington et al., 2019;

Shaywitz, 1998). Word reading difficulties

associated with dyslexia are due in part

to phonological processing deficits that

lead to slow and inaccurate reading

that, in turn, can limit comprehension

(Shaywitz et al., 1998; Lyon et al., 2007).

In order to have a substantial impact on

the phonological awareness of children

with dyslexia, researchers assert that

educational training for at-risk children



not identified as dyslexic until they

transitioned to upper elementary grades

(or even secondary school) when it is far

more difficult to close the achievement

gap (e.g., Leach et al., 2003; Vaughn

& Fletcher, 2012). Surprisingly, isolated

reading comprehension difficulties

are not typically responsible for poorly

developed literacy skills in older students

(Catts et al., 2006; Leach et al., 2003).

Rather, secondary students with reading

difficulties commonly present with

similar deficits as younger students,

such as decoding and fluency, which

results in poor reading comprehension.

Difficulty mastering the basic skills of

reading contributes to low levels of

comprehension, and adolescents with

reading disabilities typically require

interventions that address word-level

decoding and fluency development as

well as comprehension (Scammacca et

al., 2013; Vaughn et al., 2010). Structured

Literacy programs providing instruction to

struggling adolescent readers must focus

on both the foundational skills of reading

(i.e., phonemic awareness, basic phonics,

and fluency), as well as the more complex

skills such as decoding multisyllabic

words and reading with prosody.

MIDDLE AND SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH READING DEFICITS

The National Reading Panel et al.

(2000) found that phonics instruction is

best introduced early in kindergarten

and first grade. The majority of phonics

effectiveness research focuses on

reading improvements gained in

early elementary school grades, and

the available data support the early

introduction of skills (Hougen, 2014).

Still, there are an estimated six to eight

million adolescents who struggle with

reading in secondary school (e.g.,

Vaughn et al., 2010). Identified reading

disabilities such as dyslexia account for

some of these deficits. It is suggested

that many middle school students were



The

and

Programs

Brainspring developed Phonics First® for elementary students in 1991, followed by the creation

of the Structures ® program, for middle

and high school students, in 2005.

Both are structured literacy programs,

which provide a multisensory structured

language (MSL) approach,

based on the Orton-

Gillingham methodology.

Brainspring programs are

accredited at the Teaching

Level and the Instructor

of Teaching Level by the

International Multisensory

Structured Language

Education Council (IMSLEC).

Brainspring’s professional

development program is also

accredited under the Knowledge

and Practice Standards for Teachers

of Reading set forth by the IDA

(International Dyslexia Association). The

IDA provides a comprehensive, research-

supported directive of what every teacher

needs to know and to demonstrate in their

classrooms, whether they are teaching

students with dyslexia, struggling readers,

or the general student population. Since

program inception, Brainspring has

offered Orton-Gillingham professional

development and reading programs that

also adhere to the National Institute of

Child Health and Human Development

(NICHD) and National Reading Panel

(NRP) conclusions. Brainspring’s

dynamic and internationally accredited

programs are both a diagnostic and a

remedial tool. Teachers who participate

in Brainspring professional development

learn the program elements necessary

for delivering quality multisensory,

code-emphasis reading lessons for

critical decoding and encoding skills

development.



The Phonics First ® and Structures ®

programs provide strong scientific

research-based instruction in the

decoding and encoding elements of

reading. The scope and sequence of

each program teach students skills in

phonological awareness and sound-

symbol relationships, then proceed

to systematically and explicitly teach

students more advanced patterns

of spelling-sound relationships. This

approach contributes to increased sight

word knowledge using orthographic

mapping, a foundation for proficient

reading, and also addresses fluency,

morphology (roots and affixes to enhance

vocabulary), and comprehension,

allowing students to apply decoding skills

effectively and comprehend what they are

reading.

Teachers who have been trained in

Phonics First ® and Structures ® develop

a deep knowledge base grounded in

the science of reading and includes the

essential components of the structure of

language at all levels. This knowledge

acquisition goes far beyond learning a

curriculum. School administrators report

that the knowledge and skills teachers

learn when trained in Phonics First ® and

Structures ® provide a strong foundation

that facilitates the understanding

of a multitude of explicit/systematic

instructional programs.

The instructional model employed

in Phonics First ® and Structures ®

incorporates a multisensory approach.

Multisensory instructional programs

include the following components:

� Engagement of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-tactile pathways;

� A systematic and cumulative scope and sequence moving from easiest to most difficult elements;

� Explicit teaching of all elements;

� Diagnostic and prescriptive teaching that incorporates continuous assessment;

� Synthetic and analytic teaching of all elements within a component.




programs incorporate all of these powerful

instructional elements so that teachers

are able to effectively teach struggling

readers, ensuring that these children learn

the requisite skills to become proficient

readers.

Instruction is built on a continuum scope

and sequence that systematically and

explicitly teaches:

� Bridging of phonological awareness to phonics,

� Phoneme-grapheme connections,

� Application of phonics skills/patterns (decoding/encoding),

� Irregular high-frequency word reading and spelling,

� Spelling rules and patterns for encoding,

� Systematic syllabication strategies for decoding, and

� Systematically integrated writing and reading skill application.

bridging Phonological Awareness to

Phonics phoneme-grapheme

connections

application of phonics

skills/patterns irregular high-frequency

word reading and spellingspelling rules

and patterns for encoding

systematic syllabication strategies for

decoding

systematically integrated writing and reading skill

application

TEACHING CONTINUUM



The Phonics First ® and Structures ® Orton-Gillingham derived Lesson Plan includes:

1 Phonological Awareness supporting reading/spelling development.

2 Three-Part Drill review (visual, auditory, blending) for automaticity and accuracy.

3Multisensory Skill Introduction-Application: Explicit, direct teaching of skill; immediate guided and independent application to reading and spelling (words and sentences); integrating previous and new concepts.

4 Syllabication: Decoding multisyllable words (building towards fluency) using syllable patterns/types to read unfamiliar words.

5 Irregular High-Frequency Words: Direct, multisensory instruction with orthographic mapping and ongoing multisensory review of non-phonetic words.

6 Oral Reading: Applying phonetic and non-phonetic skills to connected-text reading using structured, decodable text.

This approach ensures that skills

are systematically taught. Review,

introduction of new skills, guided

practice, and independent practice are

lesson components that are supported

in research on effective teaching. The

Phonics First ® and Structures ® programs

include instructional models for teaching

new concepts, applying new concepts,

learning to decode through syllable

types, and learning non-phonetically

spelled words. Writing and reading

comprehension skills are systematically

integrated into the program as well.



and Response to InterventionResponse to Intervention (RtI) provides an alternative to the current discrepancy model for identifying

children with learning disabilities and

embraces the belief that teachers can

no longer wait for children to fail before

providing intervention support (Bradley et

al., 2005).

Most importantly, RtI requires that all

teachers, whether regular education or

special education, become experts in

understanding the reading process and

how to prevent and remediate reading

difficulties. The strength of Phonics First ®

and Structures ® lies in the fact that

the required professional development

provides all teachers with firsthand

understanding of the reading process and

how to effectively reach those students

who are not performing to their potential.

Response to Intervention requires

school-wide commitment to supporting

all children and their learning, beginning

in kindergarten. Many RtI models utilize

a three-tier model as an essential

component of the process. Brainspring

programs are modified for use at all three

tiers of instruction.



TIER I CORE

Phonics First ® in Tier I is both a whole

class core phonics program and a

small-group skill support program. It

provides teachers with a Tier I instruction

component that builds decoding and

encoding skills within the context of a

core reading program. Additionally, it

provides teachers with the knowledge

and tools to continually differentiate their

instruction for the whole group and small

group lessons.

TIER II INTERVENTION

Both Phonics First ® and Structures ® are

used in Tier II as targeted intervention

programs providing focused instruction

on identified areas of need to address

core curriculum skill gaps in struggling

readers. Students receive instruction in

small groups of up to six students with

closely related skill needs.

TIER III REMEDIATION

In Tier III, Phonics First ® and Structures ®

are powerful remediation programs

designed to ensure dyslexic and learning-

disabled students receive the full scope of

instruction needed to address significant

reading deficits. Students receive

instruction in small groups of up to four

students with closely related skill needs.

Phonics First ® and Structures ® are robust Tier II and Tier III programs because they provide the level of intensity of instruction that is

required, based on the needs of students, to sufficiently address skill gaps preventing students from becoming skilled readers. Using

Brainspring’s Small Group Diagnostic Assessment of Decoding and Encoding, teachers can assess, group students according to their

needs, and monitor progress throughout the program. This assessment, coupled with district and state assessments, provides a detailed

view of student skill development.

Used in Tiers I and II, these programs also often decrease referrals to special education. Used intensively in Tier III, they can significantly

increase reading achievement and may lead to a decreased need for remedial literacy interventions.



Brainspring is committed to advancing the knowledge basethrough state-of-the-art outcome

evaluations of their reading programs,

including the commencement of

a randomized clinical trial of the

effectiveness of Phonics First ® in first

graders launched in 2019. To date,

Brainspring has evaluated Phonics First ®

and Structures ® programs in several

ways. Quasi-experimental research

documented — at a district-wide level —

higher percentages of students meeting

expectations for reading competencies

following the implementation of

Phonics First ® and Structures ®

programming. Additional documentation

indicated that more students successfully

passed state reading tests and that a

greater number of special education

Empirical Support for and

students demonstrated literacy

competencies following participation in

Brainspring programs. Anecdotal data

also indicates that general classroom

and special education teachers observed

marked growth in students’ reading

skills and confidence, following the

implementation of Brainspring programs

(Brainspring research report, 2014).

In addition to the evaluation efforts

described above, Brainspring has

partnered with an independent research

organization (Center for Research,

Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy,

Asheville, NC; CReATE; www.createnc.

com) to collect Phonics First ® and

Structures ® outcome data in multiple

academic settings (i.e., whole classroom

interventions, small group interventions).

In early 2019, Brainspring launched a

methodologically rigorous, randomized

controlled trial to investigate the

effectiveness of Phonics First ® compared

to typical reading curriculums across a

broad array of student outcomes (e.g.,

reading skills, behavioral indicators,

socioemotional functioning). Four public

schools were selected from a large public

school district located in an urban setting.

Twenty-eight 1st grade teachers were

randomly assigned to either (a) participate

in comprehensive Phonics First ® training

in the summer of 2019 or (b) to an active

waitlist group, where training will occur at

a later time. Data collection is occurring

at several points throughout the academic

year for the students in both conditions.

Reading scores, behavioral outcomes,

and socioemotional functioning will be



Executive SummaryThe last two decades have seen a marked increase in federal legislation and funding, as well as

research initiatives aimed at improving

reading deficits in elementary children

in the US. Consequently, significant

advances have been made in the science

of reading, the identification of effective

reading instruction, and the growth of

supplemental reading programs, such

as Phonics First ® and Structures ®,

developed by Brainspring. Since 1991,

Brainspring has been positioned as a

leader in the field of reading instruction,

adhering to advances in the science

of reading and effective instructional

strategies. Ongoing refinement of

programming based on the expansion of

scientific findings is a core component of

Brainspring’s mission.

The science of reading has established

that literacy develops through phases,

with the alphabetic principle defined as

the critical foundation for the development

of reading proficiency. This principle

establishes that the visual symbols of the

writing system (graphemes) represent

the sounds of the language (phonemes).

Phonics instruction is this intentional

and purposeful teaching of letter-sound

relationships. Additional important

constructs are orthographic mapping and

morphology, which contribute to decoding

and reading comprehension skills. The

Simple View of Reading and the Reading

Rope theoretical models are supported

by empirical evidence and describe the

process whereby children learn to read

for meaning. A greater understanding of

the science of reading has informed the

development of effective instructional

programs and highlighted the importance

of comprehensive training for teachers.

compared across groups. In concert with

a team of scientific experts, Brainspring’s

research initiative will also include quasi-

experimental small group intervention

studies, investigating the effectiveness of

the program for struggling and adolescent

readers (commencing in 2021; data

collection underway through 2020 and

2021; outcomes available 2021 and 2022).



Dyslexia is a type of language-based

disorder, negatively impacting a

child’s ability to read and spell. It is

postulated to be the most common

neurodevelopmental disorder affecting

children. One of the most frequently used

remedial teaching methods targeting

reading deficits is the Orton-Gillingham

(OG) multisensory language approach.

Orton-Gillingham is the basis of many

published reading programs due to solid

empirical support for the instructional

methodology. While the bulk of research

has focused on understanding and

remediating weaknesses in early readers,

the literature also documents the impact

of dyslexia on secondary students as

well. Adolescents with reading deficits

will commonly present with similar

language deficits as younger students.

These adolescents display deficits in

basic skills such as poor phonology,

weak decoding, and a lack of fluency,

resulting in poor reading comprehension.

Understanding the struggling secondary

student is critical in the development of

important instructional parameters, such

as focusing on both the foundational skills

of reading (i.e., phonemic awareness,

basic phonics, and fluency), as well as

the more complex skills such as decoding

multisyllabic words and reading with

prosody.

Brainspring developed their accredited Phonics First ® and Structures ® programs

based on advances in the science of

reading and effective instructional tools.


programs provide strong scientific,

research-based instruction in the

decoding and encoding elements of

reading. The scope and sequence of

each program teach students skills in

phonological awareness and sound-

symbol relationships, then proceed

to systematically and explicitly teach

students more advanced patterns of

spelling-sound relationships contributing

to increased sight word knowledge,

a foundation for proficient reading,

and ultimately to improved reading

comprehension. The programs are

structured, sequential, and multisensory,

based on Orton Gillingham methodology

and have been successfully employed in

Response to Intervention efforts, across

all three tiers. Brainspring has recently

launched a state-of-the-art randomized

controlled trial of their Phonics First ®

program in 1st-grade students. Measures

of socioemotional functioning and reading

skills are being collected several times

throughout the 2019–2020 academic

year for all students in the intervention

(14 classrooms of teachers randomly

assigned to Phonics First ® training

in 2019) and the comparison groups

(14 classrooms of teachers randomly

assigned to active waitlist condition

where Phonics First ® training will occur

at a later time. Follow up research

studies of the Phonics First ® small group

intervention and the Structures ® program

for adolescent readers will commence

in 2021. Results will allow Brainspring

to better understand programming

strengths, as well as factors influencing

students’ outcomes across multiple

domains.



Dr. Sarah (“Salli”) Lewis is the Director of the Research Division for the Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy (CReATE) in

Asheville, North Carolina. Dr. Lewis is a licensed clinical psychologist, with expertise

in the development, transport, and dissemination of evidence-based treatments. She

currently works in varied educational and therapeutic settings and is responsible for

the design and implementation of a number of applied clinical research trials. Dr. Lewis

has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, serves on the editorial board for a

number of clinical and research-oriented publications, and has a research appointment

at the University of Arkansas. She provides training, consultation, and professional

presentations within the scientific and treatment community.

Aboutthe

Authors

Laurel Wagner received a B.A. in Elementary Education from California State University, Northridge.

Laurel taught third through sixth grades for

Los Angeles Unified School District and

has tutored students in reading in grades

K–12 and adults. Her teaching experiences

include intervention, ESL, general

education, special education and gifted

students.

Laurel joined Brainspring as a Tutor in 1993.

Over the years she has held the positions

of Director of Tutoring, Master Instructor,

Director of Instruction, and is currently the

Vice President of Brainspring’s Educator

Academy. Using both her background in

classroom teaching and extensive tutoring

of students with reading disabilities, Laurel

developed the accredited Phonics First ®

and Structures ® Orton-Gillingham programs.

Since 2004, Laurel, a Certified Dyslexia

Practitioner (CDP), has served on the Board

of Directors of the International Multisensory

Education Council (IMSLEC) which

accredits multisensory language programs

at the Teaching and Therapy levels.



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

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford.

Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Jones, J., Wolf, B., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Shimada, S., & Apel,K. (2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing, reading, listening, and speaking connections; three letter-writing modes; and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 61–92.

Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and

third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461.

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.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to Intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485–486.

Brainspring. (2014). Brainspring Research Report [Research report describing Brainspring’s internal evaluation of programming; available by request Brainspring.com].

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2019). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51.

Catts, H. W., Adlof, S., & 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, 278–293.

Ehri, L.C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 2. (pp. 383–417). New York: Longman.

Ehri, L.C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.323–358). International Reading Association. (Reprinted in modified form from R. Barr et al (Eds.), “Handbook of Reading Research: Vol II,” Longman Publishing Group, 1991)

Ehri, L.C. (2015). How children learn to read words. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. 293–310). New York: Oxford University Press.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M.A. (2018). Learning disabilities:

Reference List



From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016–4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

Gamse, B.C., Bloom, H.S., Kemple, J.J., & Jacob, R.T. (2008). Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report (NCEE 2008–4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009–4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1956). Remedial training for children with specific disability in

reading, spelling and penmanship (5th ed.). Cambridge: Educators Publishing Service.

Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

Hougen, M. (2014). Evidence-based reading instruction for adolescents, grades 6–12 (Document No. IC–13). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations

Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Corwin Press.

Jorgensen, M. A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). History of the no child left behind act of 2001 (NCLB). San Antonio: Pearson.

Kilpatrick, D. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing and overcoming reading difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 211.

Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2007). Dyslexia and specific reading disabilities. In R. Kliegman, R. Behrman, H. Jenson, & B. Stanton (Eds.), Nelson textbook of pediatrics (18th ed., pp. 125–127). New York, NY: Saunders.

Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2013). The state of the science in learning disabilities: Research impact on the field from 2001 to 2011. In H.

L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities: Vol. 2. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, D C: American Federation of Teachers.

Moats, L.C. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of “balanced” reading instruction. Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134–147.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). National assessment of educational progress: The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren’t learning. Washington, DC: Author.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.



National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, Human Development (US), National Reading Excellence Initiative, National Institute for Literacy (US), & United States Department of Health. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

Nation, K., & Castles, A. (2017). Putting the learning in orthographic learning. In K. Cain, D. Compton, & R. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 147–168). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat 1425 (2002).

Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2014). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Abingdon, Oxon, England: Routledge.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en

Orton, S. T. (1925). “Word-blindness” in school children. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 14, 581–615.

Pennington, B., McGrath, L., & Peterson, R. (2019). Diagnosing Learning Disorders: From

Science to Practice. Guilford Press: New York, NY.

Ring, J., Avrit, K., & Black, J. (2017). Take flight: The evolution of an Orton Gillingham-based curriculum. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 383–400.

Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. (2013). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. doi:10.1177/0022219413504995.

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Shaywitz, S. (1998). Dyslexia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 307–312.

Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Constable, R. T., Mencl, W. E., & Gore, J. C. (1998). Functional disruption in the organization of the brain for reading in dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95, 2636–2641.

Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (2004). Development of left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-based intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 926–933.

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

Soifer, L. H. (2005). Development of oral language and its relationship to literacy. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed., pp. 43–81). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276–286.

Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.

Uhry, J. K., & Clark, D. B. (2005). Dyslexia: Theory and practice of remedial instruction (3rd ed.). Baltimore: York Press.

Vaughn, S., Denton, C., & Fletcher, J. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 432–444.

Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 244–256.



CONTACT US

BRAINSPRING.COM

844–680–7094

[email protected]

Brainspring.com/blog

Brainspring 1409 Allen Drive, Suite F Troy, Michigan 48083

@Brainspring, @OrtonGillingham

@BrainspringOG

@brainspringortongillingham

Brainspring Orton-Gillingham

Brainspring Orton-Gillingham


http://Brainspring.com

http://brainspring.com/blog

https://www.facebook.com/OrtonGillinghamTraining/

https://www.facebook.com/OrtonGillingham/

https://twitter.com/BrainspringOG?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

https://www.instagram.com/brainspringortongillingham/?hl=en

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxjH65hki3ph2on5dORI9yQ

https://www.linkedin.com/company/brainspring/


Advances in Contemporary Reading Instruction: HOW ...

Documents

Transcript of Advances in Contemporary Reading Instruction: HOW ...