M-F 9am - 6pm EST
|
|
|
Advanced Search (Search by Level, Category, and more)
Correlations |
|
Products by Subject: ELL/ESL Fiction Graphica Leveled Readers Math Phonics Pre-K Professional Development Reading/English Language Arts Science Social Studies Software Spanish/Bilingual Teaching Tools Test Prep Tony Stead Collections Sample Lesson Plans |
| Sign In | Register | Home | Quick Order | Our Products | What's New | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RCBM Rosen REAL Readers Research Basis Independent Study of Rosen REAL Readers and Phonics Summary of Independent Study for Rosen REAL Readers & Phonics Rosen Talking Software--White Paper
The pedagogic theory behind Rosen Real Readers is based on the findings of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) and the National Reading Panel Report progress report Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Langenberg, et al, 1999), which confirm that five of the critical components for skilled reading include phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Rosen Real Readers incorporate all of these elements, and take reading instruction a step further by placing each of these skills within the context of leveled nonfiction readers, an approach called for in Text Matters in Learning to Read (Hiebert, 1998), and supported by the research featured in the articles Trying Something New: Meaning-based Reading Instruction in a Finnish First-Grade Classroom (Korkeamäki, 1996) and The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade (Duke, 1999). The content of these nonfiction readers is correlated directly to the national standards for social studies, science, and math curricula for grades K – 4. We believe that reading instruction administered through the use of nonfiction text that is correlated to the curricula gives young children an excellent basis from which to become successful, fluent readers. Rosen Real Readers are divided into four groups: Early Emergent (grades K – 1), Upper Emergent (grades 1– 2), Early Fluency (grades 2–3), and Fluency (grades 3–4). The books within each group are leveled according to a variety of standards, including Fountas & Pinnell, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Early Intervention Learning. As findings in the study Text Leveling and Little Books in First-Grade Reading (Hoffman, Roser, Salas, Patterson & Pennington, 2000) show, these types of leveling systems are useful in assessing a child’s current level of reading ability and tracking a child’s progress in acquiring reading skills. Each book in the Early Emergent and Upper Emergent groups contains ample opportunities for phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. Studies such as those featured in Sources of Individual Differences in Reading Acquisition (Share, et al, 1984) show that phonemic awareness is one of the two best predictors of how well children will learn to read. An emerging reader with a high level of phonemic awareness is better positioned to decode unfamiliar words (Ehri, 1991, 1994), a necessary skill when dealing with informational text. There is a heavy emphasis on acquiring new vocabulary at these early levels, and indeed at each subsequent level. Fluency and comprehension are also critical components of skilled reading. Per the findings of Fountas & Pinnell (1996), the books in the Early Emergent and Upper Emergent Rosen Real Readers feature close picture/text correlation; a combination of site words, high-frequency words, and new words; an increasing level of text difficulty corresponding to the acquisition of phonics skills; and subject matter that is of interest to the reader. By doing so, Rosen Real Readers are effective in helping children learn to read fluently, that is to say with speed, accuracy, and proper expression. As readers become more skilled, they advance to the Early Fluency and Fluency levels of Rosen Real Reader, where fluency and comprehension are the primary focus. How Do Rosen Real Readers Work? We understand that teachers are encouraged to spend a majority of their time on reading instruction in addition to the other subjects dictated by national curriculum standards. As such, we have closely correlated the text in Rosen Real Readers to the social studies, science, and math curricula for grades K – 4, giving teachers the ability to reinforce critical reading skills, such as phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension, while introducing young students to a variety of informational contents. Because the content is closely tied to the curriculum, children are encouraged to read fluently and for comprehension. As their reading skills grow, so does their knowledge of a subject and their vocabulary. By providing coherent, skills-based reading instruction, Rosen Real Readers gives children a solid foundation on which to build and strengthen reading skills in five critical areas: phonemic awareness, phonics/decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and construction of meaning. Rosen Real Readers are divided into three levels of increasing difficulty. Within each level there are 18 titles on a variety of subjects that supplement the social studies, science, and math curricula mandated by state and national curriculum standards for grades K – 4. The comprehensive Teacher’s Guide walks teachers through the systematic instruction of reading skills within the context of informational text. Each lesson plan enforces phonemic awareness/instruction (at the Early Emergent and Upper Emergent levels), and vocabulary, both familiar and unfamiliar, and presents activities to encourage fluency and comprehension of the text, as well as the integration of the children’s newly acquired knowledge into the rest of the curriculum. A writing component reinforces comprehension. Evaluation-Based Evidence of Effectiveness Three years in the making, Rosen Real Readers have been available for purchase since September 2000, and are currently being used effectively in classrooms around the country. Pre- and post-tests results reveal the striking effectiveness of this program. Support for the Methodology Behind Rosen Real Readers See
attached Adams, M.J. (1990) Beginning to read: Thinking and Learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chall, J. (1967) Learning to read: the great debate. New York: McGraw Hill. Dreher, M.J. & Korkeamäki, R-L. (1996) “Trying Something new: Meaning-Based Research Instruction in a Finnish First-Grade Classroom.” Journal of Literacy Research (Vol. 28, pp. 9–34) Duke, N.K. (1999) “The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade.” Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) report # 1-007. Ehri, L. (1994) Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, M Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323–358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ibid. (1991) Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp. 383, 417). New York: Longman. Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G.S. (1996) Guided Reading: Good first teaching for all children, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hiebert, E. (1998) “Text Matters in Learning to Read.” Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) report # 1-001. Hoffman, J., Roser, N., Salas, R., Patterson, E. & Pennington, J. (2000) “Text Leveling and Little Books in First-Grade Reading.” Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) report # 1-0010. Langenberg, D., Correro, G., Ehri, L., Ferguson, G., Garza, N., Kamil, M., Marrett, C. B., Samuels, S. J., Shanahan, T., Shaywitz, S., Trabasso, T., Williams, J., Willows, D. & Yatvin, J. (Panel) (2000). “Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction”. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Share, D., Jorm, A. Maclean, R. & Matthews, R. (1984) Sources of individual difference in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309–1324. Snow, C. Burns, M. & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). “Preventing reading difficulties in young children.” Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Vaaca, R., Pikulski, J. Ransom, K., & Farstrup, A., (1997) The Role of Phonics in Reading Instruction. Newark, DE, International Reading Association. An
Evaluation of Rosen Classroom Books & Material’s
Submitted to by Pamela Buckley, Ph.D. Executive Summary The Rosen Publishing Group has produced compelling books for schools and libraries for over 50 years. The Rosen REAL Readers Series, created by the Rosen Classroom Books & Materials (RCBM) division, provides nonfiction guidance and curriculum-based leveled books for students in grades K - 4. The books are designed to encourage comprehensive literacy through guided instruction. Phonics for the REAL World, another Rosen Classroom product, features nonfiction books that teach facts while incorporating the fundamentals of phonics instruction. Both programs include a teacher’s guide with comprehensive literacy strategies designed for the elementary grades. An independent evaluation was conducted to quantify the classroom impact of the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World on kindergarten through second grade students’ reading achievement as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The study divided students into two groups, those who received their literacy instruction through Phonics for the REAL World and the Rosen REAL Readers Series (the experimental group), and those who were taught reading through other literacy materials (the control group). Two separate analyses were conducted. The first analysis involved comparing the reading gains of students in the experimental group before and after the materials were used. The second analysis compared the reading scores of students in the experimental group to the reading scores of students in the control group. The experimental group had 45 kindergarten students, 52 first grade students and 55 second grade students. The control group was made up of 48 kindergarten students, 50 first grade students and 53 second grade students. All of the students attended the same Denver-metro area public elementary school. The school principal intentionally selected students who had difficulty with reading for the experimental group, and assigned these students teachers with less experience teaching guided reading. Thus, while the groups were evenly divided in terms of gender and grade level, the experimental group had a higher percentage of non-native English speakers and students who receive English Language Acquisition (ELA) and special education services. Though the overall number of retained students was low, the first and second grade students in the experimental group had a higher percentage of retained students than the first and second grade students in the control group. In terms of program impact, findings from the first analysis revealed that the first grade students showed statistically significant gains (p < .05) after receiving the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World compared to gains in reading achievement before receiving the program, even though their teachers had little or no experience teaching guided reading. In the second analysis, no statistically significant differences in DRA levels were detected between the experimental and control groups. This finding, however, could have been due to the fact that both groups were using guided reading materials for their literacy program (the experimental group used the Rosen products and the control group used other guided reading materials). Further, the principal of the school where the study took place intentionally selected teachers with less experience teaching guided reading for the experimental group, which meant that the control group was taught by instructors with more experience teaching guided reading. In addition, the experimental group had more ELA students than the control group, and the students who received ELA services were found to perform statistically significantly worse on the DRA across time compared to non-ELA students. The fact that the experimental and control group showed similar growth even though the experimental group had less experience teaching guided reading and more educationally challenged students is remarkable. An evaluation of program implementation revealed that the teachers used the Rosen materials for roughly two months of the school year (between February and April of 2003). Once the program was implemented, however, teachers reported that the majority of their time spent teaching reading was devoted to using the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World. The “Early Emergent for K-1” and “Upper Emergent for Grades 1-2” were the main texts used in the Rosen REAL Readers Series, while the teachers used a combination of Phonics for the REAL World books across multiple Skill Sets. The majority of the teachers used the teacher’s guides in some way, though there were several sections of both guides that the teachers did not refer to. Future studies should be conducted on classrooms that use the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World throughout the school year, and where teachers use the entire teacher’s guide – particularly for those instructors that have minimal to no experience teaching phonics and/or guided reading. Background The Rosen Publishing Group has produced compelling books for schools and libraries for over 50 years. The Rosen REAL Readers Series, created by the Rosen Classroom Books & Materials (RCBM) division, provides nonfiction guidance and curriculum-based leveled books for students in grades K - 4. The books are designed to encourage comprehensive literacy through guided instruction. Each book is leveled and provides carefully guided text and layout for emergent, upper emergent, early fluency, and fluency readers. Phonics for the REAL World, another RCBM product, features nonfiction books that teach facts while incorporating the fundamentals of phonics instruction. Both programs include a teacher’s guide with comprehensive literacy strategies designed for the elementary grades. As part of their commitment to the highest quality education for children, RCBM wanted to research the efficacy of their literacy materials. Thus, the present study was conducted to quantify the classroom impact of the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World on students’ reading achievement as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). Purpose This research studied whether statistically significant gains in DRA scores for those students who received RCBM’s materials (i.e., the experimental group) were achieved after the materials were implemented more than halfway through the school year. This study also examined whether short-term increases in kindergarten through second grade students’ reading ability, as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), could be achieved through RCBM’s Phonics for the REAL World and Rosen REAL Readers Series (i.e., the experimental group) compared to kindergarten through second grade students who were not exposed to these literacy materials (i.e., the control group). To understand these findings, the evaluation also looked at how the RCBM’s materials were implemented, including the number of months the students were exposed to the materials, the average time devoted to using the Rosen products versus other literacy materials, and the teachers’ experience in using guided reading. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following research questions.
Hypotheses Students’ gain in DRA scores was expected to be greater after they were exposed to the Rosen products as compared to gains earned before using the program. Further, those who received RCBM’s materials (i.e., the experimental group) were expected to show greater increases in DRA scores across time compared to those who did not receive instruction in Phonics for the REAL World and the Rosen REAL Readers Series (i.e., the control group). Method Participants Ten teachers from the same Denver-metro area elementary school participated in this research, two kindergarten teachers, four first grade teachers, and four second grade teachers. Beginning in February 2003 (or roughly five weeks into the third quarter), two teachers from the first and second grades and one kindergarten teacher used the RCBM reading materials. The remaining teachers used other phonics and guided reading materials during the same period of time. None of the kindergarten and second grade teachers used guided reading materials before February 2003; however, all of the first grade teachers had access to guided reading materials other than those developed by RCBM throughout the whole year. Ninety-three kindergarten students, 102 first grade students, and 108 second grade students totaling 303 students from one Denver metro-area elementary school participated in this evaluation. The experimental group (i.e., those who received the Rosen materials) had 45 kindergarten students, 52 first grade students and 55 second grade students. The control group (i.e., those who were not exposed to the Rosen materials) was made up of 48 kindergarten students, 50 first grade students and 53 second grade students. The participants’ demographic information derived from student records is located in Table 1. As can be seen from these data, the groups were evenly divided in terms of gender and grade level. The percent of students who qualify for and receive English Language Acquisition (ELA) services was higher for the second grade and kindergarten students in the experimental group than the control group. The second grade and kindergarten students in the experimental group also had more special education students and non-native English speakers. The first grade experimental and control groups were more evenly divided in terms of number of ELA students and those whose primary language spoken at home was not English. However, the first grade experimental group had a higher percentage of special education students than the first grade control group. Though the overall number of retained students was low, the first and second grade students in the experimental group had a higher percentage of retained students than the first and second grade students in the control group.
Measures Students’ reading achievement was assessed using the Developmental Reading Assessment. The DRA is a standardized reading assessment designed to determine students’ reading accuracy, fluency and comprehension levels through a series of leveled books and recording sheets. Procedure DRA data for the first and second grade students were collected at the end of the first, second and third 10-week quarters of the 2002-2003 school year. The kindergarten teachers used an observation survey to assess their students’ reading achievement at the end of the first quarter. They used the DRA, however, at the end of the second and third quarters. Final assessments for all three grade levels were conducted seven weeks into the fourth quarter. At each data collection point, teachers administered the measure one-on-one with their students. The kindergarten teachers were the only instructors with no experience conducting a DRA prior to this study. Student records were confidential since all data were coded using the students’ identification number. As an incentive to participate in this research, Rosen Classroom Books & Materials donated their phonics and guided reading programs to instructors of the experimental group. Results This section is divided into two sections. Part one presents results of the outcome evaluation conducted to determine if Phonics for the REAL World and the Rosen REAL Readers Series impacted students’ reading achievement. The second part of this section addresses the process evaluation, or results of how RCBM’s materials were administered. Part I: Outcome Evaluation Research Question #1: Did students show significantly greater gains in DRA scores after using Rosen Classroom Books & Material’s products compared to gains earned before being exposed to these materials? Analyses conducted on differences between students based on their gender, whether they qualify for or receive ELA and/or special education services, and whether they have been retained or do not speak English as their primary language at home, showed that students who receive ELA services had lower DRA scores at each measurement point compared to students who do not receive ELA services. Thus, further analyses controlled for whether the student received ELA services. A separate analysis for each grade level was conducted to assess gains in the experimental group’s DRA scores after they received RCBM’s materials compared to before their teachers used these materials. Fifty out of the original 52 first grade experimental group students contained data for all four measurement points. Thus, scores for 50 students were used in this analysis. A repeated measures analysis controlling for the number of students who received ELA services showed that the change in the first grade students’ DRA scores from the second to the third quarter was statistically significantly greater than their change in DRA scores from the first to the second quarter (p < .05). That is, on average, students improved by 6 levels across one 10-week quarter before receiving the Rosen materials, while they improved by close to 8 levels across a 10-week quarter after using the program. The same pattern was not detected for the change in DRA scores from the third to the fourth quarter; however, the testing period was only seven weeks, explaining why smaller gains were detected. Results of this analysis are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: DRA Gain Scores of First Grade Students in the Experimental Group Since the kindergarten teachers did not use the DRA at the end of the first quarter, only gains in the kindergarten students’ DRA scores from the second to the third quarter and the third to the fourth quarter could be assessed. Two students contained missing data, which allowed the analysis to include 43 of the 45 kindergarten students. Results reveal that the kindergarten students showed significant gains in DRA scores from the second to the third quarter, controlling for whether the students received ELA services (p < .05). In other words, on average the kindergarten students improved by nearly 1.5 levels across a 10-week period after being exposed to RCBM’s materials. Since the DRA was not used with the kindergarten students until after the second quarter, a comparison with the kindergarten students’ gains in DRA levels from the first to the second quarter (before receiving the Rosen materials) cannot be made. Similar to the previous analysis, third-to-fourth-quarter gains were not statistically significantly greater than the second-to-third-quarter gains, which is not surprising given that the fourth DRA testing period was only seven weeks into the quarter (as opposed to 10 weeks). There were no statistically significant differences in the second grade students’ gain scores from the first to the second and the second to the third quarters. Thus, while the second grade students improved by an average of five levels from the second to the third quarter and only four levels from the first to the second quarter, this difference was not statistically significantly different. However, 18 students had data missing for at least one of the assessment periods. Thus, scores for only 37 of the 55 second grade students originally recruited for the study could be used in the analysis. It is possible that the small sample size contributed to the lack of statistically significant effects detected for the second grade students involved in the study. In sum, this analysis suggests that RCBM’s literacy materials helped the first grade students to show greater gains in reading achievement. Research Question #2: Did the Phonics for the REAL World and Rosen REAL Readers Series literacy materials increase kindergarten through second grade students’ DRA scores compared to kindergarten through second grade students exposed to other reading materials? The difference between the experimental and control groups’ average DRA scores over time were analyzed, controlling for the number of students in each group who receive ELA services. A repeated-measures analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) showed statistically significant increases in DRA scores across time (p < .05); however, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control group in DRA scores from the beginning to the end of the school year. Thus, while students improved their reading performance, the Phonics for the REAL World and the Rosen REAL Readers Series did not effect this change. Part II: Process Evaluation In May 2003, teachers of students in the experimental group (n = 5) were administered a survey examining how both Phonics for the REAL World and the Rosen REAL Readers Series were implemented. Below are the teachers’ responses to this survey. Results reveal that 30% of the teachers used the Rosen REAL Readers Series for three months while the remaining 70% of the teachers used the materials for two months. On average, the teachers spent 81 minutes a day on reading instruction, with half of this time devoted to using the Rosen REAL Readers Series and not quite the other half of this block on using Phonics for the REAL World (see Table 2). All of the teachers used the Early Emergent for Grades K-1 texts of the Rosen REAL Readers Series, half of them used the Upper Emergent for Grades 1-2, less than one-third (26.7%) used the Early Fluency for Grades 2-3, and 18.2% reported using the Fluency for Grades 3-4 texts.
All of the teachers used the Rosen REAL Readers Series for guided reading. In addition, the majority (82.9%) used the materials for independent reading and read aloud sessions where the students read to the teachers and the teachers read to the students. Roughly one-third (36.2%) used the materials for buddy reading with students from a different grade level, while nearly all of the teachers (82.9%) used the program for buddy reading with peers of the same grade level. Just over half of the teachers (53.3%) used the Rosen REAL Readers Series as an evaluative tool to assess their students’ reading ability. Nearly one-third of the teachers (36.2%) did not use the Rosen REAL Readers teacher’s guide. Just under one-third (29.6%) used the guide about half the time, while 17.1% reported using the guide most of the time and the remaining 17.1% said they occasionally used the guide. The majority of those who utilized the teacher’s guide used the “specialized vocabulary” section, while only a few said they used the guide for teaching suggestions, enrichment activities, suggested writing activities or reading comprehension questions. None of the teachers used the “additional resources” section of the guide. Thus, while the majority of the teachers used the teacher’s guide in some way, most only used it to access information from the specialized vocabulary section. Four of the five teachers used Phonics for the REAL World. The one teacher who did not use the program felt her students were too advanced for the program by the time they received the materials (almost three quarters in to the school year). The average length of time for those who did use Phonics for the REAL World was two months, and the teachers used a combination of the phonics books across multiple Skill Sets. All of the teachers used Phonics for the REAL World to teach guided reading, while the majority (79.4%) also used the program for independent reading and buddy reading with peers of the same level. In addition, roughly one-third (35.7%) of the teachers used the materials for buddy reading with students from a different grade level. Most of the teachers (56.3%) said they “always” used the Phonics for the REAL World teacher’s guide, while the remaining 43.7% reported “never” using the guide. The reading and phonics activities were the most commonly used sections of the guide. About one-third of the teachers also reported using the Phonics for the REAL World teacher’s guide for vocabulary and writing or language activities. None of the teachers used the guide for ideas for integrating the curriculum or for additional resources. While just under half the teachers said they used basal phonics books during the school year, none of them used supplemental phonics books. In-depth interviews with some of the teachers in the experimental group revealed that fiction books were more helpful with the beginner readers than the RCBM’s nonfiction books. That is, the teachers said they had to provide extensive support when using the nonfiction materials because the children lacked the background knowledge to understand the material. In addition, students struggled with the proper nouns (for example, “Niagara Falls”) that were more common in the nonfiction books. In addition, the teachers thought that the vocabulary introduced in the nonfiction books could have been reinforced more to help the children grasp those words. For these reasons, several of the teachers said they could not even begin to use the RCBM’s nonfiction books until after the students reached levels eight through 10. Still, the teachers liked the nonfiction books in that they covered a variety of topics and they introduced students to new concepts, places and people. Students particularly enjoyed the books on outer space. Summary and Conclusions The first analysis was conducted to examine how the experimental group performed after being exposed to RCBM’s materials. Findings revealed that the first grade students in the experimental group showed statistically significant gains in DRA scores after being exposed to RCBM’s materials compared to their gains in DRA scores before receiving the Rosen program. The kindergarten students showed significant second-to-third-quarter gains in DRA scores; however, there were no data on their first-to-second quarter DRA gains in which to make a comparison. While the second grade students showed no statistically significant difference in gains earned after using the materials compared to before receiving the program, many cases were dropped due to missing data. It is therefore possible that the lack of statistically significant effects for the second grade class was due to not having a large enough sample to detect the effects as opposed to lack of program effectiveness. In sum, the first grade students showed significant gains after receiving the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World, even though the teachers had little or no experience teaching guided reading. The second analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in DRA levels between the experimental and control groups. This finding, however, could have been due to the fact that both groups were using guided reading materials for their literacy program (the experimental group used the Rosen products and the control group used other guided reading materials). Further, teachers in the control group had more experience with teaching guided reading than the teachers in the experimental group. In addition, the experimental group had more ELA students than the control group, and the students who receive ELA services were found to perform statistically significantly worse on the DRA across time compared to non-ELA students. The fact that the experimental and control group showed similar growth even though the experimental group had less experience teaching guided reading and more educationally challenged students is remarkable. An evaluation of program implementation revealed that while the majority of time spent teaching reading was devoted to using the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World, the teachers only used the materials for roughly two months of the school year (beginning in February 2003). The “Early Emergent for K-1” and “Upper Emergent for Grades 1-2” were the main texts used in the Rosen REAL Readers Series, while the teachers used a combination of Phonics for the REAL World books across multiple Skill Sets. In general, RCBM’s materials were used for guided reading, independent reading, and buddy reading with peers of the same level. The majority of the teachers used the Rosen REAL Readers Series teacher’s guide in some way, but mostly just for the specialized vocabulary section of the guide. Similarly, while just over half of the teachers reported “always” as using the Phonics for the REAL World teacher’s guide, they generally only used two sections from the guide (reading and phonics activities). Thus, several sections of both guides were not used at all. Future studies should be conducted on classrooms that use the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World throughout the school year, and where teachers use the entire teacher’s guide – particularly for those instructors that have minimal to no experience teaching phonics and/or guided reading. Scientific Research Basis for Math for the REAL World™
Math for the REAL World features nonfiction, informational books designed to encourage comprehensive literacy and the acquisition and reinforcement of basic math skills through guided instruction and the use of real-world subjects. Each book is leveled and provides carefully guided text and layout for Early Emergent, Upper Emergent, Early Fluency, Fluency, and Proficiency readers. Ninety high-interest titles are available in Collection 1. The content featured in these books is correlated to National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ standards, as well as national standards for social studies, science, and health, and are highly effective in presenting students with factual text in an accessible manner. The Theory and Research Behind Math for the REAL World™ According to the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the average math scores of fourth- and eighth-graders have improved slightly between 1990 and 2000. However, only one quarter of fourth- and eighth-graders are performing at or above proficient levels in math. Combine these figures with the national reading scores and it becomes clear that our students face dire consequences if these basic, essential skills do not improve In Math for the REAL World, Rosen Classroom Books & Materials seeks to teach basic math skills by applying the findings of the research featured in the articles Trying Something New: Meaning-based Reading Instruction in a Finnish First-Grade Classroom (Korkeamäki, 1996) and The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade (Duke, 1999). This research supports presenting information in tangible, meaningful contexts—the exact foundation of Math for the REAL World, which applies the concept that math is found in every aspect of life and can be presented, and therefore comprehended and retained, more effectively. As nonfiction, leveled readers, the books in Math for the REAL World also reinforce basic reading skills by applying the pedagogic theories based on the findings of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1999) and the National Reading Panel Report Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Langenberg, et al, 2000). These conclude that there are 5 key elements to becoming a successful reader: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency, and comprehension—all of which were taken into account in the development of the text for Math for the REAL World Math for the REAL World titles are divided into five groups: Early Emergent (grades K – 1), Upper Emergent (grades 1 – 2), Early Fluency (grades 2 – 3), Fluency (grades 3 – 4), and Proficiency (grades 4–5). The books within each group are leveled according to a variety of standards, including Fountas & Pinnell, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Early Intervention Learning. As findings in the study Text Leveling and Little Books in First-Grade Reading (Hoffman, Roser, Salas, Patterson & Pennington, 2000) show, these types of leveling systems are useful in assessing a child’s current level of reading ability and tracking a child’s progress in acquiring reading skills. Each book in the Early Emergent and Upper Emergent groups contains ample opportunities for phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. Studies such as those featured in Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition (Share, et al, 1984) show that phonemic awareness is one of the two best predictors of how well children will learn to read. An emerging reader with a high level of phonemic awareness is better positioned to decode unfamiliar words (Ehri, 1991, 1994), a necessary skill when dealing with informational text. There is a heavy emphasis on acquiring new vocabulary at these early levels, and indeed at each subsequent level. Fluency and comprehension are also critical components of skilled reading. Per the findings of Fountas & Pinnell (1996), the books in the Early Emergent and Upper Emergent Math for the REAL World feature close picture/text correlation; a combination of site words, high-frequency words, and new words; an increasing level of text difficulty corresponding to the acquisition of phonics skills; and subject matter that is of interest to the reader. By doing so, Math for the REAL World books are effective in helping children learn to read fluently, that is to say with speed, accuracy, and proper expression. As readers become more skilled, they advance to the Early Fluency, Fluency, and Proficiency levels of Math for the REAL World, where fluency and comprehension are the primary focus. How Do Math for the REAL World Books Work? The Math for the REAL World books provide high-interest topics that are written with meaningful text. Using guided instruction, these leveled books contain content of interest to the appropriate age level, enabling accurate matching of students to the books they are ready to master. Math for the REAL World promotes the use of research literacy circles, and encourages students to work in teams preparing both written and oral reports, or comparing and contrasting the facts around a particular subject. With a careful correlation of text and photos, titles in Math for the REAL World are multiethnic and inclusionary, and are leveled to match traditional reading assessment inventories such as Developmental Reading Assessment, Fountas & Pinnell, and Early Intervention Learning. The use of high-frequency words — based on states’ standards for the math, social studies, science, and health curricula — promotes reading fluency and confidence. Each of the grade-level sets includes 18 nonfiction titles (6 copies of each title) and comes with a corresponding Teacher’s Guide. The Teacher’s Guide features a full lesson plan for each title in the series, including teaching suggestions that encourage discussion and providing ideas for exciting activities in the classroom. Specialized vocabulary lists for each book detail the words pertaining to the math skill being taught as well as the contextual subject of the book that are critical for the comprehension of the text. Enrichment activities offer creative ways for the classroom teacher to incorporate the topics of the book—both math and contextual subject—into the classroom Documentation
of the Scientifically-Based Reading The Theory and Research Behind Phonics for the REAL World The pedagogic theory behind Phonics for the REAL World is based on the findings of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) and the National Reading Panel Report Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Langenberg, et al, 2000), which state, in part, that phonemic awareness is a critical component in teaching children to read. Supported by hundreds of studies, this theory is neither new nor untried. However, Phonics for the REAL World takes phonics instruction a step further by placing phonics skills within the context of leveled nonfiction readers, an approach called for in Text Matters in Learning to Read (Hiebert, 1998), supported by the research featured in the articles Trying Something New: Meaning-based Reading Instruction in a Finnish First-Grade Classroom (Korkeamäki, 1996) and The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade (Duke, 1999), and by the 1997 position statement issued by the International Reading Association The Role of Phonics in Reading Instruction. Our target audience is pre-K to 1, the group for whom phonics instruction has proven to be most effective (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1967). Other studies, such as those featured in Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition (Share, et al, 1984) show that phonemic awareness and letter knowledge are the two best predictors of how well children will learn to read. We believe that phonics-skills instruction administered through the use of nonfiction text that is correlated to the curricula gives young children an excellent basis from which to become successful, fluent readers. An emerging reader with a high level of phonemic awareness is better positioned to decode unfamiliar words (Ehri, 1991, 1994), a necessary skill when dealing with informational text. Per the findings of Fountas & Pinnell (1996), the books in Phonics for the REAL World feature close picture/text correlation; a combination of site words, high-frequency words, and new words; an increasing level of text difficulty corresponding to the acquisition of phonics skills; and subject matter that is of interest to the reader. How Does Phonics for the REAL World Work? We understand that teachers are encouraged to spend a majority of their time on reading instruction in addition to the other subjects dictated by national curriculum standards. As such, we have closely correlated the text in Phonics for the REAL World to the social studies and science curricula for grades pre-K to 2, giving teachers the ability to reinforce critical reading skills, such as phonemic awareness, while introducing young students to a variety of informational contents. Because the content is closely tied to the curriculum, children are encouraged to read fluently and for comprehension. As their phonics skills grow, so does their knowledge of a subject and their vocabulary. By providing coherent, skills-based
reading instruction, Phonics for the REAL World gives children a solid foundation
on which to build and strengthen reading skills in five critical areas: phonemic
awareness, phonics/decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and construction of meaning.
The comprehensive Teacher’s Guide walks teachers through the systematic instruction of phonics skills in the context of informational text correlated to the national standards for Pre-K – 2 social studies and science curricula. The Teacher’s Guide assists teachers in creating lesson plans featuring the following tasks, all of which are commonly used to improve children’s phonemic awareness (NRP, 2000): phoneme isolation, phoneme identity, phoneme categorization, phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, and phoneme deletion. Each lesson plan also enforces vocabulary, both familiar and unfamiliar, and presents activities to encourage comprehension of the text and integration of the children’s newly acquired knowledge into the rest of the curriculum. A writing component reinforces letter knowledge, another key element in acquiring reading skills (Share, et al, 1984). Evaluation-Based Evidence of Effectiveness Three years in the making, Phonics for the REAL World has been available for purchase since September 2001, and is currently being used effectively in classrooms around the country. Pre- and post-tests results reveal the striking effectiveness of this program. Support for the Methodology Behind Phonics for the REAL World See
attached Adams, M.J. (1990) Beginning to read: Thinking and Learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chall, J. (1967) Learning to read: the great debate. New York: McGraw Hill. Dreher, M.J. & Korkeamäki, R-L. (1996) “Trying Something new: Meaning-Based Research Instruction in a Finnish First-Grade Classroom.” Journal of Literacy Research (Vol. 28, pp. 9–34) Duke, N.K. (1999) “The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade.” Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) report # 1-007. Ehri, L. (1994) Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, M Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323–358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ibid. (1991) Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.) Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 383, 417). New York: Longman. Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G.S. (1996) Guided Reading: Good first teaching for all children, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hiebert, E. (1998) “Text Matters in Learning to Read.” Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) report # 1-001. Langenberg, D., Correro, G., Ehri, L., Ferguson, G., Garza, N., Kamil, M., Marrett, C. B., Samuels, S. J., Shanahan, T., Shaywitz, S., Trabasso, T., Williams, J., Willows, D. & Yatvin, J. (Panel) (2000). “Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction”. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Share, D., Jorm, A. Maclean, R. & Matthews, R. (1984) Sources of individual difference in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309–1324. Snow, C. Burns, M. & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). “Preventing reading difficulties in young children.” Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Vaaca, R., Pikulski, J. Ransom, K., & Farstrup, A., (1997) The Role of Phonics in Reading Instruction. Newark, DE, International Reading Association. Summary
of Independent Study for Background The Rosen Publishing Group has produced compelling books for schools and libraries for over 50 years. The Rosen REAL Readers Series, created by the Rosen Classroom Books & Materials (RCBM) division, provides nonfiction guidance and curriculum-based leveled books for students in grades K - 4. The books are designed to encourage comprehensive literacy through guided instruction. Phonics for the REAL World, another Rosen Classroom product, features nonfiction books that teach facts while incorporating the fundamentals of phonics instruction. Both programs include a teacher’s guide with comprehensive literacy strategies designed for the elementary grades. Research Question An independent evaluation was conducted to quantify the classroom impact of the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World on students’ reading achievement as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The research examined whether students showed greater gains in DRA scores after using the Rosen literacy materials compared to gains earned before using the program materials. Sample The study included 50 first grade students enrolled in the same public, urban elementary school. The sample was evenly divided in terms of gender; 21.1% of the students qualified for English Language Acquisition (ELA) services and 11.5% received the services; 13.5% were in special education; 26.9% spoke a primary language at home that was not English; and 5.8% of the students had been retained. Results Analyses conducted on differences between students based on their gender, whether they qualify for or receive ELA and/or special education services, and whether they have been retained or do not speak English as their primary language at home, showed that students who receive ELA services had lower DRA scores at each measurement point compared to students who do not receive ELA services. Thus, further analyses controlled for this variable. In terms of program impact, findings revealed that gains in DRA scores after receiving the Rosen REAL Readers Series and Phonics for the REAL World were statistically significantly greater (p < .05) than the gains in reading achievement before receiving the program, controlling for whether the students received ELA services. Results of this analysis are depicted in Figure 1. EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 Figure 1: DRA Gains Before and After Students Received the Rosen Materials Rosen
Classroom Books & Materials A Research-based solution Rosen THEORY / RESEARCH FOUNDATION The results of the 2000 National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) show that more than 85 percent of all fourth graders in high-poverty schools scored below the “proficient” reading level. There is no question that this is unacceptable. The question is: How do we change it? What to do with students who have difficulty reading — and students who are deemed “nonreaders” — is a question that continues to haunt educators throughout the school reform movement. While an abundance of literature exists citing the effectiveness of one program over another for groups of at-risk and/or learning disabled students, little is said about effective practices for those within these groups who defy these instructional practices. The literature is replete with examples of programs citing 85 percent success rates with groups of at-risk or special education students (Pinnell et al, 1994; Slavin et al, 1994; Lyon, 1997). There is, however, no large-scale educational research study demonstrating a 100 percent success rate. It does not exist. Another overwhelming fact presents itself as a result of all of the research done to date — no one solution fits all. As G. Reid Lyon, acting chief for the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development within the National Institute of Health, stated after studying approximately 10,000 children over a 15-year period, NICHD research clearly concludes that “no single method, approach, or philosophy for teaching reading is equally effective for all children.” (Lyon, 1997) All reading programs may work, but not for all students. This is why the results of the research clearly show a need for a “balanced reading approach.” Programs that attempt to be all things to all students simply do not deliver what they promise. Educators must continue to use programs that work for the highest percentage of their students while supplementing them with programs specifically designed for students for whom traditional instructional practices do not work. These are the students quietly being written off within America’s reform movement as hard core “nonreaders.” They are also the students with the greatest impact to the school reform movement. Sometimes policy makers who are forced to think in economies of scale forget the impact nonreaders have to the reform movement. The fact that 85 to 90 percent of students can learn to read becomes so exciting that the 10 to 15 percent who don’t might appear to be less important. This thinking is in direct opposition to the mandate of the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2002.” The 2 to 3 million students in the bottom 10 percent cannot be overlooked. In fact, they are the key to the reform movement. In a typical classroom, you must have 13 students testing at the 90th percentile to compensate for every 5 students testing below the 10th percentile. This is because our typical grading system doesn’t treat the 50th percentile as an average grade — the grade distribution is skewed. Prisons are disproportionately filled with inmates and juvenile offenders who can’t read. It is essential that we address the needs of students in the lowest levels of literacy. The goal of every early educator is and should be to provide high-quality reading instruction to help every child in every state become successful readers. And, as Lyon states, “Successful teachers include elements of code-based instruction with a rich, meaning-based context to develop the skills for reading success.” (Fletcher, Lyon, 1998) ROSEN CLASSROOM BOOKS & MATERIALS’ READING FIRST SOLUTION Rosen Classroom Books & Materials has put together a research-based, scientifically validated reading program called The Reading First Solution. The Reading First Solution was specifically designed to provide “high impact” instructional practices to American’s lowest literacy students. Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ goal is to bring the reading skills of these students up to level so that they can join the reading mainstream as quickly as possible. The Reading First Solution is effective because it provides the research-based conditions necessary for literacy acquisition to occur for America’s lowest literacy students — nonreaders included. The Reading First Solution was designed to leave no child behind. Why Rosen Classroom
Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution Works The obvious question is: Why will Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution work when no other program has? The pedagogic theory behind
The Reading First Solution is based on the findings of the National Research
Council (NRC) Committee in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children
(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1999) and the National Reading Panel Report Teaching
Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature
on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Langenberg, et al,
2000), which state that there are 5 key elements to becoming a successful reader:
phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency, and comprehension.
Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution includes
all of these components. During the past decade, a tremendous amount of research has been collected concerning how to prevent reading difficulties in young children. As mentioned, two key sources are the work of G. Reid Lyon, acting chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health, and that of Snow, Griffin, and Burns as found in the National Research Council’s, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. It appears that there is a bit of confusion as to what they have recommended. Too often, it has been assumed that they have stressed a ‘phonics only’ approach to the teaching of reading. This is incorrect. Nothing can be further from the truth. Much of the confusion concerning research recommendations centers on the definition of reading. Reading is multidimensional. Unfortunately, researchers fail to clearly define what aspect of reading they are measuring — is it word recognition, comprehension, fluency, motivation or more? This lack of clarification leads to incorrect assumptions about what works best in preventing reading difficulties in young children. Reading is more than recognizing words. Yet, much of the current research pertaining to young children has primarily centered on the acquisition of automaticity or instant word recognition. These researchers clearly believe that this skill is essential to reading success. As Lyon (1997) states “Unfortunately, there is no way to bypass this decoding and word recognition stage of reading. A deficiency in these skills cannot be appreciably offset by using context to figure out the pronunciation of unknown words…” To be sure, there are some children who can read words accurately and quickly yet do have difficulties comprehending, […a condition known as ‘hyperlexia’ Benton (1977) ...] but they constitute a very small portion of those with reading problems.” When it comes to the instant recognition of words, the research is quite clear. Training in phonemic awareness has significant impact and a “... benefit to youngsters at risk due to socioeconomic disadvantage and/or weak initial preparedness in reading-related skills” (Snow, et.al. 1999). In other words, phonics works for word recognition. Should training in phonemic awareness be included in K-3 reading programs? Absolutely! Rosen Classroom Book & Materials’ Reading First Solution includes it. But again we must emphatically state, not exclusively. Programs that stress a “phonics only” approach to beginning reading programs are doomed to failure. A ‘phonics only’ program ignores all of the current research on comprehension and its relationship to training in phonemic awareness. Training in phonemic awareness will not automatically lead to comprehension. The research is quite clear on this. Snow states, “taken together, these studies indicate that training in phonological awareness, particularly in association with instruction in letters and letter-sound relationships, makes a contribution to assisting at-risk students to read. [We believe the author meant to say “read words.”] The effects of training, although quite consistent, are only moderate in strength, and have so far not been shown to extend to comprehension... hence, it is unrealistic to think of phonological awareness as a one-shot inoculation against reading difficulties for children at-risk” (p.251). Lyon (1997) summarizes “We have learned that the development of phonemic awareness is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for learning to read. A child must integrate phonemic skills into the learning of phonics principles, must practice reading so that word recognition is rapid and accurate, and must learn how to actively use comprehension strategies to enhance meaning.” In other words, Lyon’s summary is in full agreement with the design of Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution — phonemic awareness and phonics training in conjunction with research-based, scientifically validated comprehension strategies for at-risk students. In other words, reading initiatives must include research-based comprehension strategies. These strategies must center on the following factors to enhance comprehension: vocabulary, background knowledge about the subject matter, familiarity with semantic and syntactic structures, appreciation of the writing conventions (irony, humor, etc.), and verbal reasoning ability. Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution addresses each component. In addition, The Reading First Solution’s instructional strategies to enhance comprehension focus on: (1.) concept and vocabulary growth and (2.) the syntax and rhetorical structures of written language. For example, as recommended by the research, The Reading First Solution includes explicit instruction on comprehension in the following ways:
The Reading First Solution is designed to provide a productive reading experience by meeting essential student needs, such as:
The Reading First Solution is based on the most current scientific research demonstrating that successful reading involves the simultaneous utilization of phonemic awareness, phonics, sight words, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. Particularly, The Reading First Solution strongly relies on the findings of the Report of the National Reading Panel, the National Research Council’s Committee on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, NICHD/OERI and the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA). Phonemic Awareness Phonemic awareness involves teaching children to focus on and manipulate phonemes (the smallest units composing spoken language) in spoken syllables and words. The research demonstrates that teaching children to manipulate phonemes in words improves their reading and spelling more than instruction that lacks any attention to phonemic awareness. More importantly phonemic awareness instruction lasted well beyond the end of training. The Reading First Solution’s materials and methodologies employ the characteristics of phonemic awareness training found to be most effective in enhancing phonemic awareness, reading and spelling – “explicitly and systematically teaching children to manipulate phonemes with letters, focusing the instruction on one or two types of phoneme manipulations rather than multiple types, and teaching children in small groups” (Report of the National Reading Panel, p.9). An overview of The Reading First Solution’s components that address Phonemic Awareness, such as Phonics for the REAL World, are documented in sections below. Phonics Phonics instruction involves
teaching children how to use letter-sound relations to read or spell words.
According to the National Reading Panel “the primary focus of phonics
instruction is to help beginning readers understand how letters are linked to
sounds (phonemes) to form letter-sound correspondences and spelling patterns
and to help them learn how to apply this knowledge in their reading.”
Research indicates that systemic phonics instruction produces significant benefits
for students in kindergarten through 6th grade and for children having difficulty
learning to read. The Panel cautioned “phonics teaching is a means to
an end”… Programs that focus too much on the teaching of letter-sound
relations and not enough on putting them to use are unlikely to be effective.”
The National Panel then states that “educators must keep the end in mind
and ensure that children understand the purpose of learning letter sounds and
that they are able to apply these skills accurately and fluently in daily reading
and writing activities.” The Reading First Solution’s materials
and methodologies guarantee that this direct reading application occurs on a
daily basis. More importantly, it is done in a context that promotes the fluent
and automatic application of phonics skills to text in order to maximize oral
reading and reading comprehension. Current research is quite conclusive about the advantages of training in phonological awareness. It is an excellent predictor of superior reading. It has great value. This is why it is prominently included in Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution. Students must have some awareness of the knowledge of sound symbol relationships. But what about those students with a poor ear for sounds? Thirty years ago, Johnson and Myklebust (1967) identified students with disorders of auditory receptive language resulting from central nervous dysfunction designated as receptive aphasia, sensory aphasia, auditory verbal agnosia or word deafness (Goldstein, 1948, McGinnis, 1963: Myklebust, 1954: Orton, 1937; Schuell, 1964, Wepman, 1951). “Even though writers have used varied terminology, they agree that these disabilities should be differentiated from the language deficits resulting from deafness or mental retardation...The receptive aphasic is neither deaf nor mentally retarded; consequently his educational needs are different.” (p. 74) Mattis (1978) postulates that researchers must think in terms of clinical subtypes of dyslexia. He states, “There is not in adults, therefore, a single causal defect underlying all alexias but rather several independent causal deficits. This clinical reality in adults is the basis of a model for dyslexia in children...” (p.46). Boder (1971) “yielded three subtypes of dyslexics. The first was dysphonetic dyslexic. The reading-spelling pattern in these cases reflects a deficit in symbol-sound integration and in phonetic word analysis.”(p. 414) Denckla (1979) also talks of children with audio phonetic disorders. “At present we know enough to say that single-word semantic vocabulary growth is good in these children but they show ‘a tin ear for language’...although slow to learn, particularly in initial mastery of the phonics-and-blending (analytic-synthetic) method... and learning to read in grades one through three...”(p.548). Snow, et.al. (1999) further substantiates the need for an alternative approach for these ‘phonetically deaf’ children when she states in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, a publication of the National Research Council, “A majority of at-risk children who receive training in phonological awareness show strong gains... but a minority - perhaps a quarter (Torgesen et al., 1997) - gain little or no insight into the structure of spoken words, much less into reading... It is likely that many more hours or a different type of special instruction are needed than have typically been provided in studies to date.” An overview of The Reading First Solution’s components that address the need for special instruction, such as Failure Free Reading, are documented in sections below. As Lyons (1997) states, “teachers are frequently presented with a ‘one size fits all’ philosophy that emphasizes either a ‘whole language’ or ‘phonics’ orientation to instruction. No doubt this parochial type of preparation places many children at continued risk of reading failure ... the real question is which children need what, when, for how long, with what type of instruction, and in what setting.” We are not based on the old ‘sight versus phonics’ argument. Students need simultaneous access to both. It is why we teach both in The Reading First Solution. Our primary goal is to provide at-risk, and special education students with a basic understanding of the reading process through the use of research-based instructional interventions that remove learning impediments. Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution is not concerned with etiology. Vocabulary Language is the invisible ceiling that prevents many at-risk students from fully comprehending what they are reading. The importance of vocabulary and language development cannot be understated. Vocabulary is critical to oral reading, comprehension and fluency. “The larger the reader’s vocabulary (either print or oral), the easier it is to make sense of the text” (National Reading Panel). Many at-risk students are
denied the opportunity to excel because they come from language-deprived environments.
Hart & Risley (1995) cite that “an average child growing up in a low-income
family hears one-half to one-third as many spoken words as children in more
affluent households. At these rates, the low-income child would know about 3,000
words by age 6, while the child of the high-income family would have a vocabulary
of 20,000 words. Comprehension The National Reading Panel noted in the research that reading comprehension is a complex cognitive process that cannot be understood without a clear description of the role that vocabulary development and vocabulary instruction play in the understanding of what has been read. It also mentioned that comprehension is an active process that requires intentional and thoughtful interaction between the reader and the text. The Reading First Solution is based on an interactive language development model. The primary philosophy underlining The Reading First Solution is that “reading is relating”. Students cannot comprehend what they can’t relate to. Every instructional step is taken to insure that students can relate to the content contained in the reading materials. Fluency Fluency is the ability to read orally with speed, accuracy and proper expression. The National Reading Panel reports that fluency instruction has a strong relationship to comprehension. Recent research on the efficacy of teaching fluency has shown that guided repeated oral reading procedures that included guidance from teachers, peers, or parents had a significant and positive impact on word recognition, fluency and comprehension across grade levels. The results applied to all readers, good readers as well as those experiencing difficulties. The Panel also mentions that fluency is more than a “word recognition phenomenon”…. Competent reading requires skills that extend beyond the single-word level to contextual reading, and this skill can best be acquired by practicing reading texts in which the words are in a meaningful context. The Reading First Solution provides every classroom teacher with a complete “supplemental reading library” of independent reading books supported by lesson plans in an electronic software format. These books are specifically designed to promote fluency in the classroom and content areas. Sight Words Unfortunately, some words are not phonically regular. These words violate the alphabetic principle. “More than 20 percent of first-grade level high-frequency words are not decodable by phonic analysis” (Hargis, 2000, p 523). Hargis further cites, “English adopts more foreign words than any other language. The spelling is seldom changed and neither is the pronunciation anglicized. Consider: bouquet, corps, chalet, façade, chic, and milieu.” Hargis then goes on to cite the importance of repetition in promoting the instant recognition of high frequency, non-decodable words. “Arthur Gates (1930) found that, on average, beginning readers needed 35 repetitions in the identification of a new word before it would be instantly recognizable. The range from slowest to faster learners in his first-grade study was about 55 to 20 repetitions. “These findings have been confirmed and are not in dispute” (Hargis, Terhaar-Yonkers, Williams, & Reed, 1988). Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution provides for this abundant amount of repetition through its “ME + MC” formula for Successful Reading Instruction: The Reading First Solution Formula Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution is based on the following formula: Successful Reading = Phonemic Awareness + Phonics + Vocabulary + Comprehension + Fluency + Sight Words Rosen Classroom Books & Materials believes that beginning readers must have simultaneous access to these critical reading components. Successful reading requires successful reading instruction. Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution is based on the following instructional formula: Successful Reading Instruction = ME + MC This formula is based on the work of Jean McCormick (1994). McCormick conducted an exhaustive review on the efficacy of reading strategies for nonreaders. She concluded by stating that the programs that showed the best results were those that stressed: “ME + MC”. ME stands for Multiple Exposures. MC represents Multiple Contexts. In other words, lowest literacy students must have repeated exposure to print material within many different instructional contexts. Multiple Exposures McCormick (1994) cites that repetition is a supportive condition in word learning for most students. However, it is the degree of repetition that is of concern with nonreaders. It appears that nonreaders need significantly more contact to produce mastery or what Samuels (1988) calls “automaticity”. At-risk students need pronounced practice with new material within a consistent and systematic environment. Hargis et al. (1992), in citing the lack of literature pertaining to repetition requirements, mention that Gates (1930) is the only other study in English on this subject. Hargis states “ that the amount of repetition required for a student [... with reading difficulties...] to learn to recognize a word was very closely related to how much reading skill he or she had already acquired.” In the Hargis study, the correlation coefficient for this relationship between mean reading level and mean number of repetitions was an amazing -0.9317. It appears that the lower the reading level of the struggling student, the greater the number of contacts the student must have with the word before automaticity is achieved. In this study, students with severe reading difficulties who were reading at the first grade level needed a minimum of 76.12 repetitions (compared to 34.5 repetitions for those reading at the third grade level) regardless of chronological age and IQ. The reading level of the students accounted for 86.81 percent of the variance. Too often, the need for repetition is often confused with the outdated and very tedious concept of ‘drill and kill’. Critics correctly cited that, aside from the obvious problems associated with tediousness and boredom, such a procedure did not lead to word generalizations. The students knew the words on the flash cards but did not recognize them in context. There appeared to be very little transfer of learning. Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution provides for repetition within a meaningful reading context. “Research on imagery level (Hargis, 1978b; Hargis & Gickling, 1978; Hargis & Gickling, 1980) indicates that high-imagery nouns require less repetition for children to master. Structure words and low-imagery nouns require more repetition. ... Learning of structure words and low-imagery words greatly benefits from introduction and repetition in meaningful contexts. Repetition of these words in isolation is much less effective.” (Hargis, 1982) One of the most effective repetitive strategies for nonreaders is the use of multiple exposures within multiple contexts (McCormick, 1994). Students who are engaged in highly sequenced cumulative learning opportunities presented to them in a consistent multi-contextual format showed significant growth. Multiple Contexts Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution employs multiple exposures within multiple contexts through the use of teacher-guided reading and language lessons, text materials (readers, booklets, reinforcement activities) and talking software - a true multi-sensory approach. The Reading First Solution Multiple Contexts formula is as follows: MC = Text + Teaching + Technology Text Rosen Classroom Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution controls for three important text variables: (1.) Sentence Structure, (2.) Story Content, and (3.) Graphic Information. The Importance of Sentence Structure Sentence structure or syntax directly impacts on comprehension. “Syntax should be considered even in the first primers. Most basal readers contain stilted sentences that no child would use.” (Di Vesta p. 116) The acquisition of syntax follows a developmental sequence (Hargis, 1982). Many beginning at-risk readers are ‘syntactically challenged’. They are coming from homes in which standard English is not the spoken language. Because they have little exposure to standard English, they are denied the opportunity to intuitively grasp the rules of grammar. For these at-risk students, these rules must be taught. ‘Syntactically challenged’ students are limited in their ability to comprehend complex written sentence structures. They cannot relate to the ‘surface structure’ of written text (the way the story is written) and fail to process or gain access to its ‘deep meaning’ (what the story is trying to say). Most beginning reading programs ignore the importance of sentence structure. All too often, beginning reading programs are too syntactically complex for at-risk students. This is especially true for those programs stressing a ‘whole language’ approach. Many of the stories introduced to these children are too complex for their current level of syntactic development. As Harper states, “ the continuing development of syntactic structures for all children (especially exceptional children) during their early school years and possibly into adolescence (Wiig & Semel 1974, 1975) must be recognized when planning language and reading instruction. Yet, after examining four series of readers for sequential patterns of increasing syntactic complexity from first through sixth grade, Kachuck (1975) reported that patterns of increases were irregular with no evidence of systematic planning.” (1979) This same conclusion can be applied twenty years later. Syntactic complexity is still overlooked in current beginning reading instructional materials. Wiig and Semel (1980) suggest that the structural complexity of all written materials presented for the language and learning-disabled student to read should be adapted or reduced. They suggested the following adaptations for reducing the structural complexity of reading materials: (1.) the order-of-mention of critical content words should match the order-of-action, (2.) the order or sequence of the individual phrases in sentences should be controlled and adapted to conform to the order of kernel sentences, (3.) sentence length should be strictly controlled, (4.) sentences with embedded clauses or with nesting of embedded clauses should be rewritten and presented in their logical format, and (5.) sentence sequences and paragraphs have limited pronoun usage. The Reading First Solution controls for these elements. Complex sentence structures are kept to a minimum, and initial texts are written in the easiest form of syntactic comprehension - the kernel sentence (simple, active, positive and declarative). Complex structures are introduced only after intensive pre-teaching. An analysis of The Reading First Solution’s materials using the Botel Syntactic Complexity Formula verifies that they control for the use of zero-count and one-count structures (with zero being the easiest and three being the hardest) within a meaningful context. The Importance of Story Content Language is the invisible
ceiling that prevents at-risk students from learning to read. At the heart of Rosen Classroom
Books & Materials’ Reading First Solution is the belief that ‘reading
is relating’. Students cannot read for meaning something they cannot relate
to. Braunger and Lewis (1997) mention that the work of Anderson and Pearson
(1984) and Rummelhart (1980) led to the recognition of the importance of prior
knowledge in reading. The Reading First Solution controls for language processing deficits by managing for such variables as multiple meaning words, idiomatic expression, figurative speech and uncommon names and dates and places. Nothing is left for granted. < | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
