Addressing Literacy: Effective Methods for Reading
Instruction.
by Dee M. Lance , Brenda L. Beverly , Lea Helen Evans ,
Kim C. McCullough
As speech-language pathologists work more directly and
in concert with educators to address reading problems
in school-age children with language-based learning
disabilities (LLD), knowledge of current methods in
reading instruction will become critical. Eight methods
found to be effective with typically developing
children and children with LLD are outlined. Word
identification is best trained using methods that rely
upon knowledge of letter-sound correspondences in
varying syllable contexts and word attack skills using
letter--sound decoding and analogy. When learning
reading comprehension, students benefit from methods
that address vocabulary skills and text-level
comprehension monitoring.
On a daily basis, the U.S. public is bombarded with
news reports regarding new government initiatives-local, state, and federal--for addressing the seemingly
intractable reading problems faced by children and our
education system. Over the past 25 years, the amount of
involvement of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in
reading interventions has increased as the relationship
between reading impairment and school-age language
impairment has become more clear. Given the connection
between language disorders and reading disabilities,
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2001)
expanded the scope of practice for SLPs to include the
prevention of, identification of, assessment of, and
intervention for reading disorders in children. SLPs
are being encouraged to become involved in phonological
awareness assessment and remediation, treatment for
literacy-related oral language skills, and
collaborative consultation with other team members.
SLPs also are empowered to provide direct intervention
for reading, including instruction in skills and
strategies for word identification and reading
comprehension (Kamhi, Allen, & Catts, 2001). This
expanded role is an exciting opportunity for SLPs to
more directly affect the academic success of children.
Developing confidence in reading instruction, however,
is a challenge, especially given the mountain of
reading programs available and in use.
The consensus among experts in evidence-based reading
instruction is that there is not just one right program
but a set of practices that lead to effective literacy
learning (for a complete listing and description, see
National Reading Panel, 2000). Some practices
considered to be effective are exposure to quality
literature, the integration of systematic phonics,
explicit strategies-based teaching for decoding and
text comprehension, and small-group instruction. In
this article we outline several effective methods that
focus on word identification and reading comprehension.
We believe this information will assist SLPs in
providing explicit small-group reading instruction,
working cooperatively in the classroom, and advocating
as a team member for additional reading services.
DEVELOPING SUCCESSFUL WORD IDENTIFICATION
Word identification is a primary goal of early reading
instruction (Briggs & Clark, 1997; Fox, 2000; National
Reading Panel, 2000). Successful word identification is
built upon several essential skills: (a) knowledge of
letter-sound correspondences; (b) skills for blending,
chunking, and segmenting words into symbols and sounds;
and (c) automatic word recognition or sight reading
(Fox, 2000; Kamhi et al., 2001; National Reading Panel,
2000; Walton & Walton, 2002). These skills lead to
effective decoding, the ability to sound out unfamiliar
written words and, beyond decoding, to the ability to
store words as wholes. The goal is for children to
develop a sight-word vocabulary that enables them to
read familiar words efficiently, applying word attack
skills as needed for unfamiliar words.
It is not surprising that children with a languagebased learning disability (LLD) struggle to read. They
generally present with significant deficits in phonemic
awareness--the very skill required to associate sounds
with symbols, to blend and segment sounds in words
(Blachman, 1994; Catts & Kamhi, 1999). They also
display weaknesses for word retrieval (Bowers & Wolff,
1993; German, 1994; Meyer, Wood, Hart, & Felton, 1998)
that can interfere with successful letter naming,
automatic retrieval for sounds associated with symbols,
and sight-word reading. Children with LLD thus are
"knocked out" of the word identification process early
in the game. The four methods that follow are valuable
procedures for facilitating word identification for
children both with and without LLD.
Method 1: Letter-Sound Decoding
Research has shown that letter-sound decoding is
effective (Briggs & Clark, 1997; Kamhi et al., 2001;
National Reading Panel, 2000). Its foundation is in
systematic phonics-based approaches and approaches
grounded in Orton-Gillingham techniques (e.g.,
Alphabetic Phonics, Slingerland Approach, Dyslexia
Training Program, and Multisensory Teaching Approach;
see Note) that have shown success with typically
developing children and people with impairments (Briggs
& Clark, 1997; Hook, Macaruso, & Jones, 2001; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Oakland, Black, Stanford,
Nussbaum, & Balise, 1998). Children using this method
sound out each letter or combination of letters and
blend the sounds to decode words. Often, typically
developing children learning to read will note the
recurrence of the written t with the pronunciation of
/t/, thus discovering alphabetic correspondences that
enable rapid growth for independent reading. Children
with LLD, however, have difficulty inferring these
associations and struggle to blend, chunk, or segment.
Our purpose is to allow children with LLD to use the
letter-sound decoding strategy and thereby crack the
code.
Letter-sound decoding is built upon knowledge of
letter-sound correspondences. Children with LLD need
direct instruction that begins with regular lettersound correspondences (e.g., t, p, n, k, b, f, h, m)
and gradually introduces less regular symbols (e.g., c,
ng, oo, ea) and irregular words (e.g., said, of, come,
two). Children's knowledge and retrieval of lettersound correspondences benefit from a mnemonic or
association cue. Kindergarten teachers often focus on
teaching these associations (e.g., Letter People), or
first-grade teachers post illustrated alphabets. SLPs
can extend this with a key-word system. For example,
the Alphabetic Phonics program (Cox, 1984) uses an
Initial Reading Deck, a set of flashcards depicting
pictures of key words and associated letters (e.g., a
line drawing of a "ship" with sh). More than 98 soundsymbol associations are taught, starting with frequent,
regular letter-sound correspondences and moving toward
combinations that require increasing flexibility on the
part of the reader. The key words assist the child in
storing and retrieving the phonological information.
The High Hat Program (Goldman & Lynch, 2001), which was
designed specifically for SLPs teaching early reading
skills, has story characters (e.g., "Marti Mouse" and
"Tiger Tom") to help cue 39 sound-symbol associations.
Likewise, Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LIPS), part of
the Lindamood-Bell program, classifies phonemes by
articulatory similarities. Labels (e.g., "lip poppers"
and "tongue tappers"), mouth pictures, and letter
symbols are used for learning and recall (LindamoodBell, n.d.; see also American Federation of Teachers,
1999). Each of these programs encourages daily drill
with key-word picture cards to facilitate automaticity.
This combined approach of key words and daily drill is
recommended to establish letter--sound correspondences
and overcome word-retrieval deficits.
Phonemic awareness is integral to letter-sound decoding
(Fox, 2000; Kamhi et al., 2001) because after achieving
automatic retrieval for sounds associated with symbols,
children must still blend the sounds to form words.
Many frustrated children and educators have worked to
attain skills for sounding out, only to be thwarted in
their efforts to blend the sounds into words. Kamhi et
al. recommended using continuants (e.g.,/s, h, f/) to
facilitate blending. Fox described half a dozen kidfriendly ways to practice blending (e.g., "Slide
Blending" and "Finger Blending" pp. 43-47). Her
suggestions reinforce our experiences using
multisensory methods and manipulatives (e.g., colored
blocks) to blend sounds into words effectively.
One limitation of the letter-sound decoding method is
the amount of energy it requires for application. For
the weak reader, letter-sound decoding can be slow and
labored; however, children with LLD will never develop
to their potential if educators bypass this basic
component. Furthermore, meta-analysis has revealed
moderate to large effect sizes for phonics programs
using letter-sound decoding methods, especially for
children with reading impairments (National Reading
Panel, 2000). Letter-sound decoding leads to strong
alphabetic knowledge of the language and confidence in
identifying unfamiliar words.
Method 2: Syllable Neighborhoods
Letters group together in predictable patterns, and
these patterns directly affect decoding. Fox (2000)
used the concept of letter-sound neighborhoods to
assist teachers and students in identifying predictable
letter-sound correspondences. We borrowed Fox's idea of
neighborhoods, but our neighborhoods are built upon six
syllable types typically taught in Orton-Gillingham
methods (e.g., Alphabetic Phonics). Six syllable
neighborhoods with example words and the corresponding
instructional principles are presented in Table 1.
Syllable neighborhoods move beyond simple letter-sound
correspondences, an important step because these
associations vary by context. For example, the letter o
in pot predictably says /alpha/; the o in rope says
/o/; two o's as in book are /u/; and o with a in boat
is /o/. For each of these, it is the neighborhood that
cues the reader to the most likely o sound.
To successfully use syllable neighborhoods, children
need automatic recognition of letters that represent
consonant sounds (e.g., t, th, y, and w in the initial
position of words) versus vowel sounds (e.g., u, oo,
ew, ay). Vowel and consonant identification, however,
is a metalinguistic skill often difficult for children
with LLD. To effectively cue children, the educator or
SLP should start by color-coding reading manipulatives,
for example, consonants in black and vowels in red. In
this fashion, the syllable pattern is readily
recognized during practice activities.
Cox (1984) outlined the use of discovery principles for
successful reading instruction. She recommended that
educators present children with sets of syllables from
the same neighborhood that contain familiar lettersound correspondences. To teach the open syllable (CV),
the teacher might present go, hi, su, and ta. The
teacher would read each written syllable aloud,
stressing the long vowel sounds and prompting students
to discover the visual pattern and corresponding vowel
pronunciations. In this manner, the instructional
principle for the syllable neighborhood is discovered
and then learned as an explicit rule (e.g., "In
syllables that end with a vowel, the vowel says its
name"). Daily practice using carefully selected
materials and decodable texts reinforces students'
knowledge and application for reliable reading. Note in
the above example that two of the four syllables
represented real words (i.e., go, hi) but two (su, ta)
cannot stand alone as words. The latter do, however,
represent real syllables in English words, such as
super and table.
Method 3: Decoding by Analogy
The analogy strategy for reading focuses on combining
known onsets with known times to read new words (Fox,
2000; Walton & Walton, 2002). For example, a child may
know that h is /h/ based on the word hop, and he or she
may be familiar with the word cat. Using onset-time
analogy, this child could learn to read hat. The onset
is the consonant or consonants that come before the
vowel in a syllable (e.g., cat, chair, cry), and the
time is the rest of the syllable, including the vowel
(e.g., cat, chair, cry). Most typically developing
kindergartners can segment words into onsets (i.e., as
in initial phoneme identification tasks) or times (for
rhyming practice) without explicitly knowing about
onsets or primes. Early instruction in the analogy
strategy without additional attention to phonemic
awareness and letter-sound correspondences is not
effective, however, even with typically developing
preschoolers (Walton & Walton, 2002). Children need
basic phonemic awareness skills to apply this strategy
and a relatively large sight-word vocabulary from which
to access the times and onsets for analogy.
Despite these limitations, the analogy method is
effective for several reasons. First, Walton and Walton
(2002) found that children who had been taught analogy
had better reading skills for new words and an
increased awareness of medial and final phonemes.
Second, emphasis on onsets and times increases the size
of the phonological chunks manipulated by a child,
moving him or her away from a letter-by-letter decoding
strategy to a focus on groups of letters and sounds
(Fox, 2000). Third, the analogy strategy can be used to
help children when words do not conform to regular
English patterns. Fox pointed out that children who
know old can read other words, such as told, bold, and
fold, although the letter o in these words does not
conform to the short vowel rule for closed syllables
(i.e., /alpha/ as in octopus [key word] for words such
as rock, box, ostrich). Finally, decodable texts are
generally built upon word families that have the same
times (e.g, see the books The Cat in the Hat and One
Fish, Two Fish).
Method 4: Multiletter Chunking
Another method of word identification stressed by Fox
(2000) is the use of multiletter chunking. Like the
analogy method, this effectively shifts the reader's
focus to even larger word segments. Chunks that can
substantially improve decoding skills include compound
words (e.g., popcorn, sidewalk, bluebird); prefixes,
suffixes, and base words (e.g., unhappy, worthless,
demobilize); and syllables within multisyllabic words
(e.g., expert, Atlantic, table). Both the syllable
neighborhoods method and multiletter chunking derive
from reading approaches that teach structural analysis-knowledge of syllables, free and bound morphemes, and
word root origins (Abbott & Berninger, 1999).
The first step in multiletter chunking is to assist
children in stripping common suffixes from base words
when reading. Many poor readers, even in the middle
school grades, freeze when they come across derivations
of familiar words. Children are taught to attack words
by scanning for suffixes, removing the suffix (i.e.,
covering it with a finger or card, or drawing a box
around it), and sounding out the base word. They then
pronounce the whole word by blending the base word with
the suffix. At beginning reading levels, the focus is
on common verb and noun suffixes (-ing, -ed, -s or es). Children in upper elementary grades and middle
school can continue to use this procedure with an
increasing knowledge of English prefixes and suffixes
(e.g., dependable, mistaken).
Because multisyllabic words are not infrequent in
reading lists for early elementary grades (e.g.,
something, monkey, address, behind, flower), SLPs need
techniques to assist children with LLD in attacking
these words. Five rules for syllabicating English words
are summarized in Table 2. The vowel sound is the
nucleus of the syllable, so the reader first locates
the vowels. He or she then determines the number of
consonants between the vowels. This dictates the
syllabication rule. If there are two or more consonants
between the vowels (e.g., monkey, address), the most
likely segmentation is between the consonants. When
there is only one consonant, the first best guess is to
segment before the consonant. When this does not result
in a recognizable word, the reader should rechunk by
segmenting after the consonant. Ideally, segmentation
yields recognizable chunks (e.g., mon + key, ad +
dress, ta + ble). If, however, the student cannot
automatically read the singlesyllable chunks, he or she
can decode the word by using syllable neighborhoods
Multiletter chunking is particularly useful for upper
elementary school-age children who continue to
demonstrate weaknesses in word identification and
decoding. Abbott and Berninger (1999) reported on the
effectiveness of teaching structural analysis in
combination with sound-symbol correspondences for poor
readers in Grades 4 through 7. Rather than practicing
reading CVC or CV syllables that perpetuate students'
feelings of incompetence, older children can tackle
multisyllabic words using decodable, multiletter
chunks. There is nothing "babyish" about reading words
such as candid, influence, volume, and deduct. Megawords (Johnson & Bayrd, 2002) is an excellent series of
books based upon these syllabication rules and syllable
neighborhoods. Furthermore, multiletter chunking
supports curriculum-based reading practice, because
many examples exist in students' grade-level content
(e.g., third-grade science content includes the water
cycle and owl pellets).
IMPROVING READING COMPREHENSION
Reading comprehension is defined as "deriving meaning
from text when they [the readers] engage in intentional
problem solving" (National Reading Panel, 2000, p. 14).
It is this meaning-making task that can be daunting for
both typically developing children and children with
LLD (Rand Corporation, 2002). More specifically,
children with oral language deficits are at risk for
developing reading comprehension problems because it is
a high-level language task requiring extensive semantic
and syntactic knowledge (Catts & Kamhi, 1999).
Furthermore, the phenomenon known as the "fourth-grade
slump" or late-emerging reading disability will affect
some children who previously experienced no reading
problems (Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Rand
Corporation, 2002). Leach et al. suggested that
approximately 40% of all children with a reading
disability will have late-emerging problems and, of
this group, about two thirds will demonstrate deficits
in reading comprehension only or a mixed deficit in
comprehension and word identification.
Given the impact of reading comprehension skills on all
aspects of children's academic achievement, direct and
effective instruction requires continued attention by
educators (Vaughn & Klingner, 1999), including SLPs
(American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2001).
Beyond word identification, prerequisite skills
supporting good reading comprehension include fluency
for reading, oral and auditory vocabulary skills,
knowledge of syntax, well-developed world knowledge,
and problem-solving ability (Rand Corporation, 2002).
The methods that have been presented so far incorporate
various components found to be effective but do not
attempt to address all possible tools. The first two
reading comprehension techniques focus on understanding
vocabulary. These methods are useful for SLPs because
children's semantic deficits can be targeted in
curriculum-based activities. The next two methods
engage a broader understanding of the text. These are
particularly helpful for SLPs who co-teach and use a
collaborative model for intervention.
Method 5: List--Group--Label
List--Group--Label was first introduced by Taba (as
cited in Tierney, Readence, & Dishner, 1995) to target
the development of vocabulary and categorization
skills, organize verbal concepts, and increase the
recall of new vocabulary. It was designed for
elementary social studies and science texts and focuses
on activating prior knowledge. Tierney et al. described
it as a three-part strategy: list, group and label new
vocabulary words, and follow-up.
The SLP should start the lesson by choosing a one- or
two-word topic to act as a catalyst for word listing.
For example, the text and topic under study might be
China (or the Chinese peoples). Students are then asked
to brainstorm topic-related words and expressions. All
suggested words are written down by the SLP or students
as long as a justification for the word choice can be
given. This brainstorming session proceeds until
students have generated a list of about 25 words,
enough to facilitate categorization without becoming
unwieldy. The next step is to group and label the
words, and students can accomplish this as a class,
individually, or in small cooperative groups. When
working with younger students or poor readers, the SLP
reads the words aloud. This enables students with weak
word-identification skills to continue participating in
the comprehension activity. Students are asked to group
the words into
categories of at least three words each, although each
word can be used more than once. They are directed to
provide labels for each category that indicate the
commonality among the words. During follow-up, students
share their groupings and rationales with the class.
Relationships among words should be based on shared
semantic features, not simply structural or phonologic
aspects (e.g., sun, sea, and sand are all natural
elements found at the beach rather than words starting
with s). During this sharing and justification time,
students are exposed to other categories that expand
their knowledge base and comprehension network.
Tierney et al. (1995) suggested several modifications,
depending on children's abilities and comfort. For
children struggling with categorization and
justification, several demonstrations or cooperative
groups are warranted. Also, the SLP can provide the
labels and have students categorize the words. Although
this technique is typically used for developing
vocabulary prior to reading, it is effective for
postreading reinforcement and test review. List--Group-Label can facilitate authentic assessment both preand postlesson. As a prereading tool, it indicates
students' prereading knowledge base; as a postreading
tool, it helps the SLP evaluate student understanding.
Method 6: Contextual Redefinition
Contextual redefinition was designed to teach students
at all grade levels a problem-solving strategy for
determining the meaning of unknown words (Readence,
Bean, & Baldwin, 1995). First, the SLP identifies words
from a reading passage that are likely to be unfamiliar
or that are central to text comprehension or a
student's individual language objectives. For each of
the chosen words, the SLP generates sentences or a
group of sentences that provide accurate and explicit
cues to word meanings. The meaning of the vocabulary
word must be transparent within the context of the
sentence. An example would be, "The emperor of China
was like a king, and the Chinese people considered him
to be a god." Up to this point, the instructor works
independently of students, preparing the word lists and
contextual sentences. At the start of the lesson, the
SLP writes and reads each word for the class without
presenting any of the prepared sentences. Students are
asked to hypothesize the word meanings, giving
rationales for their ideas, which is a critical
component. After this time spent in speculating about
the words' meanings, the SLP presents the contextual
sentences he or she developed. Students are encouraged
to use the contextual sentences to modify the
definitions they created and to provide a rationale for
their modifications. At this stage, they discover that
context is integral when determining meanings for
unknown words.
In the last step, the students use a dictionary to
verify their definitions (Readence et al., 1995).
Children in the lower grades or with lesser ability may
need extra support in this step. The dictionary work
can be done individually, but working in pairs is
preferable when the group's ability level is mixed.
Students use the dictionary definitions to make any
final revisions to their previous definition guesses.
Once again, revisions are accompanied with support or a
rationale from the dictionary. This last step is what
makes contextual redefinition a useful tool for
teaching functional dictionary use.
Although this method teaches students to systematically
discover the meanings of unknown words encountered
within passages, it is not designed to manage
vocabulary retention (Tierney et al., 1995). We
recommend copying each word with its contextual
sentence and the completed definition onto an index
card or into students' reading notebooks to help them
in committing words to memory. These notebook pages or
index cards may then be used for test review and drill
to facilitate retrieval.
Method 7: Directed Reading--Teaching Activity
One very popular reading comprehension technique is
known as Directed Reading--Teaching Activity (DR-TA).
Designed to teach reflective and critical reading for
narrative discourse, DR-TA requires students to set a
purpose for reading, evaluate the purpose and their
understanding as they read, and make ongoing
adjustments (Blachowicz, 1994). The first step in DR-TA
is predicting what is going to be read using
information from the title or part of the story.
Students then read the story, looking for clues that
support or negate the original prediction. The last
step involves testing predictions using clues gathered
from reading.
SLPs using DR-TA direct students' prediction and
problem-solving attempts during each of these steps.
When first introducing new reading material, the SLP
prompts the students with questions (Blachowicz, 1994),
such as the following: What do you think a story with
this title might be about? What do you think is going
to happen in this story? Which of these predictions do
you agree with? Students are encouraged to provide
multiple predictions and to discuss their agreement or
disagreement (Tierney et al., 1995). After open, freeflowing discussion of the various predictions, the
students independently read the assigned section. The
SLP or educator begins a comprehension check after they
have finished reading. Questions used to guide
students' examination of the evidence might include the
following: Was your prediction correct? What do you
think now that you have read the story? Proof from the
text to support conclusions is considered critical to
DR-TA. This process of prediction, reading, and
substantiation is repeated for each story segment. DRTA structures students' comprehension with the goal of
eventually developing independence. Note that prior
subject knowledge is a cornerstone for successful
application because students will not be able to make
predictions for themes that are completely unfamiliar.
When this occurs, the SLP should provide background
information to improve students' predictions.
Tierney et al. (1995) noted that DR-TA is easily
adapted for children of different reading levels, for
use with various genres of fictional and nonfictional
discourse, and for either group or individual
instruction. For example, students reluctant or unable
to support their predictions in the initial teaching
phase can be allowed to include predictions without
justification until some success and confidence has
been gained. Blachowicz (1994) suggested modifying the
method for very young children and poor readers so that
the SLP will read the text aloud to the students.
Another adjustment suggested by Blachowicz was Silent
Directed Reading--Thinking Activity, for which more
independence is encouraged and a written response
required. The benefits of this last modification are
that each student can set his or her own pace and the
risk of public embarrassment is reduced.
Method 8: Collaborative Strategic Reading
Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) was developed to
teach children in the upper elementary grades and above
four specific reading comprehension tactics for use in
cooperative learning groups (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998).
CSR is implemented in two distinct phases: the
introductory phase, which consists of direct teacher
instruction, and the cooperative learning group phase.
Klingner and Vaughn's four CSR strategies are Preview,
Click and Clunk, Get the Gist, and Wrap-Up, and reading
notebooks are used during and after reading.
Preview, the first strategy, is brainstorming the
possible topic of the assigned reading (Klingner &
Vaughn, 1998). Students use any clues they can find
with a quick scan of the text to help them form
predictions and then spend 5 to 10 minutes discussing
their different predictions. The second CSR strategy,
Click and Clunk, serves to help students monitor
comprehension while reading. Clicks are those ideas in
the text that make sense (or click) for the reader, and
clunks are the ones that do not make sense. When a
clunk is identified, students are taught to problem
solve the word using context cues, tables, or figures
to increase understanding. Get the Gist is focused on
main idea skills using sections of the reading material
(e.g., chapter sections). Students determine the most
important point by identifying the most significant
person, place, or thing. They then write a 10- to 12word summary in their reading notebooks to show that
they understood. After completing the entire reading
assignment, students apply the last strategy, Wrap-Up,
during which they ask questions with the goal of
improving their understanding of the material. Most
students will need guidance when it comes to creating
questions. One way to get started is to create question
stems that require information from the text.
During Phase 2, the cooperative learning group, small
groups of students use the strategies without further
instruction (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998). Initially, the
SLP needs to assign a role to each person in the group.
For example, one student is the leader, the person who
facilitates Preview and keeps the group moving through
each of the strategies. Another student is the Clunk
expert, whose primary job is help the group identify
different problem-solving strategies when clunks occur.
The group recorder reports his or her group's Wrap-Up
questions when all groups rejoin in the classroom.
Throughout the cooperative learning phase, all students
are responsible for maintaining their reading notebooks
by writing up the initial predictions, clunks, main
ideas, and final questions.
CONCLUSION
Reading, the act of decoding written symbols for the
purpose of making meaning, is one of the most difficult
tasks young brains undertake. The complexity of the
task is increased when confounded by difficulty in
learning the language, for any reason. It is this
language--reading connection that has thrust SLPs into
the murky waters of reading interventions. To truly
have an impact on the literacy skills of children with
LLD, SLPs must know effective reading instruction
methods that will enable them to help students manage
curricular demands. Two areas in which SLPs can make a
difference for children with LLD are explicit
instruction in word identification and reading
comprehension. We have outlined specific methods for
addressing these two pillars of an effective reading
program. SLPs working with school-age children are
encouraged to implement these evidence-based techniques
to improve children's reading.
TABLE 1. Syllable Neighborhoods: Six Common Syllable
Types Used for
Reading and Spelling Success
Type Symbol Examples Instructional principle
Open CV she, go Vowel pronunciation is
typically long
Closed VC on, get Short vowel sounds are
prevalent
Final, stable Cle tumble, ladle Unstressed, with
consistent
pronunciation
Vowel pair VV look, toy Digraph with a learned
single vowel sound
r-controlled Vr car, port r diphthongs have learned
pronunciations
Silent e VCe make, fine Vowel is typically long
Note. Adapted from various materials in the Alphabetic
Phonics
curriculum as described in Cox (1984).
TABLE 2. Five Syllabication Rules to Facilitate
Chunking
Symbol Instructional principle Examples
VC/CV Divide between 2 Cs, keeping rabbit, ethnic
digraphs/blends together
V/CV Usually divide before 1 C between 2 Vs open,
erase
VC/V If not V/CV, try dividing after the C canal,
melon
V/V A few words divide between Vs dial, nuance
/Cle Divide before the Cle syllable table, puzzle
Note. Adapted from the Alphabetic Phonics curriculum
as described
in Cox (1984).
NOTE These are all series of materials: Alphabetic
Phonics by Aylett Royal Cox, Slingerland Teaching
Materials by Beth H. Slingerland, Dyslexia Training
Program by the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for
Children, and Multisensory Teaching Approach by
Margaret Taylor Smith. All are available from
Educational Publishing Service, PO Box 9031, Cambridge,
MA 02139-9031 (www.epsbooks.com).
REFERENCES
Abbott, S. P., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). It's never
too late to remediate: Teaching word recognition to
students with reading disabilities in Grades 4-7.
Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 223-250.
American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Building on
the best, learning from what works: Five promising
remedial reading intervention programs. Washington, DC:
Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001).
Scope of practice in speech--language pathology.
Rockville, MD: Author.
Blachman, B. (1994) Early literacy acquisition: The
role of phonological awareness. In G. F. Wallach & K.
G. Butler (Eds.), Language-learning disabilities in
school-age children and adolescents (pp. 253-274). New
York: Macmillan.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (1994). Problem-solving strategies
for academic success. In G. F. Wallach & K. G. Butler
(Eds.), Language-learning disabilities in school-age
children and adolescents (pp. 304-322). New York:
Macmillan.
Bowers, P. G., & Wolff, M. (1993, March). A doubledeficit hypothesis for developmental reading disorders.
Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Briggs, K. L., & Clark, C. (1997). Reading programs for
students in the lower elementary grades: What does the
research say? Austin: Texas Center for Educational
Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
420046)
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and
reading disabilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Cox, A. (1984). Structures and techniques: Multisensory
teaching of basic language skills (alphabetic phonics).
Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Fox, B. J. (2000). Word identification strategies:
Phonics from a new perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
German, D. (1994). Word finding difficulties in
children and adolescents. In G. P. Wallach & K. G.
Butler (Eds.), Language-learning disabilities in
school-age children and adolescents (pp. 323-347). New
York: Macmillan.
Goldman, R., & Lynch, M. E. (2001). Sounds & symbols:
Early reading program. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Hook, P. E., Macaruso, P., & Jones, S. (2001). Efficacy
of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of
reading skills by children with reading difficulties--A
longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 75-96.
Johnson, K., & Bayrd, P. (2002). Megawords, book 1:
Multisyllabic words for reading, spelling, and
vocabulary. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing
Service.
Kamhi, A. G., Allen, M. M., & Catts, H. W. (2001). The
role of the speech--language pathologist in improving
decoding skills. Seminars in Speech and Language, 22,
175-183.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using
collaborative strategic reading. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 30(6), 32-37.
Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L.
(2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 211-224.
Lindamood-Bell. (n.d.). Lindamood-Bell learning
processes [brochure]. San Louis Obispo, CA: Author.
Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Felton, R. H.
(1998). Selective predictive value of rapid automatized
naming in poor readers. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 31, 106-117.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to
read--An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington,
DC: National Institutes of Child Health and Human
Development.
Oakland, T., Black, J. L., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N.
L., & Balise, R. R. (1998). An evaluation of the
dyslexia training program: A multisensory method for
promoting reading in students with reading
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31,
140-147.
Rand Corporation. (2002). Reading for understanding:
Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa
Monica, CA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 463559)
Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1995).
Content area reading: An integrated approach. Dubuque,
IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Tierney, R. J., Readence, J. E., & Dishner, E. K.
(1995). Reading strategies and practices. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1999). Teaching reading
comprehension through collaborative strategic reading.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 284-292.
Walton, P. D., & Walton, L. M. (2002). Beginning
reading by teaching in time analogy: Effects on
phonological skills, letter-sound knowledge, working
memory, and word-reading strategies. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 6(1), 79-115.
Dee M. Lance, PhD, is an assistant professor at the
University of Central Arkansas, where she teaches and
conducts research in the area of language development
and disorders, with a special emphasis in reading
impairment. Brenda L. Beverly, PhD, is an assistant
professor at the University of South Alabama in Mobile
and has more than 16 years of experience working in
transdisciplinary settings dedicated to treating
individuals with reading disorders. Lea Helen Evans,
PhD, is an assistant professor at Mississippi
University for Women. She has clinical expertise with
both preschool and school-age children. Kimberly C.
McCullough, PhD, is an assistant professor at The
University of Central Arkansas and has extensive
experience in clinical methods with both school-age
children and adults. Address: Dee M. Lance, The
University of Central Arkansas, Department of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 201 Donaghey Ave., Conway, AR
72035-0001; e-mail: dlance@uca.edu
Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com
Publication Information: Article Title: Addressing
Literacy: Effective Methods for Reading Instruction.
Contributors: Dee M. Lance - author, Brenda L. Beverly
- author, Lea Helen Evans - author, Kim C. Mccullough author. Journal Title: Communication Disorders
Quarterly. Volume: 25. Issue: 1. Publication Year:
2003. Page Number: 5+. COPYRIGHT 2003 Pro-Ed; COPYRIGHT
2005 Gale Group