Goldstein PAth to Literacy Research Behind.pdf

The Research Readiness Skills

The Response to Intervention (RTI) or multitiered systems of support (MTSS) approach is a multitiered instructional framework with the goal of providing high-quality instruction to students with a range of needs and regular progress monitoring (Greenwood et al. 2012). Applications of Howard Goldstein, Ph.D., CCC-SLP tiered intervention models, particularly in the area of reading instruction, have been shown to be more effective than traditional approaches (e.g., Fuchs et al. 2008; O’Connor, Harty, and Fulmer 2005). The RTI/MTSS model provides instruction in the students’ least restrictive environment, consistent with federal special education mandates (Barnett, VanDerHeyden, and Witt 2007). In theory, by providing high-quality instruction to all students before they fall behind, the number of students labeled with a disability will decrease (Fuchs and Fuchs 2006).

Overview

RTI/MTSS typically is represented graphically as a pyramid divided into tiers (e.g., The latest version of The Nation’s Report Card indicates that only 38% of 12th graders demonstrate proficient reading skills (National Center for Education Statistics 2014). Many children are finishing school without the ability to read. Research has shown that developmental trajectories for reading skills begin early in the preschool years (National Early Literacy Panel [NELP] 2008). Once students fall behind their peers on language and literacy, they often continue to struggle throughout the school years (Foster and Miller 2007).

Between Tiers 1 and 3 is secondary tier instruction, intended for students who need additional support (Gersten et al. 2008). Multiple skills have been associated with early progress in reading ability, including phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge (NELP 2008). Combined, these skills are fundamental building blocks for reading. There are indications that high-quality curricula that teach these skills prevent later reading problems (Torgesen 2002). Unfortunately, many preschool students are not exposed to these high-level curricula (Justice et al. 2008).

Research on early literacy has identified several basic skills necessary for reading achievement, including phonological awareness, alphabet and print knowledge, vocabulary, and language comprehension (Carta et al. 2014; McConnell et al. 2014; Spencer et al. 2013). Most students who have later reading difficulties typically demonstrate weaknesses in one or more of these skills. Curricula that teach phonological awareness and alphabet skills simultaneously have been correlated with improved reading outcomes (NELP 2008). Phonological awareness typically develops around the preschool years and is predictive of later reading outcomes (Storch and Whitehurst 2002). However, it is a skill that does not seem to develop naturally (Wagner and Torgesen 1987). Explicit instruction with multiple opportunities for students to respond and practice the skills may be necessary for the development of phonological awareness (Phillips, Clancy-Menchetti, and Lonigan 2008). Thus, preschool-age children should be directly taught phonological awareness skills in preparation for entering school and beginning reading.

Letter name and sound knowledge is perhaps the best predictor of later reading ability (e.g., Schatschneider et al. 2004). Letter knowledge appears to be correlated with phonological awareness, and there is some evidence that they may influence each other (Johnston, Anderson, and Holligan 1996). Alphabet knowledge taught in conjunction with phonological awareness seems to be particularly beneficial. Training on phonological awareness and alphabet skills seems to be more effective than a whole-word approach to reading (Fielding-Barnsley 1997).

Many preschool curricula include instruction on phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge skills. However, not all preschool and early childcare centers follow a set curriculum. Even in centers that include phonological awareness instruction, some students require supplemental support (Greenwood et al. 2012). Scripted curricula may be designed for teachers, aides, and speech-language pathologists to use with students who require additional support to develop early literacy skills.

Research Behind PAth to Literacy

A series of experimental studies using the PAth to Literacy curriculum have been conducted in 39 classrooms, 20 in childcare centers in Tampa, Florida, 11 in public prekindergarten (pre-K) classrooms in Kansas City, and 8 in public pre-K classrooms in Columbus, Ohio. In this study, classrooms were randomly assigned to the PAth to Literacy or the Story Friends curricula. Teachers or aides in classrooms implemented this standard treatment protocol in their classrooms with researcher-identified children. The curricula were delivered by teachers who participated in a 2.5-hour training session and received weekly coaching support from the research staff. Supplemental training manuals and videos were also provided to support teachers. Student progress was measured at the halfway point of the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 2–3 weeks after the intervention (maintenance).

Assessments included the DIBELS (First Sound Fluency, Word Parts Fluency), IGDIs (Rhyming, First Sounds, Sound Identification), and a research-developed letter-sound correspondence mastery monitor. Multilevel modeling revealed that children receiving PAth to Literacy demonstrated significantly greater gains on the DIBELS First Sound Fluency and Word Parts Fluency measures. At the end of the study, they averaged over 14 on First Sound Fluency, and 82% of the children receiving PAth to Literacy had met the kindergarten benchmark for First Sound Fluency, compared to 34% of the children in the Story Friends comparison condition. Teachers also reported overall satisfaction with the lessons.

The findings of these studies demonstrated success in the iterative development process underlying the PAth to Literacy scripted curriculum for Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction for pre-K children. Goldstein and Olszewski (2015) describe the concurrent process of curriculum development informed by implementation considerations during the process of scale-up of our evaluation efforts. Through this process, we were able to demonstrate improvements in the gains in phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge that students experienced. Moreover, we were able to prepare lessons that were easy to deliver with high fidelity with minimal training and coaching and that were rated as highly acceptable by teachers and paraprofessionals.