Please click on the link below!
Reading Simplified Distinctives
Through this blog, you will benefit from 3 key distinctives:
First, a streamlined vision for accelerating decoding, word ID, and fluency.
All of the items on a reading series scope and sequence are important. Yet only a handful are urgent.
Does a 2nd grader who can't read Hop on Pop independently urgently need to learn how to use quotation marks?
Does a first grader who can't yet blend 4-sound words urgently need to know how to spell "group" and "soup"?
A Streamlined Pathway - Working Towards Fluent Word Reading
Thus, we have developed a 1-page pathway, map, or plan of how to move beginning or struggling readers rapidly through the process of decoding, becoming automatic with word identification, and moving towards fluency. See the 4 major objectives circled in yellow that lead, step-wise, towards fluency?
1. Blending & Manipulating 3-Sound Words
2.Learning Advanced Phonics Knowledge
3.Blending & Manipulating 4-Sound Words
4.Blending by Chunk (Multisyllable)
This 4-step pathway serves as our beacon when we teach anyone how to read. They help keep the Urgent front and center for us. They reduce The Overwhelm. Most importantly, these 4 major guideposts allow us to move our students towards success rapidly.
On average, what other programs might expect to happen in 2-3 years, we witness in 4-6 months. This is the type of Accelerated Achievement that we want for your students, too.
2A Streamlined
Set Of Activities
There are literally millions of reading instructional activities available to each of us with a simple stroke of the Google keys. Many of them are super-cute, too, right? I know!
Which one should we use? And when? And why?
I feel The Overwhelm coming on again....
May we suggest another way? Keep the Reading Simplified Pathway in mind and just use a handful of reading activities:
1. Switch It
2. Read It
3. Sort It
These small handful of just 3 activities is our bread-and-butter with 4 year-old beginners and 10 year-old dyslexics. Yes, that's true. That's it.
Then when we see a cute activity or we need to re-invigorate our student or reading group, we just consider, "Does this activity or idea move my student(s) forward on the Reading Pathway?"
And, "is this a tweak of one of my handful of activities?" If so, then we download, copy, and laminate the activity that's on our computer screen. If not, we click, "Delete." No Overwhelm.
Theoretical and Research Foundations
In the last 40-50 years, researchers have established an impressive body of research revealing that the primary route to reading acquisition is phonological decoding (or sound-based word attack; Share, 1995; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; Stanovich, 1986). In addition, an abundance of research has documented the importance of explicit code instruction (Adams, 1990; Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Chall, 1967; NRP, 2000; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). Others have demonstrated the power of integrating phonemic processing with print instruction for optimal gains (Bus & Ijzendoorn, 1999; National Reading Panel, 2000). Finally, orthographic (our spelling system) learning bi-directionally supports phonological decoding (and vice versa; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994; Share, 1995).
Researcher, teacher, staff trainer, and tutor, Dr. Marnie Ginsberg, developed Reading Simplified based on extensive work with students and teachers, as well as in-depth study of the reading research literature briefly summarized above. Reading Simplified derives its efficiency and efficacy from the integration of sounds and symbols simultaneously--from the very beginning of reading instruction. In addition, orthographic learning is supported not only through strong sound-symbol processing but also through a) word lists that target high frequency letter-sounds and words and b) re-reading practice that rapidly accelerates learning of high frequency words.
Earliest Roots of Program Efficacy
Beyond the general theoretical and research literature that points to the value of the above principles of reading development and instruction, Reading Simplified springboards from a line of efficacy research that goes back to at least 1901. The following sections will detail the efficacy behind the historical roots of Reading Simplified beginning with Montessori. We’ll cover ground from Montessori to Lindamood’s LiPS to Phono-Graphix to the Targeted Reading Intervention--all grandmothers, so to speak, of the Reading Simplified system.
First, the first female Italian physician, Dr. Maria Montessori developed an approach to education, including reading, that enabled the class of 50-60 mentally retarded children she was given to pass the state educationl tests designed for typically-developing children--”an event that aroused international attention” (Lillard, 2005, p. 16) for its unexpected efficacy. In a Montessor setting, children ages 3 and 4 are guided to notice the sounds in words (i.e., phoneme awareness) through the game “I Spy.” They also trace letters and learn their phonetic sounds--not the letter names. Soon students are asked to spell simple 3-sound words using a Movable Alphabet. For these young children, “[r]eading emerges spontaneously during the months after writing begins” (Lillard, 2005, p. 16). Fast forward many decades and modern research suggests Montessori education, in general, yields
Theoretical, Research, & Efficacy Foundations
greater achievement than mainstream settings (Dohrman, 2003; Karnes, Shewedel, & Williams, 1983; Miller & Dyer, 1975; Miller & Bizzell, 1983, 1984). The Montessori sound-based entrée to reading of phoneme awareness, letter-sound instruction, and spelling simple words aligns with the Reading Simplified activity Build It, and the sound-to-symbol approach used throughout the system.
As Montessori did not teach children how to read in English, but in Italian, further refinements by Montessori-trained educators, such as Muriel Dwyer, help with the more challenging orthographic patterns of English. In 1968, Dwyer described how to introduce advanced phonics, such as “oa” and “ai,” by teaching one sound (i.e., /oa/) and its various spelling (i.e., “o,” “o_e,” “ow,” “oa,” “oe”) (reprinted 2004). Moats suggests a similar “sound to print” approach in her seminal works “Teaching Decoding” (1998) and Speech to Print (2000). McGuinness, too, advises that we reveal the code organized around sounds first (rather than letters; 1998).
Efficacy of LiPS and Phono-Graphix--Predecessors to Reading Simplified
The thread of insight from Montessori in the early 1900’s to first attend to the sounds in words before teaching spelling or reading gained much more proof of importance through the study of what came to be termed phonological awareness. In the 1960’s, Pat Lindamood developed a reading instructional approach that became known as A.D.D. (Articulatory Discrimination in Depth) and then, later, LiPS (Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program). In the pivotal LiPS activity, “Tracking,” teachers guide students to move cubes (and later letter-sound squares) in and out of words to challenge students’ phonemic manipulation skills. This phonemic manipulation ability is the most difficult level of phonemic awareness, which David Kilpatrick, more recently, has indicated is essential to develop in students who struggle with reading (2015).
A program developed in the 1990’s, Phono-Graphix (McGuinness, McGuinness, & McGuinness, 1996), enfolded previously discussed effective Montessori activities, added the LiPS tracking exercise, but dropped the articulatory feedback emphasis in the LiPS “tracking” activity. Notably, both LiPS and Phono-Graphix merit considerable attention in Kilpatrick’s review of the intervention research. He indicates that impact outcomes vary widely for reading interventions that report "statistically significant" findings. However, one group of interventions yields much higher outcomes. Kilpatrick assigns just four programs to his ”Highly Successful” category of reading interventions because they produced Standard Score increases of 14-25 points--in contrast to the minimal (0 to 5 Standard Score points) or moderate (6 to 9 Standard Score points) categories. Significantly, three of Kilpatrick’s four “Highly Successful Outcome Studies” used either LiPS or Phono-Graphix (2015). These two approaches share many theoretical and practical roots, such as incorporating activities to build Phonemic Proficiency, yet Phono-Graphix laid the groundwork for the Targeted Reading Intervention which, in turn, served as the springboard for Reading Simplified. One study by Simos and colleagues (2012) included intense Phono-Graphix training for just 2 months for students ages 7 to 17 with dyslexia. Before and after magnetic source imaging scans revealed that reading achievement improved considerably and brain regions
associated with dyslexia were no longer activated. The authors conclude that “dyslexia can be reversed.” As Kilpatrick wisely points out with his three categorization system of efficacy and impact, interventions of this level of impact and speed are not typical in the research literature. Similarly, Torgesen ( 2006) says this about the efficacy rates of LiPS and Phono-Graphix type interventions for students with reading disabilities, “[t]he consistency in rate of gain across these studies suggests that the high rates of growth obtained in the study described earlier in this section (Torgesen, et al., 2001a) should be generalizable to other settings, with other teachers implementing the interventions.”
Efficacy of the Targeted Reading Intervention
Based upon her tutoring experiences using Phono-Graphix and the cutting-edge reading research at the time, Marnie Ginsberg developed the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) in 2005 in the context of an I.E.S.-funded intervention randomized-controlled experiment (Ginsberg, Vernon-Feagans, Amendum, 2010). Research on the TRI continues to this day. The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) is a professional development approach via webcam coaching that also teaches an explicit, sound-symbol decoding method for word recognition and fluency for K-2 struggling readers. Key activities from Montessori and Phono-Graphix were adapted to the TRI instructional intervention, such as building, reading, and manipulating words with a focus on the sounds in words. Additionally, the TRI added a Re-Reading for Fluency component to increase word recognition and fluency growth, as suggested by research ( Kuhn, Rasinski, & Zimmerman, 2014; NRP, 2000).
For 15 years, researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have examined the efficacy of the Targeted Reading Intervention in multiple randomized controlled trials. Across numerous studies, struggling K-1 readers have made strong gains in multiple reading measures, including spelling of sounds, word attack, word identification, and comprehension, with effects sizes varying from .3 to .7 (Amendum, Vernon-Feagans, & Ginsberg, 2011; Vernon-Feagans, Kainz, Hendrick, Ginsberg, Amendum, 2013; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2010; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2012; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2015; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2018). Additionally, a more recent study of the TRI found effect sizes for English language learners, specifically, of over .4 on word reading measures (Amendum, Bratsch-Hines, & Vernon-Feagans, 2017). Indeed, the TRI has shown such promise that last year the I.E.S. Director listed it as one of a handful of proven programs ready for future testing at scale ( https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/4-15-2019.asp ).
Previous Research Endorsements of the TRI
In addition, the earlier program developed by Ginsberg, the Targeted Reading Intervention, has been endorsed by three different leading research non-profits as evidenced-based practices, ready for implementation:
● the Annie E. Casey Blueprint for Healthy Youth Development ;
● the Rand Corporation’s Promising Practices Network; and
● the Best Evidence Encyclopedia from Johns Hopkins University and Dr. Robert Slavin.
TRI Insights Lead to Reading Simplified
Based on the experiences of observing hundreds of teachers in Nebraska, Texas, North Carolina, and New Mexico implement the Targeted Reading Intervention, as well as more modern research, Ginsberg developed Reading Simplified to serve a wider audience. The same core lesson components in the TRI of Re-Reading for Fluency, Word Work, and Guided Oral Reading are core to Reading Simplified. In addition, the same core Word Work activities--now termed Build It, Switch It, Sort It, and Write It--are implemented in Reading Simplified. (However, Sort It has been enhanced with the addition of Key Sentence mnemonics to help advanced phonics learning even more. Additionally, a streamlined scope and sequence was developed both 1) to integrate the importance of high frequency spellings and words and 2) to expedite teachers’ implementation speed.)
Additionally, while the same core instructional activities from the TRI are utilized in Reading Simplified, Reading Simplified does not apply just to a one-on-one intervention context for K-2, as the TRI did. The Reading Simplified system suits any beginning or struggling readers’ needs and is suggested to mainly fit the small group reading instructional setting. Whole class and one-on-one uses are also easily used. Further, the university consultants delivering webcam-based bi-weekly coaching in the TRI is a challenging expense to manage for most districts. Reading Simplified, instead, offers a complete online video course, quizzes, and online individualized feedback in a discussion forum, so each teacher can master the concepts at her own pace and fit the system to her unique context. Or, cohorts of teachers can adopt a team-study plan and travel through the streamlined program together, sharing their insights as they go. Schools can also opt for coaching from Reading Simplified literacy specialists via Skype/Zoom or in-person to personalize teachers’ professional learning even further.
Researchers have demonstrated the power in data-based, individualized, contextualized coaching and cohort study as a better means of professional learning (e.g., Joyce & Showers, 1988). In the Reading Simplified Academy, for about an hour a week, teachers learn new techniques. Then they practice each technique with their students, reflect upon the outcomes in an online discussion board, and receive individualized feedback from Dr. Ginsberg and other Reading Simplified specialists. Thus, in a matter of 1-3 months, teachers master the Reading Simplified system and then receive ongoing, individualized coaching tailored to their unique classroom and students. This ongoing, contextualized model of professional learning fulfills what the U.S. Department of Education (2002) has urged as an exemplar--“Professional learning must be an ongoing, continuous activity, and not consist of ‘one-shot’ workshops or lectures.”
Alignment with Standards
Not only does the Reading Simplified system stem directly from the latest in reading research and springboard from the TRI--a thoroughly-researched reading intervention with strong efficacy--it also aligns tightly with the U.S. Common Core State Standards (see other document for alignment). Each of the handful of core Reading Simplified activities integrates multiple state standards. For instance, the multi-sensory activity, Switch It, addresses over 17 CCSS just in one simple 5-minute activity . This is one example of how teachers gain efficiencies in instructional time with Reading Simplified activities.
Teachers’ Voices/Testimonials The randomized-control trial evidence of the efficacy of the roots of Reading Simplified--especially the Targeted Reading Intervention and Phono-Graphix--is significant, as Kilpatrick’s categorization reminds us. However, qualitative data from teachers’ voices is another powerful and important measure of efficacy. As teachers travel through the main video course, noting their insights and questions in the online discussion board, their praise, excitement, and amazement for Reading Simplified bubble up regularly. Thus, teachers are reporting how effective Reading Simplified system is for their students almost every day. The following selection of teachers’ quotes is just a small fraction of the signs of effectiveness that we witness inside the online forum:
Reading Simplified definitely accelerates learning with activities that simultaneously integrate multiple processes at once and provides built-in review.
I have just finished the RS course and I loved every minute of it!! I have been teaching struggling readers for 25 years and FINALLY, I have found a system that really works and it’s fun to do!! It is truly the best PD I have ever taken (and I have taken A LOT). --Rochelle Robbins, Reading Resource Teacher
You have not only 'simplified' the reading process for my son, but you have simplified the learning process for me as a teacher. I very much want many more teachers to experience this too!
--Jennifer Nowicki, Master’s Reading Specialist, CALT, Reading Tutor, Homeschool Parent
The Streamlined Pathway, that integrates sounds, length of words (CVC, CCVC, MS, etc.) Fry words, and fluency, is a grand way to put it all together to move students forward. The program is simply and masterfully put together. --Arelene Ford, Reading Tutor and Retired Special Education Teacher
This has been the best training I have ever experienced because I have the time to learn, practice and the support to get back on track when I stumble. :) --Marsha Osborne, Special Education Teacher
My teaching partner and I started using switch it to reach our struggling kindergarten readers. We are in the early stages, but we are really excited about the spiralling of letters and the emphasis on challenging a reader.
I was able to move three scholars to the next level thanks to the reminder in yesterday's lesson that we are looking for 70-80% accuracy. I also really liked the reminder that if they don't need our help much of the time then it is time to move on. I love how in a few short minutes I am able to truly help my scholars instead of feeling like I am spinning my wheels. --Kate Linares, Kindergarten Teacher
I have been using the Reading Simplified approach for two years now. I have seen great growth with even my youngest of learners (kindergarten)! It amazes me when they can gain so many sounds in such a short amount of time. Using the Sort It activity really helps to push their learning further than you think they can go.
Thank you, Marnie, for pointing out the fact that students can learn more than just one thing at a time when it is integrated! --Heather Aldridge., K-2 Reading Intervention Teacher
I've been tutoring around 15 kids during school. About 15 minutes twice a week, since the end of January. Which equals about about 1 1/2 months of 30-40 minutes a week, with several of them gone on sick days, or snow days. Only one of them gets any 1 on 1. The rest are in groups of 2 or 3. Twelve of the 12 (3 more to test) students who have been retested have moved 2 or 3 levels on the gradient. Some of that would represent almost half a year of progress.
So, even with an incredibly green tutor (myself) and learning the ropes as I go, I believe Reading Simplified is the real deal. I have personally seen confidence levels rise, and am getting feedback from teachers that they are noticing significant gains with the students. I continue to be amazed how quickly they can move along, and how little time it takes from struggling over a particular sequence of sounds like "clash" (he couldn't figure out how to deal with the 'c' and 'l' and kept rearranging, or taking the vowel out) and then having it click, and then he could do flash, and flesh. It is so fun to see their eyes light up, their 'aha', and move the next letter tiles with confidence, even though just seconds before they couldn't figure it out.
It makes me wonder what kids would do with a program like this who weren't struggling, but were quick intuitive learners. It would be interesting to see how much time could be saved, and how quickly they could progress and get to real reading. It also makes me wonder if we haven't created the crisis in the first place by putting so much "method" into it.
I feel like most programs have made it so much more complicated and scientific than it really needs to be. An analogy: In some methods, it's like teaching a child how to make bread. But before letting them get their hands on the ingredients and kneading the dough, weeks of flashcards with measuring spoons , and a picture of wheat, and a grain mill, and different sizes of cups, and where oil comes from. And then letting them, after weeks of study and quizzing of measurements and definitions, finally pulling out the bowl, and putting it all together, all the while rehearsing the rules of cooking and oven temperatures, and quizzing them on what the parts are.
Instead of diving right in, guiding them in the parts as they go, continued practice in the thing itself, and the sweet success of eating homemade bread. (I make sourdough bread, as another one of my obsessions, if you couldn't tell. And people have made a science out of that too, which makes it near impossible to enjoy the process). When something is simple to explain, and can be taught to a child, but has such rich rewards, then I think we are onto something.
Thank you again. All of you, for all you are doing. I feel so blessed to be a part of this. --Terri Jenson, Reading Specialist
I am so excited about this program. Although I have tutored reading for the past 30 years this has totally filled in the gaps I’ve been searching for. --Sally York, Reading Tutor
I lost sleep over the lack of progress for our most struggling readers and proposed that, rather than continue with only one hour of reading from someone who was not qualified, I would take the lowest half of the grade level for a 90 minute block of targeted reading instruction which would include word work and reading activities designed to accelerate their reading progress. The very same week, I discovered Reading Simplified! A miracle! In only a week, my lowest group of 2nd graders who were reading at an end of K beginning of 1 level have begun decoding long vowel words and words with endings. --Katey Reynolds. Elementary Teacher
I HIGHLY recommend Reading Simplified. Marnie helped me to improve my teaching exponentially. --Anne Patrick, Special Education Teacher
I have learned more through this course than with most of the courses I have taken in the past!!!
I have been implementing what I can this year and am so excited to use it even better next year. I also hope to get some more of my colleagues on board. I have taught for 24 years and I feel more excited about this than I have about anything for a long time. --Kim, Elementary Teacher
I wanted to share how happy I am with the Reading Simplified way of teaching. I started working with a student I had in kindergarten last year. His problem was he could not tap and blend or read an A level book. He also had difficulty sounding out words to spell. Today was our 9th session and he was able to read cvcc words without covering any of the letters!!!!! He was able to say each sound, retain the sounds in the correct order, and blend the sounds to read the word!
His mom was in tears. He also was able to re-read the passage “What Is It?” and fill in the word “dog” without any prompting from me. He took the pencil, said each sound and wrote it! Today was the first time I asked him to write anything not related to Read-It and he had no problems whatsoever. --Kathie Redmond, Elementary Teacher
References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Amendum, S. J., Vernon-Feagans, L., Ginsberg, M. C. (2011). The effectiveness of a technologically-facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention: The Targeted Reading Intervention. Elementary School Journal, 112, 107-131. Amendum, S.J., Bratsch-Hines, M., & Vernon-Feagans, L. ( 2018). Investigating the Efficacy of a Web-Based Early Reading and Professional Development Intervention for Young English Learners. Reading Research Quarterly , 53( 2), 155– 174. doi: 10.1002/rrq.188 Bus, A. G., & Ijzendoorn, M. H., (1999). Phonological Awareness and early reading: a meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 91, 403-414. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1). Chall, J. S. (1967, 1987). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dorhman, K. T. (2003). Outcomes for students in a Montessori program. Rochester, NY: Association Montessori Internationale/USA. Dwyer. M.I. (2004). A path for the exploration of any language leading to writing and reading. The NAMTA Journal, 29( 3) Ginsberg, M. C., Amendum, S., Mayer, K., Fedora, P. & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2006). Targeted reading intervention (TRI) professional development guide. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina, National Research Center for Rural Education Support. Ginsberg, M. C., Amendum, S., Mayer, K., Fedora, P. & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2006). Targeted reading intervention (TRI) reference guide. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina, National Research Center for Rural Education Support. Ginsberg, M. C., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Amendum, S. J. (2010). Webcam coaching for professional learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 14(1). Karnes, M., Shewedel, A., & Williams, M. (1983). A comparison of five approaches for educating young children from low-income homes. In the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies (Ed.), As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool programs (pp. 133-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of Assessing Preventing and Overcoming Reading Difficulties. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Lillard, Angeline S. Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Lindamood, P. C. (1969) Facilitation of language and literacy development through intensive auditory perceptual training. Paper given at the Third Annual TESOL Convention. Chicago, Illinois, March 5-8. McCandliss, B.D., Beck, I., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: A study of the Word Building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading. 7(1) , 75-105. McGuinness, C., McGuinness, D., & McGuinness, G. (1996). Phono-Graphix: A new method for remediating reading difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 73-96. McGuinness, D. (1998). Why Our Children Can’t Read and What We Can Do About It. New York: Free Press. Miller, L. B., & Bizzell, R. P. (1984). Long-term effects of four preschool programs: Ninth- and tenth-grade results. Child Development, 55 (4), 1570-87. Miller, L. B., & Dyer, J. L. (1975). Four preschool programs: Their dimensions and effects. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40( 5-6, serial no. 162). Moats , L.C. (1998, Spring). Teaching decoding . American Educator, 22 (1 & 2), 42-49, 95-96. Moats, L. C. (2000) Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers. Baltimore: MD: Brookes Publishing. 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. NICHD. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218. Showers, B., Joyce, B., and Bennett, B. (1987). “Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis.” Educational Leadership, 45 (3), 77–87. Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., Breier, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, E. M, Davis, R. N., Fitzgerald, M., Papanicolaou, A. C., (2012). Dyslexia-specific brain
activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training . Neurology, 58(8). Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Stanovich, Keith E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 360-407. Torgesen, J. K. (2006). Recent discoveries from research on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In M. Snowling and C. Hulme (Eds.). The Science of Reading: A Handbook. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002). Guidance for the Reading First Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Vernon-Feagans, L. & Ginsberg, M. (2011). Teaching struggling readers in the classroom. Better: Evidence-Based Education, 4(1), 6-7 . Vernon-Feagans, L., Kainz, K., Hedrick, A., Ginsberg, M., & Amendum, S. (2013). Live webcam coaching to help early elementary classroom teachers provide effective literacy instruction for struggling readers: The Targeted Reading Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 105(4), 1 175-1187. Vernon-Feagans, L., Kainz, K., Amendum, S. J., Ginsberg, M. C., Wood, T., & Bock, A. (2012). The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI): A coaching model to help classroom teachers with their struggling readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 102-114 . Vernon-Feagans, Gallagher, K.C., Amendum, S. Ginsberg, M., Kainz, K., Rose, J., & Burchinal, M. (2010). A diagnostic teaching intervention for classroom teachers: Helping struggling readers in early elementary school . Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25(4), 1 83-193. Vernon-Feagans, L., Bratsch-Hines, M., Varghese, C., Bean, A. and Hedrick, A. (2015), The Targeted Reading Intervention: Face-to-Face vs. Webcam Literacy Coaching of Classroom Teachers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30: 135-147. doi: 10.1111/ldrp.12062 Vernon-Feagans, L., Bratsch-Hines, M., Varghese, C., Cutrer, E. A., and Garwood, J. D., "Improving struggling readers’ early literacy skills through a tier 2 professional development program for rural classroom teachers: The targeted reading intervention," The Elementary School Journal 118, no. 4 (June 2018): 525-548. https://doi.org/10.1086/697491
Wagner, R.K.,Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994).The development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87
Comments