Using visual phonics as a strategic intervention to increase literacy

JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3UsInG vIsUAL phOnIcs As A sTRATEGIc InTERvEnTIOn TO IncREAsE LITERAcy bEhAvIORs fOR kInDERGARTEn pARTIcIpAnTs AT-RIsk fOR READInG fAILURETRACI M. CIHON THE CHICAGO SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSyCHOLOGyRALPH GARDNER, III, DOROTHy MORRISON AND PETER V. PAULTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITyThe article presents a model of an effectively implemented visual phonics intervention program for kindergarten children at high risk for reading failure in a general education classroom. There is a growing body of professional literature documenting the effectiveness of visual phonics for children who are hard-of-hearing or deaf. There is little information on the benefits of visual phonics for hearing participants at high risk for reading failure. The preliminary findings of this study suggest that See the Sound/Visual Phonics (STS/VP) intervention in the classroom is appropriate for children who are falling behind using the regular curriculum. Post-intervention gains were noted on both the Dynamic Indicators of basic Early Literacy skills (DIBELS) and the curriculum based assessment for participants who participated in the STS/VP intervention. The data also suggest that participants performed similarly to their grade level peers who were at benchmark based on DIBELS and who did not receive the STS/VP intervention. Results are discussed in terms of future research opportunities.key words: See the Sound/Visual Phonics, at-risk/struggling readers, phonemic awareness, initial phonics, Visual PhonicsA primary task of schools is to teach young throughout their schooling (Francis, Shaywitz, children to read. Teaching reading is a Stuebing, Fletcher, & Shaywitz, 1996; Hall & complex task, further complicated by the fact Moats, 1999; Juel, 1988; McGuinness, 2004, that this intricate skill is more difficult for 2005; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). some participants to learn than others (Bursuck Consequences for participants who do not & Damar, 2007; Moats, 2000). In addition, learn to read proficiently are often dire. children enter schools with varying levels of Children who are poor readers are at increased pre-reading skills, thus requiring different risk for having behavior problems (Walker, levels of instruction. The challenge for Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker & Severson, teachers of reading is to meet the diverse 2002), special education placement (Snow, instructional needs of all children in their Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and low paying jobs classrooms. as adults (Chhabra & McCardle, 2004).Once children fall behind in reading, a On the other hand, proficient reading challenging instructional task becomes even remains the most essential skill required for more difficult. Children who are behind in academic success (Chhabra & McCardle, reading at the end of the first grade usually 2004). The ability to identify those children continue to be behind at the fourth grade and who need extra assistance can allow teachers 138JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3to target their instruction to benefit all they have difficulty associating the sounds children. The last decade has seen an intensive with the appropriate letters. Letter sound effort to identify participants that are at risk or relations require a child to perceive individual high risk for reading failure and to intervene sounds and associate the sounds with letters. before they experience failure (Kame’enui et This two-fold task encompasses both al., 2006). For example, the Dynamic phonemic awareness and beginning phonics Indicators of basic Early Literacy skills instruction, crucial prerequisites for mastering (DIBELS) (Good, Kaminski, Smith, & the alphabetic code.Laimon, 2001) has proven to be an effective Bowey and Francis (1991) found that assessment and predictive tool for early kindergarten participants who were nonreaders reading success/failure. did not have adequate phonological awareness The DIBELS is an assessment tool that skills. Similarly, Catts, Fey, Tomblin, and allows teachers to determine if a participant is Zhang (2002), in a longitudinal study demonstrating the appropriate level of pre- involving 604 young children, found that over reading and reading skills for his or her grade 70% of poor readers had a history of level and age. In other words, it answers the phonological awareness or oral language question of whether the participant is on target deficits in kindergarten. These phonological (at benchmark) in prerequisite skills to be a deficits persisted throughout high school, proficient reader at the end of third grade. If preventing participants from becoming the participant is on target then the current proficient readers (MacDonald & Cornwall, instruction should be continued. However, if 1995). the participant is not on target that participant The National Reading Panel (NRP) should receive additional explicit instruction (National Institute of Child Health and Human with the intensity of the intervention based on Development, 2000), in examining the the degree to which the participant is below empirical literature on teaching reading, benchmark standards. Unfortunately, many indicated that a balanced and effective reading teachers do not know what to do with the program should include instruction or practice results of the DIBELS assessment, particularly in five areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, how to modify instruction or provide more fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. intensive instruction in problem areas.Specifically, the NRP found that direct and Curriculum-based measures (CBM) are an systematic instruction of phonemic skills are assessment tool that can be used to supplement important for building reading skills. Explicit DIBELS. CBMs are generally probes of instruction in phonemic awareness is essential particular performances on skills related to for preventing reading failure for young the on-going classroom instruction. We participants otherwise at-risk for poor reading discuss one effective modification for teaching achievement (Pullen & Justice, 2003). In kindergarten children letter/sound recent years there has been an increase in relationships using the DIBELS and CBMs as empirically based commercial materials the dependent variables. designed to teach phonological skills such as Important indicators of future reading phonemic Awareness in young children difficulties in young children are deficits in (Adams, Foorman, Lunberg, & Beeler, 1998), phonemic awareness skills (Ehri, 2004; phonological coding: phonemic Awareness McGuinness, 2004, 2005). That is, young (Haughton, 1999), Ladders to Literacy children who are at risk for reading failure (O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadasy, have difficulty discriminating between the 1998), and phonological Awareness Training sounds in English words and consequently for Reading (Torgesen & Bryant, 1994). These 139JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3programs have proven to be effective in Trezek, & Paul, 2008; Wang, Trezek, Luckner, boosting many children’s pre-reading skills; & Paul, in press). Its unique and precise yet teachers may still be confounded with characteristics have yielded success in deaf instructional-resistors or those children who, education (Narr, 2008; Trezek & Malmgren, despite the use of empirically validated 2005; Trezek & Wang, 2006; Trezek, Wang, instructional tools and the best efforts of the Woods, Gampp, & Paul, 2007).teacher, are not making adequate progress. Trezek and Malmgren (2005) used STS/These participants are often placed at the VP with corrective Reading-Decoding A tertiary level of intervention (needing an curriculum (Campbell, 1988; Gregory, individualized, intensive level of intervention Hackney, & Gregory, 1982) to teach letter-to reach the same level of performance as sound identification in isolation, letter-sound their same-age peers). identification within words, and word This raises the need for two additional decoding to middle school participants with considerations in teaching pre-reading skills. hearing impairments. The results of a pre- The first is the need for frequent assessments post-test design indicated that combining to determine the effectiveness of instruction STS/VP with the corrective Reading-for each child (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Decoding A curriculum was effective in Barnes, 2007). Second is the need to identify producing significant gains (z = 2.941, or additional instructional strategies that might almost 3 stanines) on the three dependent be useful for children who are at-risk for variables, regardless of degree of hearing loss reading failure. There is a particular need for among participants.instructional strategies that are structured for Trezek and Wang (2006) conducted a the teacher and learners yet are flexible 1-year evaluation of the effects of STS/VP enough to meet the individualized needs of and Reading mastery I curriculum (Engelmann learners, when implemented in small groups & Brunner, 1995) with kindergarten and 1st or one-on-one grade participants who were deaf and/or hard-See the Sound/Visual Phonics (STS/VP) is of-hearing. Standardized assessments were a unique intervention tool that provides a hand used to evaluate the effects of instruction. The sign for every phoneme in the English results indicated that all participants language. The hand signs mimic some aspect demonstrated gains in word reading, of the mouth, tongue and throat movements pseudoword reading, and reading one makes when producing the sound and, in comprehension. Narr (2008) also found some cases, provides visual or kinesthetic support for the use of STS/VP with links to letter shapes. Written symbols (simple kindergarten through 3rd grade participants line drawings of the hand signs) can be placed with hearing impairments. Specifically, the under complex vowels, digraphs, and irregular participants demonstrated improvement on spellings to clarify sounds in printed context rhyming judgments and decoding.for struggling readers (a similar, though not as Trezek et al. (2007) examined the effects complete, orthographic modification to text of adding STS/VP to the LAcEs reading was also employed by Engelmann and curriculum (a reading curriculum developed Brunner (1995) in the Reading mastery I by a school district for its students) on curriculum). This approach puts the standardized measures of beginning reading intervention at the level of sounds, not letters, skills for kindergarten and first grade making sound concrete and tangible, providing participants who were deaf and/or hard-of-a unique and stable foundation for phonemic hearing. The results suggested that after 1 awareness (See discussion in Morrison, year of STS/VP and LAcEs reading 140JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3instruction, participants demonstrated sound relations taught with typical classroom statistically significant increases on instruction? standardized measures. Researchers are only beginning to assess METHODthe effectiveness of STS/VP with hearing children who are at risk for reading failure. participants & settingAn unpublished action study (Slausen & The classroom teacher recommended Carrier, 1992) showed that STS/VP helped participants who needed intervention. Twelve kindergarten children with low language participants who returned permission letters skills. Based on the Slausen and Carrier study, allowing them to participate in the study were anecdotal evidence from schools that had tested using the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators used STS/VP with the Open court reading of basic Early Literacy skills, 6th Edition), the curriculum (Interview, Cushing, 2003), and K-2 test of benchmark skills. The specific the positive results with participants who are skills assessed were: Initial Sound Fluency deaf or hard-of-hearing (probably one of the (ISF), Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), most difficult populations to teach phonemic Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), awareness to), we decided to try STS/VP as Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), and Word an intervention tool for low-performing Use Fluency (WUF). kindergarten children. Given the weak effects We selected the lowest five performing of other tested interventions (see Al Otaiba & participants (as compared to their grade level Fuchs, 2002 for a review) and the history of peers who were at benchmark based on success with STS/VP in deaf education, we DIBELS data) for the STS/VP intervention. attempted to investigate the effectiveness of The group targeted for intervention, then, was STS/VP as an intervention for hearing children comprised of three girls and two boys who with low phonemic awareness skills. The ranged in age from 5 to 6 years old. Al was purpose of this investigation was to extend repeating kindergarten and was the oldest the STS/VP approach to teach phonemic student in the intervention group; he was also awareness and initial phonics to kindergarten deaf in one ear. Sue, Fawn, Al and Ike were children identified as at-risk for reading receiving free or reduced lunches. failure.The intervention took place late in the The specific research questions we Kindergarten year (March 22) and ended May addressed were a) Do kindergarten children 11 (two weeks earlier than expected because identified as at-risk for reading failure show of school construction) and started with the gains on DIBELS assessments after receiving most common sounds inaccurately identified. instruction in phonemic awareness and initial Letter-sound relations were selected when the phonics via STS/VP? b) If so, how do those majority of participants were unable to express gains rival those of their grade–level, non-risk the letter-sound relation on the NWF subtest peers? c) What are the effects of STS/VP of the DIBELS. It is important to note that instruction on the identification of letter- these were letter-sound relations previously sound relations? d) Do participants learn taught via large-group instruction using the letter-sound relations taught with the STS/VP horizons reading curriculum and/or via small written code in fewer teaching trials than group guided reading instruction. This letter-sound relations taught without the STS/ instruction continued for the duration of the VP written code? e) Do participants identify study for the non-STS/VP participants. letter-sound relations taught with STS/VP Regular classroom instruction consisted of correctly more frequently than those letter- the introduction of two letter-sound relations. 141JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3Letter-sound relations were introduced with a instruction). Participants selected for the STS/song, flash cards, and a word that started with VP intervention also participated in a the target sound. Students were asked, in a curriculum-based baseline measure for each large group format, to make the letter sound target letter-sound relation. Five probes for after it had been modeled. Additional activities the current target letter-sound relation for included blending and sounding out words each participant were conducted in each and writing the corresponding letter. These session. Probes consisted of the experimenter activities were completed individually or in presenting a sentence containing at least five small-group settings. Instruction typically opportunities to respond to the target letter-lasted about 2 hours per day for each letter- sound relation to each participant. Participants sound relation.were instructed to point to and say the sound For the intervention, the first author and/ for any letters or words they knew. Baseline or the classroom teacher conducted teaching probes were conducted until data indicated a sessions at least 3 times per week for steady or decreasing trend. If baseline data approximately 10-12 minutes each in a small indicated mastery of the letter-sound relation group of two to four students. Total (the participant emitted the letter-sound intervention time varied across participants relation correctly for 80%-100% of probes) from 3.5 hours to 5.5 hours, depending on the this letter-sound relation was not taught to participant’s performance.that participant. This sequence was repeated for each target letter-sound combination for PROCEDURESall participants.baselinesTs/vp InterventionThe K-2 test of benchmark skills served as A generic lesson plan was developed for one baseline measure for all participants (both delivering instruction. A dialogue using the /those selected for the STS/VP intervention ow/ sound is presented in Figure 1.and those who received regular classroom Vi Probe Data First ProtocolRevised ProtocolPTPT100PT PTBLBLBLBLI &OM&LF&BT&Dcoded text8060hand sign40Percentage of Correct Sounds20014710131619222528313437SessionsBL = BaselinePT = Post TeachingFigure 1. Vi probe data for hand sign (/i/, /m/, /f/, /t/) and coded sounds (/o/, /l/, /b/, /d/).142JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3Table 1Behaviors to Teach the STS/VP Hand SignStep Teacher Behavior Participant Behavior1 “Watch my mouth while I say /ow/” Watch and listen and says /ow/ in an exaggerated fashion Teacher repeats the step twice2 Teacher says, “Now you try it with me” Teacher says the /ow/ sound Participant says the /ow/ sound Repeats twice Repeats twice3 Teacher says, “I’m going to show you a Watch and listen hand sign that looks and feels like /ow/” The teacher demonstrates the hand sign while saying /ow/. Teacher repeats the step twice.4 Teachers says, “Now you try it with me” Teacher says the /ow/ sound while Participant says the /ow/ sound while making the hand sign making the hand sign Repeats twice Repeats twice5 Teacher says, “show me the /ow/ sound and the hand sign four times.” Participant says the /ow/ sound and makes the corresponding hand sign. Participant repeats three times6 Teacher presents the participant with five Participant reads the words, making words that contain the target sound the corresponding hand sign each time she comes to the target sound7 Teacher gives the participant a sentence Participant reads the passage, making with 5 words containing the target the corresponding hand sign each time sound embedded she comes to the target sound143JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3Table 2Behaviors to Teach the STS/VP Hand Sign and Written SymbolStep Teacher Behavior Participant Behavior 1 “Watch my mouth while I say /ow/” Watch and listen and says /ow/ in an exaggerated fashion Teacher repeats the step twice 2 Teacher says, “Now you try it with me” Teacher says the /ow/ sound Participant says the /ow/ sound Repeats twice Repeats twice 3 Teacher says, “I’m going to show you a Watch and listen hand sign that looks and feels like /ow/” The teacher demonstrates the hand sign while saying /ow/. Teacher repeats the step twice. 4 Teachers says, “Now you try it with me” Teacher says the /ow/ sound while Participant says the /ow/ sound while making the hand sign making the hand sign Repeats twice Repeats twice5 Teacher says, “show me the /ow/ sound Participant says the /ow/ sound and and the hand sign four times.” Makes the corresponding hand sign. Participant repeats three times6 Teacher says, “To remember what letters make Watch and listenthe sound /ow/, I can draw a picture of the hand sign and write it under the letters to help practice thewords. This is what the secret code for /ow/ lookslike”. The teacher draws the code no more than tenvariant spellings and says, “the /ow/ sound startswith the mouth wide open and closes to a tight O orpucker; the hand signal (shows all fingers extended)starts wide and ends like the mouth closing (movesthe fingers to touch the thumb and closes the hand);the code looks like what the hand does and remindsme what sound to make8 Teacher presents the participant with five words Participant reads the coded words, that contain the target sound with the written making the corresponding hand sign symbol below the corresponding letters each time she comes to the target sound9 Teacher gives the participant a sentence Participant reads the sentence, making with 5 words containing the target the corresponding hand sign each time sound embedded she comes to the target sound144JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3Detailed lists of teacher behaviors to teach stand up, sit down, wiggle, etc.) were used to letter sounds using only the hand sign or to build momentum in participant responding teach letter sounds using both the hand sign and to keep participants on-task. and the written code are depicted in Tables 1 Revised sTs/vp Interventionand 2, respectively. The primary difference Initially, mastery criteria required between hand sign only and coded text participants to perform the target behavior at sessions was the introduction of and inclusion 80% accuracy for only one instructional of a written code below the letter(s) that were session. In addition, participants were not representative of a particular phoneme. For required to identify which letter within a word example, in the hand sign only teaching corresponded to the sound and hand sign they sessions, participants were shown the hand produced. Participant data suggested low sign for a particular phoneme and read text levels of retention on dependent measures and without additional written cues. In the coded problems with discrimination when two target text sessions, participants were shown the letter-sound relations were presented in the hand sign and a written code representative of same word. We added a discrimination task the hand sign. This code was included under that required participants to point to the the target letter(s) during teaching sessions, letter(s) (in a field of three or more) that made but not during baseline and intervention the target sound and to identify the letter(s) probes. within a word that corresponded to the sound Strategies for effective group instruction and hand sign they produced (see Table 3 for (see Heward, 1994) were used during STS/ the steps added to the revised protocol). In VP instructional sessions. For example, addition, the mastery criterion was revised so teachers incorporated a quick pace of that participants were required to meet 80% instruction, with several opportunities for correct sound identification across two each participant to respond interspersed across teaching sessions for the last seven to participants. In addition, simple instruction- seventeen sessions of intervention (varied following activities (e.g., high fives; brief based on participant performance). movement exercises such as directions to Table 3Behaviors for the Revised Teaching ProtocolStep Teacher Behavior Participant Behavior5a Presents the learner with a field of at least Points to the corresponding letter three letters and asks the learner to “point to the letters that make the sound /ow/ “while making the corresponding hand sign6/7 8/9 After the participant reads the sound and Points to the corresponding makes the corresponding hand sign, also letters asks the participant to point to the corresponding letter. 145JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3post-TestsOn the CBM, data were collected on After all target letter-sound relations had correct and incorrect identification of letter-been taught for each participant, two post- sound relations for sounds taught with STS/tests were administered. The DIbELs k-3 VP and sounds taught without STS/VP. Data benchmark was administered for all were calculated by dividing the total number participants except Inga who was absent on of letter-sound relations taught or untaught by the day of testing. Participants who received the number of correct letter-sound relations the STS/VP intervention were also given a taught or untaught and multiplying by 100. CBM that required the participants to identify These data were analyzed to determine if the sounds they knew within the context of participants were able to identify more letter-sentences. Each child identified sounds in sound relations that were taught using STS/three sentences containing mostly sounds VP than were taught during regular classroom they had been taught with STS/VP, and three instruction (described above). sentences containing mostly sounds they had been taught in the classroom but not taught Interobserver Agreementwith STS/VP. Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were collected by the experimenters and the Data collection and Analysisclassroom teacher for 35% of baseline Experimenters (including the classroom sessions, 30% of hand sign sessions, and 27% teacher) recorded participant responding of coded text teaching sessions. The mean during baseline and teaching sessions and IOA for baseline sessions was calculated by graphed the data after each teaching session. dividing the total number of agreements by Data were collected for correct and incorrect the total number of opportunities and responses for the following behaviors: (a) multiplying by 100. The mean IOA for imitating the target speech sound chorally, (b) baseline sessions was 97.8% (range, 60% to emitting the target speech sound individually, 100%). The mean IOA for hand sign and (c) imitating the target speech sound and coded text teaching sessions was 98% (range, making the corresponding hand sign chorally, 0% to 100%) and 97% (range, 20% to 100%), (d) imitating the target speech sound and respectively. While overall IOA was high, making the corresponding hand sign initial baseline and intervention sessions individually, (e) receptively identifying the produced low agreement. Following the first letter that made the corresponding speech baseline and experimental sessions, sign (added in protocol revision to aid in experimenters and the classroom teacher discrimination), (f) emitting the speech sound recalibrated scoring procedures to ensure and/or the corresponding hand sign for the future agreement. Specifically, data recorders target sound (as identified by the participant) clarified definitions of the target responses to embedded in a single word, and (g) emitting include the correct emission of the phoneme the speech sound and/or the corresponding and production of the hand-sign in treatment hand sign for the target sound (as identified conditions, but not in baseline conditions, as by the participant) embedded in single words participants would not be able to emit a correct within a sentence. Criteria for mastery were response without prior instruction on the STS/set at 80-100% of sounds identified and then VP hand sign in baseline.emitted correctly with the corresponding visual phonics hand sign when presented with the letter. 146JEIBI Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention VOLUME 5 - NUMBER 3Treatment IntegrityRESULTSThe third author conducted STS/VP Figures 2-6 show the results obtained for training with the first and second authors and each participant in hand sign and coded text the classroom teacher. STS/VP training baseline and probe sessions. Data are sessions consisted of modeling, rehearsal, and presented in dyads (closed triangles feedback for each phoneme, hand sign, and representing the sound taught with the hand written code. The initial training lasted sign only and open circles representing the approximately 6 hours. Review sessions (brief sound taught with the written code), or pairs reminders of hand signs or written codes for of letter sound relations taught in each each phoneme) were conducted prior to each condition, respectively (e.g., on Vi’s graph /i/ teaching session and lasted for no longer than was taught via hand sign only and /o/ was 5 minutes each. taught via the written code). During the study, data were collected on Baseline and probe data showed little the experimenters’ ability to arrange the difference between coded text and hand sign instructional sessions and implement the conditions. For some participants, there correct teaching procedures for each condition. seemed to be an advantage to either the coded Another experimenter or the classroom text or hand sign only conditions, but teacher collected data for 47% of baseline differences were not notable enough to draw sessions, 28% of hand sign only sessions, and strong conclusions. Post-teaching probes 20% of coded text teaching sessions. showed minimal post-teaching gains after Treatment integrity was calculated by dividing instruction using the first teaching protocol. the number of steps conducted correctly by After the revised teaching protocol was the total number of steps and multiplying by implemented (indicated by the bold phase 100. The mean treatment integrity for baseline change line), each participant showed post-sessions was 90.9% (range, 75% to 100%). teaching gains on at least one sound taught. The mean treatment integrity for hand sign and coded text teaching sessions was 98.6% (range, 93% to 100%) and 98.9% (range, 94% to 100%), respectively. Experimental DesignA non-concurrent multiple baseline across participants and sounds with an embedded multielement design was used to assess the effects of the STS/VP intervention. Additional support for the findings was obtained from the pre- and post- DIbELs and the curriculum-based measures for letter-sound relations that were taught with STS/VP and those taught through the regular classroom curriculum.147