Improving Reading Performance of Students With Learning Disabilities Proposal

Introduction

Students who read well typically do well in school (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2008). Nearly 10% of students in the American education system find it hard to improve performance (Printz, 2006).

A child who does not read well has a higher possibility of being labeled with a learning disability, dropping out of school, or later having less success in work (Herberg, McLaughlin, Derby, & Weber, 2012). Regrettably, teachers continue to differ as to how to enhance children’s reading knowledge so all the children will be literate when leaving school (Kaufman, McLaughlin, Derby, & Waco, 2011).

Consistent with the research literature, there are many successful and valuable teaching methodologies to enhance reading performance and word acquisition. Such methodologies consist of skill-centered programs like Direct Instruction (DI) (Erbey et al., 2011).

Direct instruction involves explicit using lectures that contrast sharply with tutorials, and inquiry. Instead of using models, educators use demonstrations of the subject materials. Precision coaching that allows children to increase knowledge vigorously and monitor day-by-day performance (Ruwe et al., 2011) is part of these coaching and evaluation methodologies.

In precision coaching, the educators aim is not abstract and general. Rather, it is focused and trained on getting particular results.

Teacher-and children-coordinated drill (a live session where students and teachers engage at a personal level to solve pertinent issues) and practice techniques like feedback cards (the cards provide valuable guided feedback), detailed notes, constant reading (McLaughlin et al., 2009), and Direct Instruction flashcards (Falk et al., 2003; Ruwe et al., 2011) have been certified for their efficiency.

The utilization of class-based peer coaching (Erbey et al., 2011) has enhanced classroom social and educational behaviors across an extensive range of behaviors and children categories.

Development in word knowledge and fluency is associated with a drill and practice process known as reading racetracks (Erbey et al., 2011; Green et al., 2010). Reading racetracks (which are tools that help students increase reading fluency by capturing their attention) use mistake elimination, timing, group or tutor comment, and plotting of children performance (McLaughlin et al., 2009).

A racetrack is made of 24 units or squares arranged in circle like a racetrack. Two pictures of Ford Mustangs appear at the upper and lower side of the track. The coach places in the drawings a list of word sets (Ruwe et al., 2011). The children are usually instructed by the teacher with flashcards first, then are allowed to practice individually utilizing the track.

After that, the instructor times the child for 60 or 120 seconds to see how quick he or she can verbally read the words around the racetrack. Care is taken not to insert two words beside one another, which are phonetically alike.

The child and instructor count the number of right or mistakes and plot this result on standard or conventional graph paper. After the initial three racetracks, an assessment racetrack is made to provide further practice and maintenance of treatment outcomes over time (Printz et al., 2006).

The following methodologies are included in this proposed study, but contain an original extension of many of these data-centered methods. This study employs the “outline, guide, examine, and re-examine” found in Direct Instruction methods. The precision training strategies (Printz et al., 2006) of timed reading practices, fluency developing, survey sheets, and child self-reading of performance are employed.

The utilization of drill and practice processes similar to McLaughlin et al. (2009) is also adopted. Finally, a token strengthening program (Printz et al., 2006; Green et al., 2010) will be appraised and adopted.

This study will use a “reading track” system (Printz et al., 2006; Ruwe et al., 2011) and precision coaching (that allow students to monitor each day’s performance) methods to improve the fluency and correctness that children read words in isolation. The racetracks that will be adopted conform to the direct instruction practice of not incorporating words, which are visually and phonetically similar in the same session (Hyde et al., 2009).

The purpose of the present research is to assess the efficiency of utilizing Reading Racetracks to improve the reading of words found on the K-2 list key phrases adopted in the school district. A token strengthening program is as well engaged as further motivation for the research. During a one-minute timing of verbal reading, right and wrong phrases will be measured.

Literature Review

Introduction

The study of the art and science of reading focuses on understanding the relationship between mind growth, social relationship, and learning by borrowing concepts and concluded studies from the fields of education and neuroscience (Printz et al., 2006).

The results of the present study may aid in enhancing training practices for all children and assisting teachers in the development of more successful methods to teaching students with learning disabilities.

Some of the general design elements built into certain hardware and software provide simple but strong techniques to back-up students’ requirements, both at home and in class. This literature review provides a synopsis of learning technology practice and methodology with tangible examples of how parents, instructors, and children can utilize technology to improve reading performance of students with learning disabilities.

Learning Technology

Technology is often integrated into learning interventions and policy with a purpose of facilitating education for children with learning disabilities.

As specific elements (Direct Instruction flashcards, Precision Coaching, feedback cards etc) are provided within conventional products, children with learning disabilities are gradually able to interact with educational technologies and instructors are gradually able to modify content for changing children’s preferences or requirements.

Moreover, novel technology applications and learning software exclusively for children with learning disabilities emerge on a daily basis from curriculum developers, parents, instructors, and even learners themselves.

These features are contributing to a global need for changes in policy and teaching methods that can influence when and how technology is utilized to improve reading performance of students with learning disabilities (Ruwe et al., 2011).

The 2004 approval of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) summarizes the needs and resources for students with learning disabilities in the United States. The IDEA requires Personalized Learning Intervention (PLI) groups, which consist of parents, to re-examine and recommend Educational Technologies (ETs) and establish needed features for an individual child.

This consists of specific technologies needed for children with learning disabilities to produce learning materials, interact with syllabus content, or relate to their peers and instructors (Erbey et al., 2011).

Differentiation and Technology

Differentiated teaching requires instructors to present content that is customized correctly for the range of children in each category, to instruct utilizing flexible methods that provide varying means for learners to interact with the content and with one another, and to offer learners a choice of techniques to document their learning (Romjue et al., 2011).

Within both instructor coaching and career development, special instructors are gradually trained to acquire necessary knowledge in their teaching methods.

Given that, some special students may opt to learn normally, and the push for affirmative action in this area, General Education Instructors require Special Education knowledge to offer the bulk of daily instruction for learners with disabilities in normal classrooms, with resources and back up from special education professionals (Hyde et al., 2009).

In addition, institutions are gradually offered technology-based syllabi that offer excellent ways of interaction and comprehending for learners with disabilities. Many of these syllabi integrate flexible lesson plan methods based on brain studies and/or general lesson plan practices.

For instance, Richard Mayer (2008) suggests evidenced-centered media design practices that demonstrate how learning is improved when educational practices foresee the cognitive procedural load needed at every level of education. He provides detailed media design suggestions that support critical production of main features and strategies, reduce irrelevant production, and promote generative production to improve learning skills.

Mayer’s results show that the correct mixtures of resources – like animation with recitation or pictures with the appropriate phrases beside them – can enhance learning than when notes are presented using an informal rather than a formal method, indicating that our social interaction with the content influences how we learn.

Technology Use at Home and In Class

Four to six percent of learners in United States institutions have been diagnosed with learning disabilities, totaling 2.7 million learners in 2007 (McLaughlin et al., 2009). Over 50% of those children spend most of their day in general learning classrooms.

Technology inputs that support learners with learning disabilities are becoming more accessible, but class consumption remains behind because general education instructors have not been trained to use such technology effectively. Approximately 35% of learners with disabilities access supportive technology to enhance learning as illustrated by Metzloff et al. (2009).

Specific knowledge of supportive technology may be needed to satisfy the requirements of children with certain learning disabilities, but technology reviews even in such instances are often missing. Special technology reviews are occasional checks by perennial instructors and developers of supportive technology to ensure that such technology captures the needs of the intended users.

A study of 400 instructors who teach children with learning disabilities found that below 33% of their children had ever had a supportive technology review (Ruwe et al., 2011).

Research carried out by the Harvard Family Research Program proposes eight methods in which instructors and administrators can encourage parents’ participation in homework to assist students to improve and reinforce learning skills. Four of the proposed ways need considerable parental capability and/or parent-centered coaching and instructor support.

These consist of parents’ direct participation in assignments and completion of homework. In addition, it consists of parents’ development of helpful strategies that match classroom roles to their children’s understanding, skills, and capabilities.

Studies offer suggestions that propose an affirmative impact from parent-to-parent support teams and instructor-parent partnerships in improving and supporting individualized assignment systems for all children (Lolich et al., 2012).

Technology Appropriateness

Technologies that aid children with disabilities tackle physical and time challenges can have a quantifiable impact on the children’s interaction with learning. Children who strive to understand image, print, and audio resources are less capable of experiencing deep interaction while absorbing new content since the decoding procedure uses an uneven share of active memory (Wall & Siller, 2002).

Education instructors, researchers, and professionals agree that special children ought to know how their specific impairment affects their education. Howard Gardner’s (2000) research on several intellects supports learner self-recognition of preferences, strengths, and weaknesses in various fields of learning: rational, spatial, intrapersonal, and naturalistic (Gardner, 2000).

Future brain studies may recommend individualized reviews that could quantify varying degrees of learning through utilization of diverse technology-centered approaches at diverse levels in a child’s development.

Method

Participants

Participants of this study are children aged 14 years who have been diagnosed with any specific disabilities that may impair learning. The diagnosis is a procedure carried as per Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Students-III and children with disabilities score lower than the outcomes of that intelligence scale in one or all of the scales.

Outcomes of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Students-III (Printz et al., 2006) are Oral 90, Performance 104, and Full Scale 102. The schoolteacher will administer the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Students test two weeks before data gathering begins.

The study will take place in the coaching classroom of an elementary school in a rural area. The Special Education Instructor, the teaching assistant, and the first author will be present in the coaching room.

The authors will select the participant based on the average level of reading performance and readiness to contribute to the study. Such data will be provided as part of the graduation requisites of the first author from a public university.

Materials

Resources required for this research are two reading racetracks, conventional plotting paper, a stop watch, data compilation checklist, blue and black pens, list of words, and instructor-made flashcards. A representative sample for a reading racetrack is as shown below.

Figure 1: A model Reading Racetrack (Lolich et al., 2012, p. 247)

Variables and measurement processes

The dependent variables are the number of words the child reads accurately or in inaccuracy. The first author records the number of accurate and inaccurate words read for a one-minute period. Prior to each period, the child is allowed 120 seconds (3 minutes) to practice the racetrack in isolation.

The child is timed once in a day based on the number of words they read. This study will take one week. The participants will be awarded points based on a token education program for a specific number of accurate responses. The number of rights required to earn points increases overtime as the intervention itself becomes more rewarding.

Study Design and Requirements

To evaluate the efficiency of the racetracks paired with Direct Instruction, precision coaching and a personal token program, the researcher will utilize the following.

Data Collection Survey

Pursuant to the measurement processes and variables discussed above, the researcher will embark on original data collection. As proposed above, this study consists of presenting a list of key words and requesting participants to read the words orally for one minute.

The researcher makes a check on a conventional graph paper for each inaccurate reading and the total number of readings. An accurate ‘answer’ is defined as reading the word accurately (consisting of self-corrections). A wrong ‘answer’ is defined as reading a word wrongly, skipping a word, or pronouncing another word. The researcher will collect the data for two days.

Reading racetracks

As noted before, reading racetracks are tools that enable students (especially those with disabilities) to eliminate mistakes in reading through practice. In this research, the researcher selects six words from a universal record of key words for each racetrack, being careful not to incorporate two phonetically similar words.

The researcher confirms that the child has previous reading experience with 60% of the words from practice, as mentioned above. The researcher utilizes a growing number of words in the course of the program. The program takes a week as mentioned above. At the start of each day’s session, the child is given 120 seconds to practice the reading system individually.

If the participant asks help to decode a word, the researcher offers help. After 120 seconds of practice, the student is timed for 60 seconds. An accurate answer is defined as reading the word in each unit accurately or self-correcting whereas an inaccurate answer is defined as skipping a word, reading a word inaccurately, or pronouncing a word from a different unit as noted above.

At the end of the one-minute session, the participant will aid the researcher to compute the number of accurate and inaccurate answers, in addition to recording the information. After calculation, a number of points are awarded to the participant (e.g. one point for every 5 accurate reading answers and then progressively increased during the program to one point for every 10 accurate answers).

Immediately following data collection, the researcher uses the Direct Instruction System, which models, instructs, examines, and re-examines for a support effect, such as timing, sign language teaching, or a pen. When the participant completes a racetrack with 100% correctness, a different racetrack is implemented on the next day. Data is gathered roughly three times in a week for a total of six weeks.

Reliability of Data

The data collected has to capture the parameters and requirements of this research. To fulfil this requirement, the researcher carries out an Inter Observer Consistency (the inherent coordination between participant and the researcher(s)) once during data collection. In this paper, there is likely that a number of people may be involved in collecting data.

Each time a participant pronounces a word, the researchers record an accurate or inaccurate mark individually throughout the one-minute durations. This may result in different recordings. Hence, the researcher has to make effort to ensure data reliability.

To achieve inter researcher conformity, the researcher in this paper divides the number of conformities per researcher by the total number of conformities and non-conformities and multiplies that number by 100. ‘Conformity’ is defined as researchers having a similar response captured for each word pronounced verbally. ‘Non-conformity’ is the instance where researchers have dissimilar responses for a word pronounced verbally.

Process of Assessing a Disabled Participant

Constructing or developing an assessment tool is a process. The process chronologically involves the following steps according to Mayer (2008).

1. Identifying the area of difficulty for the learner. For instance; a child’s habitual omission of letters while reading
2. Determination of the frequency of the problem and its gravity with regard to its effect on reading.
3. Sampling of relevant tests commencing with the easiest level until one derives the items, which are at the learner’s level.
4. Carefully paying attention to motor or sensory difficulties and letting the learner to react in the way they function best.

Preparations

Before the introduction of the learner to experience, proper preparedness of the professionals conducting the testing to administer and score the same and a friendly environment should be ensured first. Most learners are test phobic. To alleviate this problem, they should be explained all the steps to be involved in the testing, the testing items, and procedures clearly. This helps clarify any misconceptions to them and other participants.

It would be equally important to involve the parents, as this would in turn help them understand the test and its importance. Hence, win them as part of the assessment support team. Their knowledge about the learner should also be embraced, as it would render the test more meaningful to the learner and their family.

Besides establishing a rapport with the learner, it would also help minimize their test stress or phobia, before the test a lot. Ensuring the test is at their level would also help in this a lot. Once everything is in place, the assessment should be done and the results got something that should usher in the following step.

Conclusion

To facilitate planning for the assessment, the team members should work collaboratively and in a participative manner too to ensure a wholesome assessment. Additionally, the assessments should be carried out in learner’s school or at home unless the learner proves to have both educational and other problems calling for specialized attention.

Prior to the commencement of the learner, the teacher, and other team members should have a planning schedule for the determination of what is to be assessed and how the information is to be gathered as well as assessment objectives.

Assessment objectives entail areas to which forces should be prioritized. Besides this, it should also give clarifications for referral questions, review regarding learners’ information (particularly from parents and other teachers, locate rules and responsibilities of member for diverse information collection across multiple setting.

References

Erbey, R., McLaughlin, F., Derby, M., & Everson, M. (2011). The effects of using flashcards with reading racetrack to teach letter sounds, sight words, and math facts to elementary students with learning disabilities. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(3), 213-226.

Falk, M., Band, M., & McLaughlin, F. (2003). The effects of reading racetracks and flashcards on sight word vocabulary of three third grade students with a specific learning disability: A further replication and analysis. International Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 51-57.

Gardner, H. (2000). The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts and Standardized Tests, the K-12 Education That Every Child Deserves. New York: Penguin Putnam.

Green, C., McLaughlin, F., Derby, K., & Lee, K. (2010). Using reading racetracks and flashcards to teach sight words to students with disabilities: Effects for acquisition and response maintenance. Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 84-98.

Herberg, J., McLaughlin, F., Derby, K., & Weber, P. (2012). The effects of repeated readings and flashcard error drill the reading accuracy and fluency with rural middle school student with learning disabilities. Academic Research International, 2(3), 388-393.

Hyde, C., McLaughlin, F., & Everson, M. (2009). The effects of reading racetracks on the sight word fluency and acquisition for two elementary students with disabilities: A further replication and analysis. The Open Social Science Journal, 2(1), 50-53.

Kaufman, L., McLaughlin, F., Derby, K., & Waco, T. (2011). Employing reading racetracks and DI flashcards with and without cover, copy, and compare and reward to teach of sight words to three students with learning disabilities in reading. Educational Research Quarterly, 34(2), 27-50.

Lolich, E., McLaughlin, F., & Weber, K. (2012). The effects of using reading racetracks combined with direct instruction precision teaching and a token economy to improve the reading performance for a 12-year-old student with learning disabilities. Educational Sciences, 3(2), 245-249.

Mayer, R. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760-769.

McLaughlin, F., Williams, F., Williams, L., Peck, M., Derby, K., Bjordahl, M., & Weber, K. (2009). Behavioural training for teachers in special education: The Gonzaga University program. Behavioural Interventions, 14, 83-134.

Metzloff, N., Kuhl, P., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, J. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 325, 284-288.

Printz, K., McLaughlin, F., & Band, M. (2006). The effects of reading racetracks and flashcards on sight word vocabulary: A case report and replication. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 103-108.

Romjue, H., McLaughlin, F., & Derby, K. (2011). The effects of reading racetracks and flashcards for teaching sight words. Academic Research International, 1(2), 134-146.

Ruwe, K., McLaughlin, F., Derby, K., & Johnson, K. (2011). The multiple effects of direct instruction flashcards on sight word acquisition, passage reading, and errors for three middle school students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 23, 241-255.

Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, A. (2008). Paying attention to reading: The neurobiology of reading and dyslexia. Developmental Psychopathology, 20(4), 1329-1349.

Wall, R., & Siller, M. (2002). Quick facts on the use of multimedia presentations and technology. American Foundation for the Blind, 19(1), 201-216.