10 Ways to Teach and Support Struggling Adolescent Readers

By Thomas, Cathy Newman Wexler, Jade

Using up-to-date, evidenced-based strategies in the classroom, middle and high school teachers can promote literacy among adolescents. As Mrs. Padilla works with a small group of students, she surveys her 9th grade English class. Across the room, she catches the eye of Ms. Cameron, her literacy coach, and they share a smile. Mrs. Padilla reflects on how profoundly her understanding and beliefs about her profession as an English teacher have changed since her university training. She was not prepared for the diversity in her classroom or for the large number of struggling readers who would walk through her doors lacking the skills needed to access the curriculum (Kamil 2003).

In the face of current teacher reforms (CochranSmith 2005) and calls for teacher accountability (No Child Left Behind Act 2001 ), and in spite of the relatively limited research base on adolescent literacy (Biancarosa and Snow 2004), Mrs. Padilla has worked hard to meet these challenges. She has investigated and incorporated evidence-based practices that integrate reading instruction into her core English curriculum (Biancarosa and Snow 2004). Following are 10 strategies that can help other middle and high school language arts and content area teachers meet these challenges as well.

1. Ask for help.

Teachers and their students benefit from additional support. Consultation and collaboration with the reading specialist, special education teacher, and speech and language pathologist can provide information and teaching strategies to differentiate instruction for students with varied reading skills (Dieker and Little 2005).

To stay current in best practice, teachers must be lifelong learners. Seeking professional development by attending conferences and workshops, and accessing the services of a literacy coach can help teachers renew and refine their practice, and support the integration of up-to-date, evidence-based practices into their teaching repertoire (International Reading Association 2006). Research has shown that when professional development results in positive teacher change, student outcomes also improve (Bryant et al. 2001).

2. Support word recognition needs.

Many students struggle with multisyllabic words (Archer, Gleason, and Vachon 2003). Instruction in word recognition at the secondary level may include teaching the six syllable types in the English language and the rules for syllabication to help students break unknown words into manageable parts (Bhattacharya and Ehri 2004). For example, students can “attack” the word replace by dividing it into an open syllable (re), which keeps the long vowel sound, followed by a vowel-consonant-e syllable type (place).

Students also can use a word analysis approach to break down and decode the word replace. Providing instruction in morphology, or meaningful word parts, can help students associate parts of a word with meaning (Ebbers 2004; Moats 2001). A student can peel the prefix (re-) away from the root word (-place) and decode the word with ease. If the student knows that the meaning of the prefix (re- ) is to go back and the meaning of the root (-place) is to put in a particular position, both comprehension and word recognition are enhanced.

3. Select appropriate materials.

Teachers of older struggling readers must take care to select materials that are age appropriate and that students can read fluently enough to comprehend. Unfortunately, many content area texts are written at reading levels above grade level (Mastropieri, Scruggs, and Craetz 2003). Because many students read below grade level, this is a significant problem. Reading materials can be conceptualized (Rasinski 1 999) as falling at a student’s independent level when the student is able to read the text without assistance (fluency is 95 percent or better), instructional level when the student requires supports such as pre-teaching of key vocabulary or practice with unfamiliar or un-mastered phonemes and morphemes (fluency falls between 90-95 percent), and frustration level when, even with instruction and support, the text is too difficult for the student to read fluently and comprehend (fluency is below 90 percent).

Homework and independent reading assignments should use materials at students’ independent reading level, while teachers’ instruction and scaffolded practice should use materials at the students’ instructional level. To determine the appropriateness of material, teachers can use passages from various required texts to check student’s fluency rates by timing individual oral reading for one minute and calculating words correct per minute (wcpm).

In addition, students need teacher support and simple strategies to help them learn to select reading materials for themselves- ones that fall at their independent reading level. Struggling readers are notoriously inept at selecting free reading materials that are both interesting and comprehensible. While not scientific, teachers have developed functional methods for supporting students in selecting materials that they will enjoy reading. The simplest of these is the Five Finger Test, a strategy based on a gross measure of reading fluency (Schirmer and Lockman 2001).

To use the Five Finger Test, students follow a series of steps that direct them to select and assess an appropriate book. The student first looks at the title and cover. If still interested, the student then reads the synopsis on the back or flyleaf of the book. If interest is maintained, the student opens the book to the middle and finds a full page of text. While reading the full page of text, the student raises one finger each time he or she encounters a word that is unknown (i.e., the student can’t decode or understand it). If the student misses fewer than two words, the book should be easy to read. If the student misses three or four words, the book might be frustrating to read, or the student might have to ask for help. If the student misses more than five words on the page, the book will be too difficult to enjoy.

Another simple method is the use of a rubric such as the one developed by Schirmer and Lockman (2001), which has students evaluate 10 readability features including, among others, vocabulary, sentence length and complexity, the familiarity of the topic, the organization and design of the materials, and the degree to which the student finds the material motivating. Careful selection of reading materials by teachers and students alike is critical in providing access to the curriculum and encouraging students to read for school and pleasure.

4. Develop reading fluency.

To become fluent, older struggling readers need plenty of practice. Fluent readers decode automatically, accurately, and effortlessly with expression. Fluent reading enables students to focus their cognitive energy on comprehending rather than decoding text. Nonetheless, teachers must recognize that while fluency is highly correlated with comprehension, it does not necessarily result in automatic comprehension (Fuchs et al. 2001).

Repeated reading activities and non-repetitive wide reading are two methods that have been proven to have positive outcomes for building fluency. In repeated reading, students read the same text several times (usually three) or until they reach a certain criterion such as 100 wcpm. Fluency practice with reading materials at students’ instructional level exposes them to more complex text structure and vocabulary (Kuhn and Stahl 2003), while rereading text gives students practice reading smoothly to help them increase the speed at which they read that particular text. To foster generalization, teachers should provide corrective feedback so that students practice reading with accuracy. Teachers also can have students follow a nonrepetitive wide reading procedure using a variety of texts that expose them to a multiplicity of vocabulary and content (Biancarosa and Snow 2004).

Key elements of fluency interventions associated with positive outcomes include passage previewing activities such as having students listen to an audiotape or adult model of good reading before attempting to read a passage, providing corrective feedback, and exposing students to expository as well as narrative text (Wexler et al. in press). However, fluency norms for older students have not yet been firmly established (Rasinski et al. 2005). Both Moats (2001) and Hasbrouck and Tindal (1992) reported that 100 wcpm is typical of 3rd graders. Johns and Berglund (2002) calculated reading rates of 171 wcpm for 8th graders, and Rasinski and his colleagues (2005) found 136 wcpm to be the average for their 9th grade participants. Clearly, to be considered fluent, older struggling readers should be able to read text at an absolute minimum of 100 wcpm with five or few errors (Torgesen et al. 2001).

5. Foster vocabulary acquisition.

Vocabulary instruction is one of the most undertaught components of reading instruction. To improve vocabulary development, teach the structure of words, including word roots, affixes, derivation, and meaning. Provide examples and non-examples (which are similar in meaning, but differ on critical semantic features) for Tier Two and Tier Three words (Beck, McKeown, and Kucan 2002). Tier Two words include high frequency words that “mature language users” would use. For example, the word fortunate can be considered a Tier Two word. Tier Three words are lower frequency words, but are related to specific content for which students are responsible and are therefore critical for older students to learn. For example, a Tier Three Social Studies word might be sharecropper. Develop semantic maps that relate the words to other words, concentrating on similarities, differences, and shades of meaning. For vocabulary that must be retained to succeed in the content or pass important standardized tests, teach acquisition strategies that use keywords, mnemonics, and elaborative techniques (Mastropieri et al. 2003).

6. Build comprehension.

Comprehension is the ability for students to construct meaning from text (Anderson et al. 1 985). Teach before, during, and after reading strategies so that students move toward being independent learners. To help students infer information from text, and ultimately enhance understanding, activate students’ prior knowledge (Bryant et al. 2001) and make predictions before reading (Dieker and Little 2005).

Teach efficient previewing strategies such as advance reading of titles, graphics, headings, and key words or ideas in a passage (Hansen and Pearson 1983). During reading, model a “think aloud” strategy (Harvey and Goudvis 2000) or teach students to use a mnemonic technique such as the Paraphrasing Strategy RAP (Read a paragraph, Ask yourself Questions, Paraphrase the main idea) to help them acquire self-questioning skills (Schumaker, Denton, and Deshler 1984). Students who can generate questions for themselves and others about what they read are able to monitor understanding and establish relationships between ideas in a text (Kamil 2003). Have students elaborate connections they make between the text, their own experiences, and other texts they have read.

After reading, provide advance organizers or semantic maps to help students organize, understand, and remember the content. Explicitly teach students to use summarization strategies (Gajria and Salvia 1 992), especially because these are typically measured on high-stakes tests. Students can combine several main ideas generated throughout the text into a summary (Jitendra, Hoppes, and Yan Ping Xin 2000). Summarization skills also help students focus on key details, ideas, and concepts in a text.

7. Monitor student progress.

To teach reading effectively, assessment and instruction must be irrevocably linked. The use of assessment results to guide instructional decision-making is a critical feature of successful curriculum-based measurement (Stecker, Fuchs, and Fuchs 2005). However, assessment that is inappropriate or culturally irresponsible can result in a variety of misguided instructional decisions (Kea, Campbell-Whatley, and Bratton 2003).

One method teachers can use to demonstrate individual reading progress and guide instructional decisions is to have students graph word reading and error rates collected during students’ weekly fluency practice. This visual record of improvement has been found to be highly motivating to students (Sample 2005).

Many teachers also use authentic assessment to provide a view into student learning (Prestidge and Glaser 2000). Ways to evaluate student progress include reflective journals, self-assessment, and project-specific rubrics. Authentic assessments help teachers note subtle changes and changes in performance over time, as well as assist them to evaluate the progress of an individual student working in a group format.

8. Differentiate instruction.

In differentiated instruction, the content-or what the student should know or be able to do after instruction-remains constant. The process – including instructional methods and strategies, and studentactivities-may be modified or adapted to fit students’ needs. The product -or method by which the student is required to demonstrate acquisition or mastery-may vary for individual students. To implement differentiated instruction, teachers must have deep background knowledge and a strong mastery of their content to execute the extensive planning and organization required to develop “sequentially complex tasks (that) allow for students at different skills levels to progress while covering required content” (Bucalos and Lingo 2005, 3).

Effective teachers differentiate instruction by adapting materials, products, activities, and instructional delivery as needed using flexible methods, precise assessment, effective planning, and strategic grouping (Tomlinson 2003). As an example, if the curriculum mandates study of the Holocaust, for some students in the class this could mean reading novels of various difficulty levels with related content, such as The Diary of Anne Frank, The Cage, and Playing for Time. For other students, this could mean that they would have access to an audio version of the assigned text (Boyle et al. 2003). A film could be used to anchor key concepts, providing students with dynamic visual images of key events, period clothing, architecture, and music, helping students to conceptualize relationships and emotions that are outside their range of experience (Rieth et al. 2003).

Student products can be adapted in various ways to authentically assess individual student learning and the group process. For example, a requirement might be met through a range of writing options; through the development of character webs and collages; through songs, poems, diaries, skits, or other performances; and through PowerPoint(R) or poster presentations. Cooperative learning activities take advantage of strategic student groupings, afford student choice, and move the focus of learning to students’ strengths (Bucalos and Lingo 2005).

The teacher’s role shifts as needed-from “the sage on the stage,” providing whole group teacher-directed instruction, to “the guide on the side,” providing small group and individual support to scaffold instruction, where the teacher functions as collaborator, co- learner, and authentic assessor of student progress (King 1993). Differentiated instruction retains the critical characteristics of mandated curriculum and focuses on critical thinking and problem- solving rather than on basic skills instruction, thereby enabling all students to show what they know.

9. Group students effectively.

Though teachers tend to use whole class instruction (Bucalos and Lingo 2005), differentiating instruction is easier and more beneficial when teachers break the class into smaller groups, with group size and composition dependent upon lesson objectives (Tomlinson 2003). To foster reading fluency, teachers can form peer pairs in which one student is performing at a slightly higher level than the partner and, therefore, serving as a model of accurate reading. Research shows that both students benefit (Samuels 1997).

In text-based collaborative reading activities, such as literature circles (Dieker and Little 2005), anchored instruction (Rieth et al. 2003), and problem-based learning (Bucalos and Lingo 2005), groups should be balanced by including a variety of student abilities and dispositions so that each student makes a unique contribution to the group process. Assigning student roles, such as “note-taker,”"predictor,”"questioner,”"clarifier,”"responder,” and “summarizer,” keeps students on task and helps them know what to do. Research has not yet identified optimal group size for adolescent learn- ers, but recent studies often have included between four and six students per group (Dieker and Little 2005; Rieth et al. 2003).

10. Embrace more flexible ideas about reading materials.

Getting struggling readers to read is a challenge. Adolescents value choice in their reading materials (Guthrie, Wigfield, and Perencevich 2004), so making preferred reading materials available will increase the amount of time and effort students are willing to spend engaged with text.

Nontraditional and non-narrative texts, such as books based on movies or television shows, topical magazines, and comic books, all provide opportunities to read and learn (Franzak 2006). Students also are highly motivated by opportunities to access and present content using technology (Hasselbring and Goin 2004). When reading isn’t perceived as fun, or it is too difficult, students read less, further widening the gap in learning (Stanovich 1986).

Closing Thoughts

Teachers like Mrs. Padilla are working hard to change the bleak statistics on U.S. adolescent literacy rates, which are among the lowest in the industrialized world (Lemke et al. 2004), by heeding the call of the Reading Next report (Biancarosa and Snow 2004), incorporating evidence-based practices that are already known (Biancarosa and Snow 2004; Franzak 2006; Kamil 2003), and seeking information about breaking research findings. Adolescent literacy research is finally coming into its own. Mrs. Padilla knows that in today’s world, to really promote the curriculum in which she is so vested, she also must be expert and adept at incorporating reading instruction into her beloved English studies. And she is.

“Instruction in word recognition may include teaching the six syllable types in the English language and the rules for syllabication.”

“To determine the appropriateness of material, teachers can use passages from various required texts to check student’s fluency rates.”

“Student products can be adapted in various ways to authentically assess individual student learning and the group process.”

References

Anderson, R. C, E. H. Hiebert, J. A. Scott, and I. A. C. Wilkinson. 1985. Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.

Archer, A. L., M. M. Gleason, and V. L. Vachon. 2003. Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly 26(2): 89-101.

Beck, I. L., M. C. McKeown, and L. Kucan. 2002. Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Bhattacharya, A., and L. C. Ehri. 2004. Craphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words, journal of Learning Disabilities 37(4): 331-48.

Biancarosa, C, and C. E. Snow. 2004. Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Boyle, E. A., M. S. Rosenberg, V. J. Connelly, S. C. Washburn, L. C. Brinckerhoff, and M. Banerjee. 2003. Effects of audio texts on the acquisition of secondary-level content by students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 26(3): 203-14.

Bryant, D. P., S. Linan-Thompson, N. Ugel, A. Hamff, and M. Hougen. 2001. The effects of professional development for middle school general and special education teachers on implementation of reading strategies In inclusive content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly 24(4): 251-64.

Bucalos, A. B., and A. S. Lingo. 2005. Filling In the potholes in the road to inclusion: Successful research-based strategies for intermediate and middle school students with mild disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus 1(4). Available at: http:// escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/mll /issA/artl .

Cochran-Smith, M. 2005. The politics of teacher education and the curse of complexity, journal of Teacher Education 56(3): 181-85.

Dieker, L. A., and M. Little. 2005. Secondary reading: Not just for reading teachers anymore. Intervention in School and Clinic 40(5): 276-83.

Ebbers, S. M. 2004. Vocabulary through morphemes: Suffixes, prefixes, and roots for intermediate grades. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Franzak, J. K. 2006. Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent readers, literacy theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational Research 76(2): 209-48.

Fuchs, L. S., D. Fuchs, M. K. Hosp, and J. R. Jenkins. 2001 . Oral reading fluency as an Indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading 5(3): 239-56.

Gajria, M., and J. Salvia. 1992. The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children 58(6): 508-16.

Guthrie, J. T., A. Wigfield, and K. C. Perencevich, eds. 2004. Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hansen, J., and P. D. Pearson. 1983. An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth- grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology 75(6): 821-29.

Harvey, S., and A. Goudvis. 2000. Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Hasbrouck, J. E., and G. Tindal. 1992. Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students In grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children 24(3): 41-44.

Hasselbring, T. S., and L. I. GoIn. 2004. Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology? Reading and Writing Quarterly 20(2): 123-44.

International Reading Association. 2006. Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches. Newark, DE: IRA.

Jitendra, A. K., M. K. Hoppes, and Yan Ping Xin. 2000. Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education 34(3): 127-39.

Johns, J. L., and R. L. Berglund. 2002. Fluency: Questions, answers, and evidence-based strategies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Kamil, M. L. 2003. Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Kea, C. D., G. D. Campbell-Whatley, and K. Bratton. 2003. Culturally responsive assessment for African American students with learning and behavioral challenges. Assessment for Effective Intervention 29(1): 27-38.

King, A. 1993. From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching 41(1): 30-35.

Kuhn, M. R., and S. A. Stahl. 2003. Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology 95(1): 3-21 .

Lemke, M., A. Sen, E. Pahlke, L. Partelow, D. Miller, T. Williams, D. Kastberg, and L. Jocelyn. 2004. International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003, Results from the U.S. Perspective, NCES 2005-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Mastropieri, M. A., T. E. Scruggs, and J. E. Graetz. 2003. Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly 26(2): 103-16.

Moats, L. C. 2001 . When older students can’t read. Educational Leadership 58(6): 36-40.

No Child Left Behind Act. 2001 . U.S.C. [section] PL 107-110.

Prestidge, L. K., and C. H. W. Glaser. 2000. Authentic assessment: Employing appropriate tools for evaluating students’ work in 21st-century classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic 35(3): 178-82.

Rasinski, T. V. 1999. Exploring a method for estimating independent, instructional, and frustration reading rates. Reading Psychology 20(1): 61-69.

Rasinski, T. V., N. D. Padak, C. A. McKeon, L. G. Wilfong, J. A. Friedauer, and P. Heim. 2005. Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 49(1): 22-27.

Rleth, H. J., D. P. Bryant, C. K. Kinzer, L. K. Colburn, Suhng- June Hur, P. Hartman, and Hye Sung Choi. 2003. An analysis of the impact of anchored instruction on teaching and learning activities in two ninth-grade language arts classes. Remedial and Special Education 24(3): 173-84.

Sample, K. J. 2005. Promoting fluency in adolescents with reading difficulties. Intervention in School and Clinic 40(4): 243-46.

Samuels, S. J. 1997. The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher 50(5): 376-81.

Schirmer, B. R., and A. S. Lockman. 2001 . How do I find a book to read? Middle and high school students use a rubric for self- selecting material for independent reading. Teaching Exceptional Children 34(1): 36-42.

Schumaker, J. B., P. H. Denton, and D. D. Deshler. 1984. The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Stanovich, K. E. 1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21 (4): 360-407.

Stecker, P. M., L. S. Fuchs, and D. Fuchs. 2005. Using curriculum- based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools 42(8): 795-819.

Tomlinson, C. A. 2003. Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership 61(2): 6-11.

Torgensen, J. K., A. W. Alexander, R. K. Wagner, C. A. Rashotte, K. K. S. Voeller, and T. Conway. 2001 . Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches, journal of Learning Disabilities 34(1): 33-58.

Wexler, J., S. Vaughn, M. Edmonds, and C. K. Reutebuch. in press. A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.

Cathy Newman Thomas is a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at The University of Texas at Austin. As a graduate research assistant, she is coordinating a middle school project that uses technology to promote literacy for struggling readers. She is a member of the Delta Chapter of Kappa Delta Pi.

Jade Wexler is also a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at The University of Texas at Austin. Currently, she serves as an intervention coordinator for a middle school reading research project focused on improving basic literacy skills.

Copyright Kappa Delta Pi Fall 2007

(c) 2007 Kappa Delta Pi Record. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.