The Comparative Effects of Immediate  Reading Instruction and Academic Readiness Instruction on the Early Literacy Skills of Students at Risk for Failure

Allison Kretlow (Special Education Doctoral Student)
awgraves@uncc.edu
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

This study sought to respond to conflicting results of previous research by comparing two prevalent approaches to introducing reading instruction in kindergarten on the reading achievement of students identified at risk for reading failure.  A quasi-experimental design with random assignment of in-tact schools was used to examine the differential effects of immediate direct, explicit and systematic beginning reading instruction and immediate academic readiness instruction with delayed direct, explicit, systematic beginning reading instruction on the fall, winter, and spring phoneme segmentation fluency and nonsense word fluency of kindergarten students identified at risk for reading failure. Two separate univariate repeated measures of analysis of variance were used to test the differences between immediate reading instruction and delayed reading instruction on PSF and NWF, aggregated by risk level. Results indicated that although all participants made statistically significant improvements in PSF and NWF over time, participants who began reading instruction earlier in the kindergarten year made more improvements than participants who received immediate academic readiness instruction then began reading instruction in the middle of the year. Results of this study suggest that immediate, explicit beginning reading instruction may be more critical than academic readiness skills in developing early literacy skills for students identified at risk for reading failure.

Perspective/Theoretical Framework
        Substantial research supports early intervention for students at risk for reading failure (Bursuck & Damer, 2004; Foorman, Fletcher, Francis, & Schatschneider, 1998). Specifically, studies have repeatedly demonstrated that providing direct, explicit, and systematic instruction in the evidence-based components of reading instruction to students at risk in early grades (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) effectively prevents many long-term reading difficulties and reduces the likelihood of referral and placement in special education programs (Haager, Klinger, & Vaughn, 2007; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Faneule, 2006). In particular, young students¡œ phonemic awareness and phonics skills best predict reading achievement in later grades (Jenkins & O¡œConner, 2001), which provides an empirical rationale for the explicit teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics in Kindergarten.
     Despite the empirically documented importance of early, explicit reading intervention for students at risk for failure, many kindergarten programs delay intensive reading instruction for all kindergarten students until the middle of the school year in favor of teaching academic readiness skills (e.g., book, print, and literature awareness, listening and following directions). Some empirical research has demonstrated some benefits for a developmentally appropriate, readiness approach to Kindergarten reading curriculums for students at risk for failure (Huffman & Speer, 2000; Rightmyer, McIntyre, & Petrosko, 2006).  Based on these data, some researchers suggest that students¡œ developmental levels and readiness skills should dictate when reading instruction should begin, and that providing explicit, systematic instruction in reading component skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics) could potentially inhibit reading progress (Rightmyer, McIntyre, & Petrosko).
     However, there is a paucity of research to support supplanting immediate systematic, explicit reading instruction with academic readiness instruction for students at risk for reading failure. Specifically, there is a lack of empirical data comparing immediate, systematic, explicit beginning reading instruction and immediate academic readiness instruction with delayed systematic, explicit beginning reading instruction on beginning reading measures with high predictive validity. Many studies which offered support for immediate academic readiness instruction, often used static measures such as grades, test scores, and retention rates, or standardized measures with low predictive validity for later reading achievement (e.g., word attack subtest of Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement). In contrast, many studies which offered support for immediate, systematic and explicit beginning reading instruction used more sensitive measures with high predictive validity for young students at risk for failure (e.g., Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills). In addition, the processes used to identify students at risk were not synonymous across studies, which could partially explain mixed results for the academic readiness studies. That is, in some studies students were identified at risk using district created assessments or teacher selection, whereas in other studies students were identified at risk using standardized, validated beginning reading assessments.

Objectives of the Study
This study sought to respond to conflicting results of previous research by comparing two prevalent approaches to introducing reading instruction in kindergarten on the reading achievement of students identified at risk for reading failure. The specific research questions addressed in this study were: (a) What are the differential effects of immediate direct, explicit and systematic beginning reading instruction and immediate academic readiness instruction with delayed direct, explicit, systematic beginning reading instruction on the fall, winter, and spring phoneme segmentation fluency of kindergarten students identified at risk for reading failure?; (b) What are the differential effects of immediate direct, explicit and systematic beginning reading instruction and immediate academic readiness instruction with delayed direct, explicit, systematic beginning reading instruction on the fall, winter, and nonsense word fluency of kindergarten students identified at risk for reading failure?; (c) What are the differential effects of immediate and delayed beginning reading instruction for students identified as needing strategic and intensive intervention?; (d) What are the effects of immediate and delayed reading instruction on students change in risk level over the Kindergarten year?; and (e) Which approach did teachers feel was more effective in improving students¡œ beginning reading skills?

Methodology and Design
        Sample. Two schools were purposefully selected to participate in this study based on their similarly high numbers of minority students from low socio-economic backgrounds who were identified at risk for academic failure. Both schools were located in a large, urban school district in the Southeast United States. Participants in this study were all 94 kindergarten students in both schools who were identified at risk for reading failure based on an early literacy screening measure (Dynamic Indicator of Early Literacy Skills, DIBELS).
Data sources. Two dependent variables were measured in this study: (a) the number of phonemes correctly produced in 1 min on the Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) subtest of DIBELS and (b) the number of letter sounds correctly produced in 1 min on the Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) subtest of DIBELS.  PSF and NWF data were individually administered to each participant three times during the study, once in the fall prior to the beginning of any reading instruction (August), again in the winter (January) after instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics had begun for School A, and again in the Spring (May) at the end of phonemic awareness and phonics instruction for School A and School B.
     Research design. The research design was quasi-experimental with two in-tact schools randomly assigned to the treatment group (i.e., School A, August start phonemic awareness and phonics instruction) or comparison group (i.e., School B, January start phonemic awareness and phonics instruction). From August to May participants at School A received direct and explicit phonemic awareness and phonics instruction in the Reading Mastery program five days a week for 45 min. Participants at School B received kindergarten readiness instruction and no phonemic awareness of phonics instruction from August to December; in January, participants in School B began receiving phonemic awareness and phonics instruction in the Reading Mastery program.
Results
     Two separate univariate repeated measures of analysis of variance were used to test the differences between August start and January start on PSF and NWF, aggregated by risk level (i.e., strategic or intensive). Results indicated a statistically significant within subject effect for PSF (df=2, 159, F=41.70, p<.001, partial ƒØ2 =.317) and NWF (df=2,130, F=310.79, p<.001, partial ƒØ2=.775). Post hoc analyses for PSF indicated that Winter (M=15.06) and Spring (M=49.22) PSF scores were significantly higher than Fall PSF (M=3.29), and that Spring PSF scores were significantly higher than Winter PSF scores, regardless of risk level or assignment to early start or late start condition. Post hoc analyses for NWF indicated that Winter (M=12.88) and Spring (M=36.82) NWF scores were higher than Fall NWF (M=3.85), and that Spring NWF scores were higher than Winter NWF scores, regardless of risk level or assignment to August or January start condition. A second statistically significant within subjects interaction effect was found for NWF X Risk Level (df=2,130, F=7.74, p=.002, partial ƒØ2 = .075). The interaction demonstrated that although participants identified Strategic and Intensive all made significant gains over time, participants identified Strategic performed substantially better across all three measures, and in particular from Fall to Winter. In addition, there was a statistically significant within subjects interaction effect for immediate start  (df=2,159, F=23.07, p<.001, partial ƒØ2 = .204), which indicated that although participants in the August start and January start conditions performed relatively similarly on the Fall PSF measure, participants in the August start condition performed significantly better on the Winter and Spring PSF measures than participants who began instruction in January, regardless of identified risk level.
     Results also indicated a statistically significant between subjects effect for PSF (d=1,91, F=26.10, p<.001, partial ƒØ2 =.221), and NWF (d=1,91, F=26.10, p<.001, partial ƒØ2 =.221) which demonstrated that, although participants in the August start and January start groups both improved PSF and NWF over time, participants in the August start group had significantly higher scores than participants in the January group.  Finally, there was a statistically significant between subjects interaction for Start X Risk (df=1,90, F=17.22, p<.001, partial ƒØ2 = .161), which indicated that although participants identified Strategic in the August and January start conditions performed relatively similarly on the fall NWF measure, Strategic participants in the August start condition significantly outperformed their counterparts in the January Start condition on the winter and fall measures. The interaction indicated similar results for participants identified Intensive for the spring NWF measure.
Conclusions and Implications
     Results indicated that, although all participants made statistically significant improvements in PSF and NWF over time, participants who began instruction earlier in the kindergarten year made more improvements than participants who began instruction in the middle of the year. With regard to PSF, participants identified Strategic performed better than participants identified Intensive on the first two measures, but by the Spring measure participants in both risk level groups performed similarly. For NWF, participants identified Strategic and Intensive made minimal progress in the Fall and Winter, but made substantial progress from Winter to Spring, with participants identified Strategic having slightly higher scores in the Spring. In addition, teachers reported that immediate reading instruction was more beneficial for their students. Results of this study suggest that immediate, explicit beginning reading instruction may be more critical than academic readiness skills in developing early literacy skills for students identified at risk for reading failure on measures which predict later overall reading success.