The purpose of this study was to determine whether integrating encoding instruction with reading instruction provides stronger gains for students who struggle with reading than instruction that includes little or no encoding. An instructional design model was investigated to best fit the data of 175 first-grade readers at risk for reading disabilities. Using cross-classified hierarchical linear modeling, variance in students’ posttest scores could adequately be explained by students’ initial encoding and decoding abilities, classroom and intervention encoding instruction time, and the number of supplemental integrated encoding and decoding intervention lessons received. Results indicated that integrating encoding and decoding instruction in first-grade classrooms, as well as supplemental intervention programs, may be the missing link to decreasing and possibly preventing future reading failure for students previously at risk for reading disabilities.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MD: MIT Press.
2.
AkaikeH. (1987). Factor analysis and the AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.
3.
BlachmanB. A.SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.ClonanS. M.ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a one-year follow up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461.
4.
ChristensenC.BoweyJ. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime, grapheme-phoneme correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327–349.
5.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression: Correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
ConradN. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 869–878. doi:10.1037/a0012544
7.
DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447–466.
8.
EhriL. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In PerfettiC. A.RiebenL.FayolM. (Eds.), Learning to spell (pp. 237–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
ElkoninD. B. (1973). Methods of teaching reading. In DowningJ. (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 551–579). New York, NY: Macmillan.
10.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL.BarnesM. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
11.
FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 30–37.
12.
FoormanB. R.SchatschneiderC.EakinM. N.FletcherJ. M.MoatsL. C.FrancisD. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades one and two on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29.
13.
GlassG. V.McGawB.SmithM. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
14.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Available from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
15.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.ChorzempaB. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.
16.
HenryM. K. (2009). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
17.
HoxJ. (2002). Multivariate analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
MathesP. G.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
19.
MathesP. G.TorgesenJ. K. (2005). Proactive early interventions in reading: Level 1. Teacher guides, daily lessons materials, and student activity books for first-grade reading intervention. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
MoatsL. C. (2010). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
22.
MorrisD.BloodgoodJ.PerneyJ. (2003). Kindergarten predictors of first- and second-grade reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 104, 93–109.
23.
NimonK.LewisM.KaneR.HaynesR. M. (2008). An R package to compute commonality coefficients in the multiple regression case: An introduction to the package and a practical example. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 456–466.
24.
R Development Core Team. (2007). R-project Internet home page, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.r-project.org/
25.
RobertsT. A.MeiringA. (2006). Teaching phonics in the context of students’ literature or spelling: Influences on first-grade reading, spelling, and writing and fifth grade comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 690–713.
26.
ScanlonD.VellutinoF.SmallS.FanueleD.SweeneyJ. (2005). Severe reading difficulties—Can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13, 209–227.
27.
SchwarzG. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.
28.
ShaywitzS.MorrisR.ShaywitzB. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451–475.
29.
TreimanR. (1998). Why spelling? The benefits of incorporating spelling into beginning reading instruction. In MetsalaJ. L.EhriL. C. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 289–313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
31.
WeiserB. (2010). Examining the synergistic relationship of encoding and decoding instruction and its effect on first graders struggling with reading (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (Publication No. AAT 3419603, ISBN No. 9781124196596, ProQuest Document ID No. 2149850421.)
32.
WeiserB.MathesP. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling performances of elementary students at-risk for literacy difficulties: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81, 170–200. doi:10.3102/0034654310396719
