Marleen F.

Westerveld
Rebecca M. Armstrong
Georgina M. Barton

Reading
Success in
the Primary
Years
An Evidence-Based Interdisciplinary
Approach to Guide Assessment and
Intervention
Reading Success in the Primary Years
Marleen F. Westerveld Rebecca M. Armstrong
• •

Georgina M. Barton

Reading Success
in the Primary Years
An Evidence-Based Interdisciplinary
Approach to Guide Assessment
and Intervention
Marleen F. Westerveld Rebecca M. Armstrong
Griffith University University of Queensland
Southport, QLD, Australia St Lucia, QLD, Australia

Georgina M. Barton
University of Southern Queensland
Springfield Central, QLD, Australia

ISBN 978-981-15-3491-1 ISBN 978-981-15-3492-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to
the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if
changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s
Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publi-
cation does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface

The overall aim of the Reading Success project described in this book is the systematic
and accurate identification of students’ reading profiles within a primary school
setting in Australia to better support the reading outcomes of those students who
struggle in reading. We embraced an education–speech pathology collaborative
practice model (see Archibald, 2017), in line with speech pathology Australia’s
clinical guideline for speech pathologists working in literacy (Serry et al., 2016). In
this study, we adopted a range of evidence-based frameworks and approaches,
including the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), and a
response-to-intervention approach (Jimerson, Burns, & van der Heyden, 2015). The
study involved a strong partnership between all stakeholders including academic
researchers in speech pathology and education and research end-users at the school.
In an attempt to bridge the research-to-practice gap, we present a five-step
assessment to intervention process involved in implementing an interdisciplinary
and evidence-based approach to the identification of and support for students at risk
for or experiencing difficulties in reading in a school setting. We share participants’
perspectives, gathered throughout the study, including the views from leaders,
teachers, students, and support staff, such as speech pathologists within the school
context. As our aim in this project was not to describe or evaluate current literacy
practices, we did not systematically gather information on classroom literacy
practices. However, we provide an easily accessible overview of a range of
evidence-based and theoretically driven initiatives aimed at enhancing the reading
success of primary (or elementary)-aged students in schools. Upon implementing
our five-step assessment to intervention framework, schools will be able to
(i) identify which students are in need of extra support to facilitate reading success;
(ii) create individual speech-to-print profiles for students who show difficulties in
reading comprehension; and (iii) initiate targeted support for students with reading
difficulties that is firmly based on the assessment results (Munro, 2017).
Throughout the book, there is a clear focus on how the team worked collabo-
ratively across different year levels, which included the decision-making processes
used, such as rich dialogue with the leadership team and teachers. As such, it offers

v
vi Preface

valuable insights for educators, speech pathologists, researchers, and pre-service

teacher education students interested in promoting reading success within a school
setting. We discuss these implications and future directions in more detail in the
final chapter of this book.

Southport, Australia Marleen F. Westerveld

St Lucia, Australia Rebecca M. Armstrong
Springfield Central, Australia Georgina M. Barton

References

Archibald, L. M. (2017). SLP-educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform reason-based

practice. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2396941516680369.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of response to
intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). New York:
Springer.
Munro, J. (2017). Who benefits from which reading intervention in the primary years? Match the
intervention with the reading profile. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 22(2),
133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2017.1379027.
Serry, T., Jones, E., Walmsley, K., Westerveld, M. F., Neilson, R., Leitao, S., & Rowe, T. (2016).
Clinical guidelines for speech pathologists working in literacy. Melbourne, Victoria: Speech
Pathology Australia.
Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge everyone involved in the Reading Success project.

First and foremost, we would like to thank the teachers and leadership team at the
school for their willingness to share their time, expertise, and passion for the
teaching of reading. Without their firm, enduring support and enthusiasm, this
project would not have been possible. We would also like to thank the families and
children involved in the project, for allowing us to conduct the assessments and
follow the children’s progress in reading over a couple of years. The project would
not have been possible without the amazing speech pathologists Bronte Brook, Kate
O’Leary, Caitlin O’Rourke, and Susan Collecutt; your commitment to the project
has been outstanding.
We would also like to acknowledge our co-authors for sharing their expertise
and perspectives. We have learnt so much from this interdisciplinary collaboration
and hope this is reflected in the text. While we acknowledge there are different
opinions and philosophies towards the teaching of reading, at the core of this study
was a shared vision to support students in becoming successful readers. Finally, a
big thank you to some wonderful colleagues for proofreading the book and pro-
viding us with constructive feedback. You know who you are!
This project was supported, in kind, by the Department of Education; the views
expressed in this publication are not necessarily the views of the department.

vii
Contents

1 Reading Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 1

Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong,
and Georgina M. Barton
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Theoretical Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1 The Construction-Integration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2 The Simple View of Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Emergent Literacy Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Classifying Struggling Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Reading Comprehension is a Complex Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5.1 Motivation and Self-perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5.2 Reading for Pleasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 Teaching Reading During the Early Years of Schooling . . . . . . . 9
1.6.1 Systematic and Explicit Teaching of the Key
Ingredients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 9
1.6.2 The Importance of Early Reading Success . . . . . ....... 9
1.7 Multi-tiered Systems of Support and Response
to Intervention (RtI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.8 Speech-to-Print Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.9 Evidence-Based Practice from Multiple Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Part I The Reading Success Project

2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong,
and Georgina M. Barton
2.1 A Brief Overview of the School Involved
in the Reading Success Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ix
x Contents

2.2 Stakeholder Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.3 Student Reading Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4 Types of Assessments and Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.1 Assessment Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.2 Interpretation of Norm-Referenced Test Results . . . . . . . . 25
2.5 Choosing a Reading Comprehension Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6 The Reading Assessment Process Used in the Reading
Success Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
2.6.1 Step 1: Assessment of Reading Skills Using a Validated
Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
2.6.2 Step 2: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored
Below Expectations on Reading Comprehension . . . . .. 31
2.6.3 Step 3: Further Assessment of Word Recognition
Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.6.4 Step 4: Creating Speech-to-Print Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.6.5 Step 5: Provision of Targeted Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.7 Progress Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.7.1 School-initiated Assessments for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.7.2 Reading Success Project Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.8 Comparisons Between Project-Initiated Standardised Reading
Assessments and School Reading Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
2.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
Appendix 1: Pre- and Post-interview Prompt Questions . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
Appendix 2: Sample of Assessment Tools to Complete
the Speech-to-Print Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47

Part II The Reading Success Project (Results)

3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups . . . . . . . . . . . .... 53
Rebecca M. Armstrong, Marleen F. Westerveld,
and Georgina M. Barton
3.1 Learning to Read Cohort Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 53
3.1.1 Step-by-Step Assessment Results—Year One . . . . . .... 53
3.1.2 Considerations When Changing Assessment
Cut-off to SS80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 60
3.1.3 Summary—Year One Experimental Test Results . . . .... 61
3.2 School-Based Versus Experimental Test Results—Learning
to Read Cohort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 61
3.2.1 Year 1: YARC RC Versus PM Benchmark . . . . . . . .... 61
3.2.2 Year 1: YARC RA Versus PM Benchmark . . . . . . . .... 62
3.2.3 Summary Year 1 YARC Versus PM Benchmark
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 63
3.3 Follow-up Results One Year Later—Year Two . . . . . . . . . .... 64
Contents xi

3.4 Overall Summary—Learning to Read Cohort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.5 Reading to Learn Cohort Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.5.1 Step-by-Step Assessment Results—Year Four . . . . . . . . . 66
3.5.2 Summary—Year 4 Experimental Test Results . . . . . . . . . 68
3.6 School-Based Versus Experimental Test Results—Reading to
Learn Cohort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.6.1 Year 4: YARC Versus PAT-R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.7 Overall Summary—Reading to Learn Cohort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.8 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4 Reading Self-Concept and Student Perceptions . . . . . ............ 77
Georgina M. Barton, Rebecca M. Armstrong,
and Marleen F. Westerveld
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.2 Reading Self-Concept Scale: Group Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3 Student Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.3.1 Results from the Focus Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.3.2 Interview Data Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.4 Discussion and Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction . . . . . . . . 89
Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong, Georgina M. Barton,
and Jennifer Peach
5.1 Robust Vocabulary Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.1.1 Robust Vocabulary Instruction Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.1.2 Intervention Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.1.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.2 Orthographic Knowledge and Phonological Processing
Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.2.1 Intervention Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.2.2 Intervention Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.2.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.3 Expository Text Structure Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.3.1 Intervention Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.3.2 Intervention Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.3.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.4 Supplementary Whole-Class Oral Language and Emergent
Literacy Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.4.1 Intervention Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.4.2 Intervention Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.4.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
xii Contents

5.5 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Appendix Example of Lesson Plan Outlining the Nine Steps to
Introducing a New Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong,
and Georgina M. Barton
6.1 Case Study 1: James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.1.1 Assessment Overview: Steps 1 to 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.1.2 Case Discussion and Suggestions for Intervention
(Step 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.1.3 Case Study 2: Hannah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.1.4 Assessment Overview: Steps 1 to 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.1.5 Case Discussion and Suggestions for Intervention
(Step 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.2 Case Study 3: Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.2.1 Assessment Overview: Steps 1 to 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.2.2 Case Discussion and Suggestions for Intervention
(Step 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.3 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Part III Findings from Teacher Interviews and Recommendations

7 Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Georgina M. Barton, Marleen F. Westerveld,
and Rebecca M. Armstrong
7.1 Phase 1 Staff Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.1.1 The Importance of a Positive Learning Environment . . . . 130
7.1.2 A Consistent Language for Literacy Learning . . . . . . . . . 131
7.1.3 Varied Activities as well as a Targeted Approach . . . . . . 133
7.1.4 Cultural Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.2 Phase 2 Staff Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.2.1 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.2.2 The Importance of Demonstration and Professional
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.2.3 Variety of Strategies for Teaching Reading . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.2.4 Having High Expectations and Celebrating
Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.3 Feedback from the School Leadership Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.4 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Contents xiii

8 Implications and Transferability to Other School Contexts . . . . . . . 141

Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong, Georgina M. Barton,
and Jennifer Peach
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.2 Take-Home Messages From the Reading Success Project . . . . . . 142
8.2.1 Time and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
8.2.2 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8.2.3 Professional Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8.3 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8.4 Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Authors and Contributor

About the Authors

Marleen F. Westerveld, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor in speech pathology in

the School of Allied Health Sciences at Griffith University and a Member of the
Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Australia. She has a solid track record in
applied research in the areas of (emergent) literacy and oral language development
in typically developing children, children with developmental language disorders,
and children with language disorders associated with biomedical conditions, such as
Down syndrome and autism spectrum disorder. She is the principal investigator on
numerous funded research projects aimed (directly or indirectly) at improving the
spoken and/or written communication skills of children, adolescents, and young
adults. Her work has resulted in more than 60 published research papers in
high-quality peer-reviewed national and international journals on topics of language
and literacy. She is currently Editor for Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools and Chair of the Child Language Committee of the International
Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics.
e-mail: m.westerveld@griffith.edu.au

Rebecca M. Armstrong, Ph.D. is a Lecturer in speech pathology at the University

of Queensland in Australia. She has worked clinically as Speech Pathologist in the
Department of Education (Queensland) prior to commencing her academic
appointment at the University of Queensland. In the higher education sector, she
teaches across the undergraduate and master’s speech pathology programmes in a
range of paediatric areas. She researches in the areas of language and literacy for
school-aged populations, including children with autism spectrum disorders. She
also has a research track record in population-based research examining the early
life predictors and long-term outcomes of language impairment.
e-mail: [email protected]

xv
xvi Authors and Contributor

Georgina M. Barton, Ph.D. is a Professor in the School of Education at the

University of Southern Queensland in Australia where she is Associate Head of
School (research) and Discipline Lead for literacy and pedagogy. She has taught in
a number of schools and has experience as Acting Principal and working as a
volunteer in South India teaching English. In the higher education context, she has
taught English and literacy, and arts education. She researches in the areas of the
arts and literacy with diverse communities and has attracted over $1.4 million in
research funding as both Project Leader and Member of teams. With over 120
publications, she has utilised a range of methodologies including arts-based
research, case study design, ethnography, and narrative inquiry. Her latest book is
Developing Literacy and the Arts in Schools with Routledge Publishers.
e-mail: [email protected]

Contributor

Jennifer Peach is a certified practising Speech Pathologist with extensive experi-

ence in the application of speech pathology in an educational context. In her current
role as Senior Advisor in speech-language therapy at the Queensland Department of
Education’s Reading Centre, she provides professional leadership and learning
opportunities to build system and educator capability to identify students experi-
encing difficulties learning to read, and to provide the necessary adjustments and
supports for students with reading disorders to access age-appropriate curriculum.
e-mail: [email protected]
Chapter 1
Reading Success

Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong, and Georgina M. Barton

Abstract This chapter explains what skills are needed for reading success. It high-
lights the Simple View of Reading and its core components, word recognition and
language comprehension, and how it may be used as a guiding framework across
different year levels to describe students’ reading abilities and/or difficulties, plan
subsequent intervention, and monitor progress. We describe the underlying spoken
and written language skills needed for successful reading comprehension including
both cognitive and sociocultural approaches to making meaning. We share how cre-
ating speech-to-print profiles for those students who need further support in reading
comprehension may inform instructional practice, using a multi-tiered system of sup-
port approach. The importance of an evidence-based, collaborative, interdisciplinary
approach to identying and supporting students experiencing difficulties in reading is
highlighted. Finally, an explanation of the importance of providing research-based
reading supports at increasingly intense levels matched to the student’s needs is
provided.

Keywords Simple view of reading · Reading comprehension · Speech-to-print

profile

1.1 Introduction

In response to the comparatively low levels of reading performance of Australian pri-

mary school students compared to international benchmarks (Mullis, Martin, Foy,
& Drucker, 2012), the teaching of reading in Australian classrooms has received
considerable attention by a diverse group of stakeholders, including policy-makers
(Australian Government, 2005, 2015) and education professionals (Stark, Snow,
Eadie, & Goldfeld, 2016). As outlined in an influential Australian Government
report, the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) (Australian
Government, 2015), there is a critical need to lift student outcomes. This scene is
similar in many other countries and reflects other reports such as the No Child Left
Behind Act (2002) and the National Reading Panel (2000) in the USA. As such, this
book shares findings from a research project, aimed to improve reading outcomes,
implemented in one school in Queensland, Australia.

© The Author(s) 2020 1

M. F. Westerveld et al., Reading Success in the Primary Years,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8_1
2 1 Reading Success

Reading is a complex human behaviour. The ultimate goal of all reading is reading
comprehension, the ability to gain meaning from text. The importance of success-
ful reading comprehension for academic success, socio-emotional well-being, and
employment outcomes is undisputable (McGeown, Duncan, Griffiths, & Stothard,
2015), and it is therefore no surprise that a wealth of research exists investigating not
only how students acquire and develop their reading skills, but also what success-
ful intervention looks like when students struggle in their reading development (e.g.
Amendum, Bratsch-Hines, & Vernon-Feagans, 2018; Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, &
Hulme, 2010; Snowling & Hulme, 2011). Unfortunately, a research-to-practice gap
still exists, with many professionals involved in the teaching of reading unsure how
to bridge that gap. We agree with Tunmer and Hoover (2019) that a clearly defined
theoretical framework that underpins assessment and intervention will assist reading
professionals in developing the competencies needed to better understand why some
children struggle with reading and how to provide targeted support and intervention.
This chapter therefore starts by introducing some theoretical frameworks to better
understand what is involved in successful reading comprehension.

1.2 Theoretical Frameworks

1.2.1 The Construction-Integration Model

According to the construction-integration model put forward by Kintsch (1988),

successful text comprehension (albeit spoken or written) relies on the interaction
between bottom-up and top-down processes at three levels: the surface level, the
propositional level, and the situation level. The reader must first read and attach a
linguistic representation to the word/s on a page (literal or surface representations).
By connecting these words or propositions and through making inferences, the reader
then forms an overall representation of the meaning of what was read (the propo-
sitional level or the text base). Finally, a situation (or mental) model is formed by
activating background knowledge and schemas related to the text in long-term mem-
ory. A study by Oakhill and Cain (2012) demonstrated that the ability to construct
a “coherent and integrated representation of the meaning of a text” (p. 116) pre-
dicts reading comprehension. More specifically, when investigating the predictors of
reading comprehension in 83 children attending Year 6 (ages 10–11), based on their
performance in Year 3 (ages 7–8) and Year 4 (ages 8–9), Oakhill and Cain found
that Year 4 inferencing, Year 4 comprehension monitoring, and Year 3 knowledge
and use of text structure were distinct predictors of reading comprehension in Year
6. This occurred even after controlling for reading comprehension ability at Year 3
and accounting for vocabulary knowledge and verbal IQ. We will discuss some of
these concepts in more detail.
Inferencing. Inferencing or the ability to go beyond what is explicitly stated by
making links between words or sentences plays an important role in the reading com-
prehension process, both concurrently and longitudinally. Oakhill and Cain (2012)
1.2 Theoretical Frameworks 3

investigated the predictors of reading comprehension in 102 children between ages

7 and 8 (Year 3 of schooling) and 10–11 (Year 6) and found inferencing to be one of
three distinct predictors of reading comprehension in Year 6, once reading compre-
hension ability at Year 3, vocabulary knowledge, and IQ were accounted for. Infer-
ential comprehension generally develops from an early age and includes drawing
links to fill gaps in the information provided, drawing meaning from prior knowl-
edge, linking relations between information, and forming predictions. For example,
consider the sentence ‘Rosie went outside and took an umbrella’. To understand this
sentence, the reader must draw on prior knowledge to understand that we generally
use umbrellas to shield us from the rain.
Comprehension monitoring. Another distinct predictor of reading comprehension
in Year 6 is comprehension monitoring, which refers to the child’s ability to reflect on
what has just been read and to look for inconsistencies in a text. Students with poor
comprehension often focus more on word accuracy than comprehension monitoring
and generally have weaker metacognition skills (Nation & Norbury, 2005). Although
it is difficult to disentangle the causal relationship between inferencing ability and
comprehension monitoring, it has been well established that children who demon-
strate reading comprehension difficulties often perform poorly on tasks measuring
comprehension monitoring (Oakhill, Hartt, & Samols, 2005).
Text structure knowledge. Text structure knowledge refers to the readers’ knowl-
edge of the typical structure of a text. One well-known example of a text structure
associated with narratives is story grammar (Stein & Glenn, 1979). Most narratives
(or stories) are goal-oriented and contain the following elements of setting, charac-
ters, problem, plan, actions, resolution, and conclusion. This text structure knowledge
may assist comprehension by allowing the reader to link the ideas presented in the
story and by creating expectations of what may happen next. It is thus not surpris-
ing that knowledge of text structure assists in reading comprehension. Research has
clearly demonstrated that students with poor reading comprehension often struggle
in their ability to tell well-structured narratives (e.g. Westerveld, Gillon, & Moran,
2008) and that poor story structure knowledge may in fact cause some of these
readers’ comprehension difficulties (Cain & Oakhill, 1996).

1.2.2 The Simple View of Reading

A theoretical framework that has received much attention in the last 30 years is the
Simple View of Reading (SVR) (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Unlike the construction-
integration model (Kintsch, 1988), it does not attempt to explain the cognitive under-
pinnings of the reading process, but it outlines which core components are involved
in reading comprehension. The SVR holds that reading comprehension is the prod-
uct of word recognition and language comprehension. The significant aspect of the
SVR is that reading is conceptualised as a product of both components rather than
an accrual. If one component is poor or non-existent, reading comprehension com-
petency will not be fully achieved. Word recognition (WR) can be defined as the
ability to accurately and efficiently decode the written words on a page, whereas
4 1 Reading Success

language comprehension (LC) involves the understanding of spoken language at

word (vocabulary), sentence (syntax), and text (e.g. narrative) levels (Catts, Adlof,
& Ellis Weismer, 2006). More recently, an update to the SVR has been published
by Tunmer and Hoover (2019), referred to as the Cognitive Foundations Frame-
work. This framework more clearly explains the cognitive ‘capacities’ needed for
language comprehension, namely (a) linguistic knowledge, including phonological
knowledge, semantic knowledge, and syntactic knowledge needed for literal inter-
pretation of language, and (b) background knowledge and inferencing skills, which
are often influenced by sociocultural aspects of children’s lives. A combination of all
these knowledge constructs and skills will assist the reader or listener to understand
and use language effectively.
The SVR has received considerable attention in the research literature, and while
there is some controversy surrounding this perspective, results have shown that the
two components (WR and LC) account for almost all of the variance in reading com-
prehension in students learning English as a first language/writing system (Catts,
Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; Lonigan, Burgess, & Schatschneider, 2018), as well as those
students who are learning English as a second language (e.g. Verhoeven & van
Leeuwe, 2012). It should be noted, however, that the relative and unique contribu-
tions of WR and LC to RC change over time. During the early stages of learning to
read, typically during the first three years of schooling, WR shows the biggest contri-
bution to RC. This is not surprising as almost all children come to reading instruction
with better oral language skills than decoding skills and as such early reading mate-
rials will often not challenge a student’s language comprehension. Once students
have learned to master fluent and accurate word reading, usually around their fourth
year of schooling, and make the transition from learning to read to reading to learn,
LC demonstrates the biggest contribution to RC (Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005). At
this stage of the reading process, reading materials have become more linguistically
challenging, with more abstract words, more complex grammar, and more advanced
text structures. Although there is clear evidence of the unique contributions of WR
and LC to RC, up to 69% of the variance accounted for in RC points to shared con-
tribution of word recognition and language comprehension. For example, a student’s
ability to efficiently recognise a real word (as opposed to a nonsense word) may
be facilitated by this same student’s vocabulary knowledge (which is an aspect of
language comprehension). These results indicate that for students who fail to show
adequate progress in reading comprehension, intervention may need to target both
LC and WR.

1.3 Emergent Literacy Skills

Children’s literacy learning starts at birth, long before children commence their for-
mal reading education at school. During this period, also referred to as the emergent
literacy stage (Justice, 2006), children are typically engaged in a range of literacy-
related activities, such as : (a) shared book reading with their parents or early child-
1.3 Emergent Literacy Skills 5

hood educators; (b) exposure to environmental print (e.g. M for McDonalds); (c)
access to writing utensils to ‘write’ their name; and (d) other literate practices appro-
priate for their sociocultural surroundings such as oral storytelling. The development
of emergent literacy skills may be influenced by environmental factors such as family
trauma, displacement, and/or economic hardship or affluence. Regardless, research
demonstrates that the following five emergent literacy skills are strongly predictive
of future reading success (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008), even after control-
ling for socio-economic status and cognition (IQ): alphabet knowledge, phonologi-
cal awareness, rapid automatic naming of (a) digits and (b) objects, emergent name
writing, and phonological memory. Five additional skills were identified that showed
strong correlations but needed some further research, including print concepts and
oral language (vocabulary and grammar). Table 1.1 provides an overview of this
terminology. Using the SVR as a framework, these emergent literacy skills may be
conceptualised as the code-related skills that are needed for future word recogni-
tion and the meaning-related skills required for successful language comprehension
(NICHD, 2005).

1.4 Classifying Struggling Readers

Using the SVR as a theoretical framework, students who are unable to develop ade-
quate reading comprehension skills can be categorised into three main groups: (1)
students with dyslexia are those who show significant word reading difficulties, in the
absence of language comprehension problems; (2) students with specific comprehen-
sion difficulties are those who show adequate word recognition skills, but significant
language comprehension difficulties; (3) students with a mixed reading difficulties
profile (in the past referred to as garden variety poor readers) are those who show
weaknesses across word recognition and language comprehension (Spear-Swerling,
2016). These three reader groups are discussed in a little more detail below:
Dyslexia or Specific Word Reading Difficulties These reading difficulties stem
from phonological processing weaknesses (including phonological awareness, rapid
automatic naming [RAN], and/or phonological memory). Students who show this
reading profile have adequate vocabulary and language comprehension skills. These
students will demonstrate reading comprehension difficulties due to their weaknesses
in accurate and/or fluent word recognition skills. It is estimated that approximately
5–10% of students will show dyslexia (Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; Shaywitz,
Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990).
Specific Comprehension Difficulties These students will demonstrate reading
comprehension difficulties, despite adequate word recognition skills (accuracy and
fluency). These students will often demonstrate language comprehension weaknesses
across vocabulary, grammar, and oral narrative/higher-order language skills (Catts
et al., 2006; Woolley, 2011). In addition, these students may lack a strategic approach
to comprehension of text (Spear-Swerling, 2015). Research has shown that up to 17%
of students may show this type of reading difficulty.
6 1 Reading Success

Table 1.1 Overview of (emergent) literacy skills with definitions (NELP, 2008) and examples of
assessment tasks
Code-related emergent The skills that are strongly Examples of assessment tasks
literacy skills predictive of word recognition.

Phonological awareness The child’s ability to consciously Syllables: How many

identify sounds in spoken syllables/claps in elephant?
language, including syllables, Answer: 3: e/le/phant.
onset-rime, and individual Onset-rime: what is the first
sounds (phonemes). sound in bed? Answer: /b/
Note: phonemic awareness refers Phonemes: how many sounds
to this awareness at the phoneme in bed? Answer: 3: /b/ /e/ /d/
(sound) level only.
Alphabet knowledge The child’s ability to name Single letters: all 26 letters of
(phonics) and/or provide the sounds of the alphabet.
printed letters, including Single Digraphs: /sh/ /th/ /kn/ etc
letters, Digraphs, Diphthongs Diphthongs: /oi/ /oo/ /ow/ etc
Trigraphs Trigraphs: /igh/ /tch/ etc
Emergent (name) writing The child’s ability to write letters Provide the child with a blank
when requested and/or to write piece of paper and a
his/her own name pen/pencil: Can you write your
name?
Rapid automatic naming The child’s ability to rapidly The child is provided with a
(RAN) of letters/digits name a sequence of letters/digits sheet of paper containing
Rapid automatic naming The child’s ability to rapidly familiar pictures, digits, or
(RAN) of objects or colours name sets of pictures or colours coloured shapes and asked to
name as many as they can in
60 seconds.
Phonological memory The child’s ability to remember For example, ask the child to
verbal information for a short repeat non-words: flibvat, or
period of time striken
Print concepts The child’s knowledge of print For example, reading from left
conventions to right and understanding that
written text carries meaning.
Meaning-related emergent The skills that are strongly
literacy skills predictive of language
comprehension
Vocabulary The child’s knowledge of spoken The child is asked to point to a
words picture (choice of four) in
response to a spoken word.
Grammar The child’s knowledge of the The child is asked to point to a
rules of the English language. picture (choice of four) in
response to a short sentence
e.g. The star is in the ball.
Narrative skills The child’s ability to The child is asked several
comprehend and re/tell a questions after listening to a
coherent well-sequenced story. novel story. The child is then
asked to re/tell the story.
1.4 Classifying Struggling Readers 7

Mixed Reading Difficulties These students show a combination of word recog-

nition and language comprehension weaknesses (as per the preceding two profiles).
It is estimated that approximately 30% of all students who struggle in their reading
comprehension skill will have this type of reading profile.
Unfortunately, as with any theoretical model, in practice, when applying the SVR
framework approximately 7.5% of children may present with ‘unexplained’ or ‘non-
specified’ reading comprehension problems as their performance on the RC assess-
ment can not be explained by challenges in their language comprehension or reading
accuracy (Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003). Although further research will be needed to
better understand why this subgroup of children have difficulties in reading compre-
hension, as we describe a little later in this chapter, it could be that other sociocultural
factors influence their participation and therefore achievement level, for example,
childhood trauma (Thompson & Whimper, 2010). Other likely explanations include
the child’s world knowledge, the child’s motivation or understanding about the pur-
pose of reading, as well as important executive functioning skills including sustained
attention and working memory. For example, according to a limited capacity work-
ing memory model (Crystal, 1987), students who use up most of their cognitive
resources for decoding (e.g. those who have not yet developed automaticity in word
recognition and may resort to sounding out individual words) may have few cognitive
resources available for reading comprehension. Regardless, distinguishing between
these reading groups is important, as “differentiating classroom instruction according
to different patterns […] may improve reading outcomes” (Spear-Swerling, 2016,
p. 514).

1.5 Reading Comprehension is a Complex Process

The main focus of this book is on the cognitive skills underpinning reading develop-
ment, but we recognise that other factors play an important role in the student’s read-
ing development, such as sociocultural environment (Marjanovič-Umek, Fekonja-
Peklaj, Sočan, & Tašner, 2015). Although the SVR has been well-validated, reading
comprehension itself is a complex multidimensional process (Catts, 2018). Further,
Snow (2002) states that:
reading comprehension is the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning
through interaction and involvement with written language. We use the words extracting
and constructing to emphasize both the importance and the insufficiency of the text as a
determinant of reading comprehension. Comprehension entails three elements:• The reader
who is doing the comprehending • The text that is to be comprehended • The activity in
which comprehension is a part. (p. 11)

When investigating reading comprehension, we thus need to consider what the reader
brings to the process, including the reader’s reading experience, world knowledge,
motivation, and self-perception, as well as their overall cognitive and linguistic (oral
language) skills. We acknowledge the need to take a holistic approach and include
consideration of the purpose of reading and the type of texts students engage with.
8 1 Reading Success

Consequently, we aim to present a broad view of the ‘teaching of reading’ by focusing

on the identification of and support for students who may be experiencing difficulties
learning to read. At the same time we acknowledge this book presents an approach
adopted for the purpose of our study that may be transferable to other contexts (see
Chap. 8).

1.5.1 Motivation and Self-perception

Although not the main focus in this book, the importance of reading motivation and
self-concept cannot be underestimated. Motivation for reading develops early in life
when children start building their emergent literacy skills. As outlined by Katzir,
Lesaux, and Kim (2009), research has shown that parents’ identification of pleasure
as a reason for reading predicted motivation for reading in their young school-aged
children. Moreover, early success or difficulties in learning to read is linked to reading
self-concept and motivation. In other words, if children perceive to perform well, i.e.
experience success in reading, they will be motivated to challenge themselves and
attempt more difficult tasks. On the other hand, if children have challenges in learning
to read, their reading self-concept may weaken and these children may lose motiva-
tion in reading-related tasks. Chapman and Tunmer (1995) conceptualised reading
concept as comprising three components: perceptions of competence, perceptions of
difficulty or ease of reading tasks, and attitudes towards reading, and developed the
Reading Self-Concept Scale (RSCS). Researchers applying this scale found reading
self-concept positively relate to reading comprehension in primary school-aged stu-
dents (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995; see also Chapman & Tunmer, 2003), even after
controlling for the children’s verbal ability (based on a verbal IQ test) and their word
reading ability (Katzir et al., 2009). In the Reading Success project, we measured
students’ reading self-concept using the RSCS and report the results in Chap. 4.

1.5.2 Reading for Pleasure

It would be remiss not to mention reading for pleasure (Cremin, Mottram, Collins,
Powell, & Safford, 2014). Students need to be given the time to make choices about
what they read and particularly in areas of personal interest. It is important not only
that children are aware of the benefit of learning to read in relation to academic success
but that reading can be a ‘delightful’ and ‘desirable’ endeavour (Cremin, 2007). Much
research points to the importance of developing positive classroom environments with
effective communities of readers (Cremin et al., 2014) that encourage imaginative
thought and playfulness. Further, the social aspect of reading, when supported, results
in stronger engagement and consequently high achievement across all aspects of
schooling (Ivey, 2014).
1.6 Teaching Reading During the Early Years of Schooling 9

1.6 Teaching Reading During the Early Years of Schooling

1.6.1 Systematic and Explicit Teaching of the Key Ingredients

There is clear evidence that the best way to teach children how to effectively learn
to read is by explicitly teaching the following five key ingredients: (1) phonics; (2)
phonemic awareness; (3) fluency (the ability to recognise words automatically); (4)
vocabulary; and (5) comprehension (i.e. understanding what is read) (National Early
Literacy Panel, 2008). It is also important to note that oral language plays an impor-
tant role in learning to read and creative and innovative approaches to learning such
as play-based learning strongly support oral language development. During the first
years of schooling, the emphasis will be on students learning to read, which should at
the very least involve systematic phonics instruction (Hempenstall, 2016). Phonics-
based approaches teach children how to match phonemes (sounds) to graphemes
(letters). In a synthetic phonics approach, children are systematically introduced to
letter sounds (alphabet knowledge), before being taught how to blend these sounds
together into syllables and words. It thus utilises a part-to-whole approach: sound-
ing out each letter (e.g. /m/ /o/ /p/) and blending (synthesising) these phonemes
into a word (mop). Although it goes beyond the scope of this book to provide a
detailed overview of this approach, readers are referred to freely accessible publi-
cations, such as Hempenstall (2016): Read about it: Scientific evidence for effective
teaching of reading (see also Parker, 2018) or the Massey University Early Liter-
acy Research Project (https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/
early-literacy-research-project). It is estimated that, when using an evidence-based
approach to early literacy instruction, 90–95% of students will develop accurate
and fluent word recognition, with approximately 5–10% of children demonstrating a
profile of dyslexia (i.e. specific word reading difficulties), depending on the specific
diagnostic criteria that are used (see Al Otaiba, Gillespie Rouse, & Baker, 2018, for
a discussion).

1.6.2 The Importance of Early Reading Success

Early success in learning to read is paramount. Apart from the fact that challenges
in reading may affect a student’s reading self-concept and motivation (e.g. Chapman
& Tunmer, 1995), reading ability in first grade is linked to reading ability 10 years
later, even after accounting for cognitive ability (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997).
Moreover, failure to develop automatic and fluent word recognition during the early
years of schooling will result in less exposure to more complex written texts con-
taining more literate vocabulary (e.g. abstract terms and mental state verbs), more
complex grammatical structures, and conforming to more advanced text schemas
such as exposition or persuasion. This reduced exposure may in turn hamper the
development of more advanced spoken language skills (see case study James in
10 1 Reading Success

Chap. 6). This phenomenon where the ‘rich get richer and the poor get poorer’ has
been coined the Matthew effects in reading (Stanovich, 2009), and highlights the
importance of evidence-based reading tuition coupled with early identification and
timely remediation of reading difficulties.

1.7 Multi-tiered Systems of Support and Response

to Intervention (RtI)

The Response-to-Intervention (RtI) model is a three-tiered framework (Fuchs &

Fuchs, 2006) that can be used to guide a school’s approach to reading interven-
tion. This model was first introduced in the early 2000s and replaced the more
commonly used IQ-achievement discrepancy model in which only students who
demonstrated a significant gap between IQ and reading achievement would receive
specialist intervention. It basically comprises three tiers.
In Tier 1, all students receive daily high-quality evidence-based reading instruc-
tion with effective inclusion of all children through scaffolding and adjustments to
support individual student needs. As explained by Denton (2012), instruction should
be differentiated to ensure the needs of all students in the class are met, as some
students may enter school with very low literate cultural capital (i.e. reading-related
skills linked to the home literacy environment), whereas others may show high-level
reading-related skills (Tunmer, Chapman, & Prochnow, 2006). Moreover, the rate
of progression of the curriculum for early reading instruction may simply be too
high for some students, particularly those who are at risk of persistent reading diffi-
culties. In the early years of schooling, differentiated instruction should be based on
ongoing progress monitoring of student achievement in important foundational skills
such as phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, early word reading skills, and
vocabulary.
In Tier 2, those students identified as ‘at risk’ in Tier 1 (i.e. those who do not
make satisfactory progress and are in need of further support) receive supplemen-
tal intervention which incorporates pre-teaching and re-teaching of the curriculum,
giving students more opportunities to engage in reading instruction, not less. In the
early years of reading instruction, Tier 2 intervention will be focused on the con-
strained skills of phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge and decoding, as well
as the unconstrained skills of vocabulary, and/or oral narrative abilities. At the same
time as this focused (Tier 2) teaching is being provided, students continue to access
the differentiated and explicit teaching planned within the context of the classroom
curriculum. It is important that Tier 2 intervention occurs early on in the child’s
schooling as studies have shown that intervention during the early years of school-
ing is more effective and time-efficient than intervention during the later years of
schooling (see Denton, 2012, for a review). Supplemental intervention is generally
provided in small groups, either within or outside the classroom.
1.7 Multi-tiered Systems of Support and Response to Intervention (RtI) 11

In Tier 3, higher intensity reading intervention is provided to those students who

do not make satisfactory progress in Tiers 1 and 2. Although the types of activities
may be similar to those used in Tier 2, Tier 3 intervention is more intensive and is
delivered one-on-one or in small groups. Schools respond to the diverse learning
needs of their students by identifying differentiated teaching and learning in all three
tiers of planning and instruction.
Fundamental to the RtI model is the use of assessment for cohort mapping,
progress monitoring, or reading achievement purposes. Based on the results of these
assessments, it can be decided if students make sufficient progress during each level
(tier) of intervention. Therefore, ideally, progress monitoring tools need to be easy
to administer, time-efficient, sensitive to progress, and appropriate to the local (i.e.
Australian) context. In Chap. 2, we will outline the measures we used in this project;
in Chap. 3, we will compare them with assessment tools that are commonly used in
the schooling system at present.

1.8 Speech-to-Print Profile

To assist educators and other professionals involved in reading to summarise assess-

ment information while ensuring adequate attention is given to the underlying spoken
language skills needed for written language, Gillon (2004) introduced the speech-to-
print profile. Different professionals involved in the assessment process may use this
profile to represent their findings. For example, teachers may collect information
related to the student’s print concepts, word reading, and phonological awareness
skills, whereas speech pathologists may be called upon to conduct more in-depth
assessment of a student’s spoken language and phonological processing skills. Using
the speech-to-print profile will assist collaborative practice, help ensure there is no
double-up of assessments, and provide a visual representation of a student’s strengths
and weaknesses in spoken and written language skills required for successful reading
comprehension (see also Gillon, 2018).
The profile contains two main sections: (1) spoken language (underlying rep-
resentations, phonological awareness, and phonological storage and retrieval) and
(2) written language (print knowledge, word level, text level). Because the original
profile mainly focused on the underlying spoken language skills needed for word
recognition, we adapted the profile (see Table 1.2) to include some important spoken
language skills required for reading comprehension (i.e. text-level comprehension
including text structure knowledge). We explain the specific assessments that were
used to complete these speech-to-print profiles in Chap. 2 and provide case examples
in Chap. 6. See Table 1.1 for a brief explanation of some of the terms that are used
in the speech-to-print profile, with examples of assessment tasks.
12 1 Reading Success

Table 1.2 Speech-to-Print Profile (adapted from Gillon, 2004, with permission from the author)
Spoken language Written language
Underlying Phonological processing
representations
Vocabulary Phonological Storage and Rule/concept Word-level Text-level
knowledge Awareness Retrieval knowledge
Syntax Syllable level Non word Print concepts Word Reading
repetition recognition: accuracy
Morphology Onset–rime Multisyllabic Grapheme-Phoneme Regular Reading
level word Correspondences: word comprehension
repetition reading
Phonology Phoneme Rapid Single letter Irregular Reading
level Naming fluency/rate
Text structure: Digraph Non-word Writing:
Narrative Trigraph Spelling:
Expository
Persuasion Diphthongs

1.9 Evidence-Based Practice from Multiple Perspectives

Reform or change in schools takes time and requires embedded processes in order
for sustainable practices to occur. Educational practices and improvements over the
past few decades have been swift and enduring (Fullan, 2012), creating extensive
pressure on teachers to adapt and adopt new approaches in the classroom. It has been
argued that for change within educational contexts, whole-school approaches can be
effective in ensuring sustained and positive results (Pendergast et al., 2015). Accord-
ing to Hoare, Bott, and Robinson (2017) “whole-school approaches, being multi-
component, collective and collaborative action in the school community, provide
optimal opportunity for creating sustained positive change, as opposed to unidimen-
sional, standalone programmes” (p. 59). It is therefore important that whole-school,
community approaches are implemented for positive change to result. This means
that all parties are involved and invested in making the change work.
Whole-school approaches are driven by strong leadership (Ainscow & Sandill,
2010; Fullan, Hill, & Crévola, 2006; Hill & Crévola, 1997); however, such leadership
needs to ensure positive school cultures and quality student outcomes. Barton and
McKay (2016) note that “the beliefs of leaders and teachers play a significant role
in how they respond to students who experience difficulties with learning” (p. 164)
and in particular in relation to reading outcomes. As such, Barton and McKay (2016)
offer a model that has at its core the students (see Fig. 1.1).
Significant others in students’ lives included in the model include teachers, prin-
cipals and leadership teams, support staff such as learning support teachers, speech
pathologists and other specialists, parents/carers, family, and other community mem-
bers. All stakeholders are needed to provide the support and encouragement for
student success. In the Reading Success project, we recognised the importance of
hearing all perspectives (see also Chap. 7).
1.9 Evidence-Based Practice from Multiple Perspectives 13

Fig. 1.1 A whole-school

model to support reading
(Barton & McKay, 2016).
[Permission courtesy of
authors]

Within this complex space are the big six of reading instruction: phonics, phono-
logical awareness, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, and oral language (Konza,
2014). Also, as mentioned previously, many other aspects of students’ lives impact
on learning including students’ self-worth, motivation and engagement, cultural and
social issues, peers, family and relationships, self-regulation, and affect (see Fig. 1.2).

Fig. 1.2 Understanding the

whole learner for effective
teaching of reading (Barton
& McKay, 2016).
[Permission courtesy of
authors]

Students
14 1 Reading Success

The model incorporates the nature of a whole school’s culture, and this includes
staff within the school as well as community members. Any approach adopted needs
to be well communicated to all, and the benefits that students can gain from people’s
experience need to be valued. Additionally, the beliefs of teachers, leaders, and
support staff in relation to students’ capabilities need to be taken into account (see
Chap. 4 for more details). If these are stemmed from deficit views, positive outcomes
are less likely (Barton & McKay, 2016). In this book, we therefore aim to explore
some of these aspects in the school context in which we worked.

1.10 Summary

This chapter defined the Simple View of Reading (SVR) and explained how the SVR
can be used as a conceptual framework for categorising both skilled and struggling
readers. Learning to read is a complex process and requires both word recognition
and language comprehension skills. Difficulties in any of these skills or underlying
components may result in difficulties when learning to read. The chapter introduced a
range of terms that are frequently used in Australian classrooms including response to
intervention (RtI) and multi-tiered systems of support. The use of an evidence-based
framework in combination with the adoption of common terminology is important for
developing a collaborative approach to the identification and remediation of students
at risk for, or experiencing difficulties in reading. Ensuring early reading success and
encouraging approaches that support students to enjoy the reading process and share
their love for reading with their peers, teachers, and family will result in lifelong
positive reading behaviours.

References

Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organi-
sational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903.
Al Otaiba, S., Gillespie Rouse, A., & Baker, K. (2018). Elementary grade intervention approaches
to treat specific learning disabilities, including dyslexia. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 49(4), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0022.
Amendum, S. J., Bratsch-Hines, M., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2018). Investigating the efficacy of a
web-based early reading and professional development intervention for young English learners.
Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.188.
Australian Government. (2005). Teaching reading: A guide to the report and recommendations for
parents and carers. Author.
Australian Government. (2015). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Teacher education
ministerial advisory group report. Author.
Barton, G., & McKay, L. (2016). Conceptualising a literacy education model for junior secondary
students: The spatial and reflective practices of an Australian school. English in Australia, 51(1),
37–45.
References 15

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (1996). The nature of the relationship between comprehension skill and the
ability to tell a story. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 187–201.
Catts, H. W. (2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial
and Special Education, 39(5), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563.
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A
case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2),
278–293.
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading
disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), Connections between language and reading
disabilities (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual
differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 151–164. https://
doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600208.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts:
An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.87.
1.154.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-perceptions,
and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 5–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308205.
Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children’s reading-
comprehension difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1106–
1116.
Cremin, T. (2007). Revisiting reading for pleasure: Delight, desire and diversity. In K. Goouch &
A. Lambirth (Eds.), Understanding phonics and the teaching of reading: A critical perspective
(pp. 166–190). Berkshire, UK: McGraw Hill.
Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F. M., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2014). Building communities
of engaged readers: Reading for pleasure. London: Routledge.
Crystal, D. (1987). Towards a “bucket” theory of language disability: Taking account of interaction
between linguistic levels. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 1, 7–22.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading
experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945.
Denton, C. A. (2012). Response to Intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades: Some
answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 232–243. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022219412442155.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how
valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4.
Fullan, M. (2012). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Routledge.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crévola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gillon, G. T. (2004). The speech to print profile. Christchurch, New Zealand: Author. Pro-
file available from https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/media/documents/education-and-health/gail-
gillon—phonological-awareness-resources/resources/speechprintprofile2004.pdf.
Gillon, G. T. (2018). Phonological awareness: From research to practice (2nd ed.). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.
Hempenstall, K. (2016). Read about it: Scientific evidence for effective teaching of reading CIS
research report. Australia: Centre for Independent Studies.
Hill, P., & Crévola, C. (1997). Key features of a whole-school, design approach to literacy teaching
in schools. Australia: University of Melbourne.
Hoare, E., Bott, D., & Robinson, J. (2017). Learn it, Live it, Teach it, Embed it: Implementing a
whole school approach to foster positive mental health and wellbeing through Positive Education.
International Journal of Wellbeing, 7(3), 56–71.
16 1 Reading Success

Ivey, G. (2014). The social side of engaged reading for young adolescents. The Reading Teacher,
68(3), 165–171.
Justice, L. M. (Ed.). (2006). Clinical approaches to emergent literacy intervention. San Diego, CA:
Plural Publishing.
Katzir, T., Lesaux, N. K., & Kim, Y.-S. (2009). The role of reading self-concept and home literacy
practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(3), 261–276. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9112-8.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration
model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.
Konza, D. (2014). Teaching reading: Why the “Fab five” should be the “Big six”. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education (Online), 39(12), 153–169.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the simple view of read-
ing with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special
Education, 39(5), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518764833.
Marjanovič-Umek, L., Fekonja-Peklaj, U., Sočan, G., & Tašner, V. (2015). A socio-cultural per-
spective on children’s early language: A family study. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 23(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.991096.
McGeown, S. P., Duncan, L. G., Griffiths, Y. M., & Stothard, S. E. (2015). Exploring the relationship
between adolescents’ reading skills, reading motivation and reading habits. Reading and Writing,
28(4), 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9537-9.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 International results
in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA, USA: TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Centre.
Nation, K., & Norbury, C. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension fails—Insights from develop-
mental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 21–32.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
NICHD. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the transition to reading.
Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 428–442.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). 20 U.S.C. § 6319.
Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from
a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121.
Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working
memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18(7), 657–686. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z.
Parker, S. (2018). Reading instruction and phonics. Theory and practice for teachers. Boston, MA:
Royce-Kotran.
Pendergast, D., Main, K., Barton, G., Kanasa, H., Geelan, D., & Dowden, T. (2015). The Education
Change Model as a vehicle for reform: Shifting Year 7 and implementing Junior Secondary in
Queensland. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling.
Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D. (1990). Prevalence of reading
disability in boys and girls: Results of the connecticut longitudinal study. JAMA, 264(8), 998–
1002. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03450080084036.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for reading and language
difficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02014.x.
Spear-Swerling, L. (2015). The power of RTI and reading profiles: A blueprint for solving reading
problems. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Spear-Swerling, L. (2016). Common types of reading problems and how to help children who have
them. The Reading Teacher, 69(5), 513–522.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences
in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 23–55.
References 17

Stark, H. L., Snow, P. C., Eadie, P. A., & Goldfeld, S. R. (2016). Language and reading instruction
in early years’ classrooms: the knowledge and self-rated ability of Australian teachers. Annals of
Dyslexia, 66(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-015-0112-0.
Stein, N., & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children.
In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–120). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Thompson, R., & Whimper, L. A. (2010). Exposure to family violence and reading level of early
adolescents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(7), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10926771003781347.
Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., & Prochnow, J. E. (2006). Literate cultural capital at school entry
predicts later reading achievement: A seven year longitudinal study. New Zealand Journal of
Educational Studies, 41(2), 183–204.
Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (2019). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework
for preventing and remediating reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties,
24(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1614081.
Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2012). The simple view of second language reading throughout
the primary grades. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1805–1818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-
011-9346-3.
Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T., & Moran, C. (2008). A longitudinal investigation of oral narra-
tive skills in children with mixed reading disability. International Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 10(3), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040701422390.
Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension: Assisting children with learning difficulties. Dor-
drecht, NLD: Springer.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Part I
The Reading Success Project
Chapter 2
Methodology

Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong, and Georgina M. Barton

Abstract This chapter describes the methodology used in the Reading Success
project. We start by briefly describing the school’s context, including the student
cohorts who were involved in the project. The specific qualitative data collection
methods relating to existing school initiatives for improving the reading performance
of their students are then described. The second half of this chapter outlines the
assessment process, including a brief explanation of the types of assessments that
can be used (formal vs. informal; standardised vs. criterion-referenced) and how to
interpret these types of assessment results. We then describe the five-step assessment
process we used to determine which students showed challenges in aspects of their
spoken and/or written language skills to determine which students might benefit
from specific intervention to address their reading needs. An overview of the specific
assessment tasks that were used to determine the students’ performance at each step
of the process is included along with a clear rationale for each assessment and an
explanation of how these assessment results map on to the speech-to-print profile.
Finally, consideration is given to progress monitoring practices.

Keywords Reading assessment · Speech-to-print profile · Progress monitoring

2.1 A Brief Overview of the School Involved in the Reading

Success Project

The Australian school involved in the Reading Success project identified the assess-
ment and intervention practices for reading as a major area for school improvement.
At the time of completing the project, there were 674 students (50% males/50%
females) enrolled at the school. These enrolments included 6% of students who
identified as being indigenous and 31% of students who had a language background
other than English. The Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA)
scale (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], n.d.)
was used as an indicator of the demographic composition of the school. ICSEA
is a scale developed by ACARA and used to provide an indication of the level of
educational advantage of students attending the school. An overall ICSEA value is
calculated for each school, based on factors including parents’ occupation, parents’

© The Author(s) 2020 21

M. F. Westerveld et al., Reading Success in the Primary Years,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8_2
22 2 Methodology

education, a school’s geographical location, and the proportion of indigenous stu-

dents. The average ICSEA score (or the benchmark) is 1000, with scores falling
between approximately 500 (representing students from extremely disadvantaged
backgrounds) and 1300 (representing students from more advantaged backgrounds).
The school involved in this project had a school ICSEA value of 1005 suggest-
ing the level of educational advantage for this school was consistent with the aver-
age benchmark across Australia. However, it should be noted that according to the
Australian Early Development Census data (https://www.aedc.gov.au/ 2015 data),
the proportion of children attending the school who were considered developmen-
tally vulnerable in language and cognitive skills was double in comparison with the
reported percentage of children considered developmentally vulnerable residing in
the school’s geographic region.
In Australia, the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy
(NAPLAN) is a nationwide assessment process undertaken in all Australian schools
with students in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9 (Australian Government, 2016). The assessment is
designed to test the types of skills that are essential for every child to progress through
school and life, including skills in reading, writing, spelling, grammar and punctu-
ation, and numeracy. Students are provided with individual results explaining their
performance on NAPLAN; however, schools also gain information relating to their
overall school performance. Through using ICSEA, schools are able to compare their
performance to that of other schools with similar educational advantage values. For
the school in the current project, it was evident that their reading results on NAPLAN
showed that on average the students performed similar to students attending similar
schools over time, despite the school facing many unique challenges.
The Reading Success project included all key stakeholders involved in the teaching
of reading in the school setting, resulting in an interdisciplinary approach to both
the identification of reading difficulties and the provision of targeted intervention for
students at risk of or experiencing difficulties in reading. As part of this collaborative
approach, qualitative data and reports obtained from the school leadership team,
teachers, and students were included. Reading achievement data collected from two
cohorts of students at different stages of their reading development will be reported
on in this book:
The Learning to Read stage Students in the ‘learning to read’ phase of develop-
ment included students in Year 1 (i.e. their second year of formal schooling). Parents
of 94% (93 out of 99 students) of the overall Year 1 cohort provided consent for their
child to be involved in this project, providing a representative sample of all students
in Year 1 at this school. Of these students, 46% were male, and 32% spoke a language
other than English in the home environment (E/ALD) as determined based on parent
report data.
The Reading to Learn stage Students in the ‘reading to learn’ phase of develop-
ment included students in Year 4 (i.e. their fifth year of formal schooling). A total of
83% (78 out of 94 students) of the overall Year 4 cohort was involved in this project,
providing a representative sample of all students in Year 4 at this school. Of these
students, 47% were male, and 24% had E/ALD as determined based on parent report
data.
2.1 A Brief Overview of the School Involved in the Reading Success Project 23

The specific data collection methods for both the qualitative aspect of this project
and the data pertaining to reading achievement are described in further detail below.

2.2 Stakeholder Interviews

To obtain information about the educators’ perspectives about their school as well
as their opinions about the enablers and/or inhibitors of the school’s reading pro-
grammes and approaches to the teaching of reading, a number of qualitative data
sets were collected to ensure richness of the data (Lambert & Loiselle, 2008):
a productive iterative process whereby an initial model of the phenomenon guided the explo-
ration of individual accounts and successive individual data further enriched the conceptu-
alisation of the phenomenon; identification of the individual and contextual circumstances
surrounding the phenomenon, which added to the interpretation of the structure of the phe-
nomenon; and convergence of the central characteristics of the phenomenon across focus
groups and individual interviews, which enhanced trustworthiness of findings. (p. 228)

Therefore, the qualitative data included in the Reading Success project were collected
through interviews and/or focus groups with teachers (at the beginning and at the end
of the project), interviews with the leadership team, and a student focus group as well
as individual student interviews. Information was also collected about the reading
programmes the school implemented over the course of the project. In addition,
school planning documents and policies were included in the data set.
Educators The interview questions for teachers and leaders firstly focused on
their demographics—how long they had been teaching, what their qualifications
were, and what year levels they had taught previously including any other teaching
experiences. Remaining questions explored what the educators’ perspectives were
about their school as well as what they felt were the enablers and/or inhibitors of
the school’s reading programmes and approaches to the teaching of reading. The
post-interviews also investigated what staff members felt about the Reading Success
project including its impact on student learning. Prompt questions for both the pre-
and post-interviews can be found in Appendix 1. The questions were based on a
previous project conducted by Barton and McKay (2014, 2016a, 2016b) that explored
another school’s approach to teaching reading in the secondary context.
Students The student focus group and subsequent interviews involved students
in the reading to learn cohort (i.e. Year 4 students). Three of these students rated
themselves the lowest on the Reading Self-Concept Scale (Chapman & Tunmer,
1995). Initially, the students were invited as a whole group to participate in a focus
group to talk about reading, how they perceive themselves as readers and what might
help or inhibit their reading. While the students participated in this focus group, the
researcher asked them to create a collage using cut-up pictures from a range of mag-
azines. The purpose of this collage was to support the students in feeling comfortable
about talking about themselves with the researcher. The researcher utilised a method
known as re-collage (Barton, 2020), whereby participants create an artwork that
expresses deeper messages about a topic, in this case reading. Arts-based research
24 2 Methodology

methods have been known to support participants’ abilities to express their feelings
about focused topics. For students of this age, the researchers were interested in not
only asking for their opinions orally, but also using a stimulus artwork created by
the participants to base a discussion around.
Allowing the students to reflect on themselves as readers through the art had poten-
tial for students to uncover aspects of themselves as readers not previously known.
Leitch (2006), for example, explained that “through the creation of images in relation
to self, new meanings, previously unaware, unvoiced, unexpressed, half-understood
came to be significant and capable of being incorporated into the participants’ social
and/or emotional understanding of themselves, to the point that new actions or direc-
tions could be taken in their lives” (p. 566). In a similar vein, McNiff (2008) showed
how arts-based and creative approaches to reflecting on a topic often resulted in more
“meaningful insights [that] often come by surprise, unexpectedly and even against
the will of the creator” (p. 40). Utilising modes, other than language, created the
opportunity for the students to feel safe and express different ways of knowing or
being (Liamputtong & Rumbold, 2008).
Analytical approaches All interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and
then transcribed. Participants were provided with the transcripts in order for member
checking to occur. The team then analysed the transcripts by firstly identifying any
codes (interesting factors) throughout the initial reading of documents. Subsequently,
the team re-read each transcript to ensure no code was left unidentified. Finally, the
codes were clustered into identified themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The identified
themes from the educator and student perspectives are described in detail in Chaps. 4
and 7.

2.3 Student Reading Self-Concept

As outlined in Chap. 1, student self-perception/motivation for reading is an important

aspect to consider when creating reading profiles and when planning for intervention
(Cartwright, Marshall, & Wray, 2016; Katzir, Lesaux, & Kim, 2009). For this reason,
students in the reading to learn cohort completed the Reading Self-Concept Scale
(Chapman & Tunmer, 1995) as part of this project. This scale comprises 30 items to
determine students’ self-perceptions across three different subscales: (1) perception
of their competency in reading, (2) perception of reading difficulty, and (3) their
attitudes towards reading. For each item, the statement is read aloud to the child by
the examiner. This oral administration ensures reading skills of the child do not impact
on completion of the task. If the student does not understand any of the questions, the
examiner provides further explanation related to the statement. The student is then
required to respond to each statement on a five-point scale ranging from ‘Yes, always’
to ‘No, never’. Student responses are scored from 1 (indicating a low reading self-
concept) to 5 (indicating a high reading self-concept) and then summed to provide an
overall score based on the 30 responses. Comparisons between the child’s responses
2.3 Student Reading Self-Concept 25

across the three different subscales can also be conducted. Student performance on
this scale is described in Chap. 4.

2.4 Types of Assessments and Interpretation of Results

2.4.1 Assessment Type

In selecting assessments to complete the speech-to-print profile and describe a stu-

dent’s strengths and weaknesses in the skills needed for successful reading, it is
important to understand the underlying features and components of different tests
and how these features may influence the information that can be obtained. Broadly
speaking, assessments can be formal or informal in design (see Table 2.1). For-
mal assessments are standardised, which means that they are well constructed, and
have clear administration and scoring processes to ensure that administration of the
assessment is ‘standard’ no matter who administers the test or scores it. Most for-
mal assessments are norm-referenced, which means that a student’s performance
can be compared to his/her same-age or same-grade peers. Informal assessments,
on the other hand, are often less structured and contextualised (more authentic) and
can include observational assessments, screening assessments, interviews, and ques-
tionnaires. Informal assessment tasks are not standardised, and do not have norms.
This means that although a student’s performance can be observed and described,
it is not possible to compare the student’s performance to his/her peers. Both for-
mal and informal assessments may be criterion-referenced. This type of assessment
is different from norm-referenced tests, as the focus is on determining whether the
child can achieve a certain level of performance (rather than comparing a child with
the performance of another). This type of assessment has advantages as it examines
behaviours in depth and can be a useful method for establishing baseline performance
and monitoring treatment progress.

2.4.2 Interpretation of Norm-Referenced Test Results

The features of standardisation for norm-referenced assessments allow for student

performance to be compared with other students (i.e. the norming sample) who are
the same age or the same year of schooling, and their strengths and difficulties can
be interpreted accordingly. More specifically, student performance on standardised
assessments can be interpreted using a bell curve (see Fig. 2.1). A bell curve is a
representation of normal distribution and shows that the further a person’s score
moves away from the mean (in either direction) the fewer people in the population
will receive that score. Most standardised tests report mean scores for each age
group and also a standard deviation. The standard deviation represents the average
 26

Table 2.1 An overview of different types of assessments

Formal = standardised Informal = non-standardised
Prescribed and well-defined procedures for administering and scoring of the test Provides a less structured, more natural approach to measuring or
Psychometric properties of assessment are reported observing performance
Norm-referenced Criterion-referenced Authentic
• Diagnostic • Identify what a student can/cannot do compared to predetermined • Identify what a student can/cannot
• Always standardised criterion do
• Comparison with same-age/same-grade • Does not compare to other students • Emphasis is on contextualised
students • Some opportunity for individualisation stimuli (i.e. conducted in realistic
• Allows for comparisons across different • May be diagnostic environment)
standardised assessments testing different • May be ongoing; completed
skills (e.g. oral language and reading) across both assessment and
• Decontextualised treatment contexts
Reporting examples (phonological awareness assessment task)
The student’s performance on a standardised The student is able to identify initial sounds in words—this is During a shared book reading
phonological awareness test = standard expected at the student’s level of schooling (i.e. middle of year 1) activity, the student was able to
score 85. This means the student scores 1 provide three other words that
standard deviation below his peers (same rhymed with /man/, but could not
year of schooling) provide any other words that started
with a /m/ sound
2 Methodology
2.4 Types of Assessments and Interpretation of Results 27

Fig. 2.1 Bell curve. (Source Wikimedia Commons, retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Category:Normal_distribution#/media/File:Normal_distribution_and_scales.gif)

difference of scores from the mean score to account for variability that exists in
test scores amongst different test takers. It is the combination of information from
the mean and standard deviation of a test that allows decisions to be made about
when a child’s score falls far enough from the mean to warrant the decision that it
is significantly different from the norm. Raw scores (i.e. the total number of items
the student got correct on a standardised test) need to be converted to allow for
meaningful comparisons to norms provided for each test. These comparisons result
in the creation of standard scores (such as z-scores or scaled scores) or percentile
ranks which can be used to provide an indication of how far from the mean the child
performs on a test in comparison with the normative data for that assessment. The
interpretation of these three types of scores, z-scores, scaled scores, and percentile
ranks is provided below.
Z-scores A z-score of 0 indicates average performance (see Fig. 2.1), with a nega-
tive score indicating performance below the mean and a positive score falling above
the mean. A student’s performance with a z-score below −1 indicates the child’s
performance is more than 1 standard deviation below the mean and is subsequently
interpreted as performing ‘below expectations’.
Scaled Scores The interpretation of scaled scores, or standard scores, is usually
based on the mean score that is assigned for each test. For example, it is common for
tests to assign a mean score of 100 (i.e. z-score of 0), and scores less than 85 indicate
a child’s performance is more than 1 standard deviation below the mean, and thus
‘below expectations’.
28 2 Methodology

Percentile Rank A percentile rank refers to the proportion of the normative

population that scored lower than the subject taking the test. A percentile rank of less
than 16 is indicative of performance 1 standard deviation below the mean, suggesting
skills ‘below expectations’.
The bell curve in Fig. 2.1 provides a visual representation of the association
of all these types of scores. In Fig. 2.1, you can see that 68.2% of the population
scores between z-scores −1 and +1 and hence is considered to be scoring within
typical limits. Importantly, the interpretation of all norm-referenced scores is usually
dependent on the purpose and the level of severity that is required to be identified.
Thus, the decision of what cut-point to use to indicate ‘below expectations’ and the
subsequent need for intervention is arbitrary. It should be based on the purpose of the
assessment and the local context and should be a collaborative team decision based
on all available data.

2.5 Choosing a Reading Comprehension Test

As stated previously, the aim of learning to read is to read accurately and fluently
with comprehension. To determine the level of reading ability, it is therefore impor-
tant to use a formal reading assessment that adequately captures a student’s read-
ing skills across reading accuracy, reading fluency, and reading comprehension. As
summarised by Westerveld (2009), when choosing a reading comprehension test, the
following needs to be taken into consideration: (1) test format (i.e. cloze vs ques-
tion–answer format; oral or silent); (2) passage dependency (can the students answer
the questions without reading the passage); and (3) test-taking strategies (i.e. stu-
dent initiative, involvement, and item completion rate; Bornholt, 2002; Keenan &
Betjemann, 2006; Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008).
Unfortunately, not all reading tests adequately measure reading comprehension. In
fact, some assessments may fail to identify reading comprehension deficits (Bowyer-
Crane & Snowling, 2005). For example, student performance based on tests such as
the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA; Neale, 1999) and the York Assessment
of Reading for Comprehension (YARC; Snowling et al., 2012) depends on both
word recognition and language comprehension skill, as students are asked to answer
questions after readig a passage. In contrast, performance on cloze reading tasks (i.e.
student reads a sentence or passage and fills in the blank) has been shown to be mostly
dependent on adequate word recognition ability. Based on these results, Westerveld
(2009) advised the use of a reading test that requires the student to read passages
and answer open-ended questions following the reading or using an individually
administered test of language comprehension in addition to using a reading test
(Nation & Snowling, 1997).
2.5 Choosing a Reading Comprehension Test 29

Another consideration in the Australian context is to choose a test that has been
normed on the Australian population. Recognising the importance of the schooling
system, including the effect of what age students start their formal reading tuition
(Cunningham & Carroll, 2011) on their reading performance, using standardised tests
that have been normed overseas may not adequately identify Australian students with
reading difficulties. Both the NARA and the YARC have been normed on Australian
students. A recent study by Colenbrander, Nickels, and Kohnen (2016) compared
student performance on the NARA versus the YARC. Students attended Australian
primary schools and were in grades 3–6. Interestingly, more students were classified
with a ‘specific comprehension difficulty’ profile on the NARA than on the YARC,
but no differences were found for classification of ‘specific word reading difficulties’
between the tests. Closer inspection of these results, however, showed that only 9%
of the variance in YARC scores could be explained by a child’s ability to decode
words; this was 21% for the NARA. Taken together, the authors concluded that the
YARC may be a better test to indicate reading comprehension difficulties for students
who have word recognition difficulties. Furthermore, the authors recommend using
a separate decoding task (word or non-word reading measure), and that diagnosis
of a reading comprehension difficulty should not be based on the results of a single
assessment. For the current study, based on previous research, we administered the
YARC to determine students’ reading performance across reading accuracy, reading
fluency, and reading comprehension.

2.6 The Reading Assessment Process Used in the Reading

Success Project

As part of the Reading Success project, comprehensive assessments of students’ read-

ing and spoken language skills were undertaken to create speech-to-print profiles for
those students who struggled with their reading comprehension. As explained in
Chap. 1, this assessment process was guided by the Simple View of Reading (SVR)
as a framework and included several steps to determine individual reading profiles,
which in turn were used to inform intervention practices. First, students’ reading
comprehension performance was assessed using a standardised, norm-referenced
reading assessment (Step 1). Next, for students with identified reading comprehen-
sion difficulties, their skills in reading accuracy and language comprehension were
assessed (Step 2). For those students with identified difficulties in reading accuracy,
additional testing to determine proficiency in word recognition skills (including sin-
gle word reading, orthographic knowledge, and phonological awareness) was con-
ducted (Step 3). Finally, for each student who scored below expectations on reading
comprehension in Step 1, individual speech-to-print profiles were created to visu-
ally represent the assessment data and show: (1) strengths and weaknesses in the
underlying spoken language skills needed for successful reading performance and
(2) strengths and weaknesses in the code-related skills needed for successful word
30 2 Methodology

Fig. 2.2 Five-step assessment to intervention process based on the Simple View of Reading. Note
RC = Reading comprehension; RA = reading accuracy; RR = reading rate; LC = language compre-
hension. # Step 3: Further assessment may also include students whose RC was within expectations
but their RA was below expectations and may warrant further assessment (see Step 3 below)

recognition (Step 4). Finally, the information obtained from Steps 1–4 was used to
guide intervention practices as part of Step 5. This assessment to intervention process
is shown descriptively in Fig. 2.2.
The following section details these five assessment steps including description
of the specific assessments administered as part of the Reading Success project.
We acknowledge that there are many other assessments available to assess reading
and spoken language skills of school-aged children and recommend collaboration
with all professionals involved in assessment and intervention for students at risk
for or experiencing difficulties in reading, including speech pathologists. The tests
that were used in this project are described in detail below; however, a list of other
suitable tests are shown as further examples in Appendix 2.

2.6.1 Step 1: Assessment of Reading Skills Using a Validated

Assessment

For this project, the Australian edition of the York Assessment of Reading for Com-
prehension, Primary (YARC; Snowling et al., 2012), was used as a formal (standard-
ised), norm-referenced assessment of reading ability. The YARC yields measures of
reading accuracy and reading comprehension as well as reading rate. This diagnostic
reading assessment was administered individually, either by a speech pathologist or
by a teacher, with all students in the project. As per the manual, the student was asked
2.6 The Reading Assessment Process Used in the Reading Success … 31

to read aloud two passages (at a level suitable to the student’s reading ability), and
the time taken to read each passage was recorded. If the student produced a reading
error, the correct production was immediately provided to the student by the exam-
iner. At the conclusion of each passage, the student was asked a series of literal and
inferential comprehension questions, and the student was able to refer to the text to
answer the questions if they needed. Following the completion of two passages, sev-
eral scores were calculated: (a) the number of reading errors was totalled to provide
an overall reading accuracy (RA) score; (b) the time taken to read each passage was
summed to provide an overall reading rate (RR); (c) the total number of questions
answered correctly was calculated to provide a reading comprehension (RC) score.
These raw scores were then converted to standard scores to allow for comparisons
with Australian normative data. As per the test guidelines, for students in the Year 1
cohort, RR was not calculated if the student exceeded 16 reading errors on the level
1 passage. These test scores (RA, RR, and RC) can be calculated online using a free
online score conversion tool.
In the Reading Success project, we used a standard score (SS) cut-off of 85
as an indicator of ‘below expectations’, which corresponds to students scoring in
the bottom 16% of the same-age population (see Fig. 2.1). Using this cut-off, the
cohort was divided into those students who needed further assessment and those who
performed within expectations for their age/stage of schooling.

2.6.2 Step 2: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored

Below Expectations on Reading Comprehension

For students who scored below expectations on the RC subtest of the YARC, consis-
tent with the Simple View of Reading, we investigated their reading accuracy skills
and considered their language comprehension skills.

(i) Check Reading Accuracy First, student performance on the YARC RA sub-
test was checked to determine whether challenges in RA were contributing to
RC difficulties. Students who demonstrated RA SS < 85 were considered to
demonstrate challenges in RA.
(ii) Check Language Comprehension The next step was to screen the lan-
guage comprehension skills of students who scored below expectations
in RC. In this project the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest
from the standardised, norm-referenced assessment, the Clinical Evaluation
of Language Fundamentals, fourth or fifth edition (CELF-4/CELF-5; Semel,
Wiig, & Secord, 2006; Wiig, Semel, & Secord, 2017) was administered. As per
the test manual, students were asked to listen to spoken passages and then answer
questions about the content of the passages. The subtest was administered as per
the assessment manual guidelines, and a total raw score was calculated and then
converted to a scaled score. In the current project, a scaled score below 7, i.e. 1
32 2 Methodology

standard deviation below the mean, was used to indicate a student performing
‘below expectations’ in language comprehension (i.e. equivalent to SS85).
The CELF is a restricted test (i.e. can only be administered by a speech pathologist)
and is relatively expensive if the only aim of using it is to determine if the student’s
RC difficulties stem from underlying problems in LC. An alternative way of assessing
LC is to orally administer two paragraphs of the YARC. The YARC Passage Reading
Test—Primary comprises two parallel tests of graded passages (A and B), each of
which is accompanied by a set of eight comprehension questions. Therefore, if form
A has been used to test the student’s RC, form B can be used to test the student’s
LC. In this instance, the examiner (e.g. teacher or speech pathologist) reads two
passages (level equivalent to the student’s age or year of schooling) out loud and
asks the student to answer the comprehension questions afterwards. The student’s
performance can be evaluated by scoring the total number of questions answered
correctly across the two passages and converting this raw score to a scaled score.
Although this test was not normed for this purpose, a scaled score ≥ 85 would
potentially indicate satisfactory language comprehension performance.
The results from Steps 1 and 2 were then used to determine whether students’
poor performance on the RC subtest of the YARC could be explained by poor RA,
poor LC, or both.

2.6.3 Step 3: Further Assessment of Word Recognition Skills

Next, for students who performed below expectations in RA on the YARC (i.e.
showed difficulties accurately reading passages), further assessment was conducted
to determine possible underlying reasons for their RA difficulties. It is important
to note that assessment at this stage should include students who demonstrate poor
RA and RC (both SS < 85), as well as those students whose RC SS ≥ 85 but
who show difficulties in RA (i.e. SS < 85). This is an important consideration as
these students, who demonstrate decoding difficulties but age-appropriate RC, may
have oral language skills that allow for masking of difficulties in RC, particularly in
the early years of schooling. Therefore, further assessment of these students’ word
recognition skills and consideration of targeted intervention around decoding may
be required.
Assessments of the following print-related skills were conducted: (a) single word
reading, (b) orthographic knowledge, and (c) phonological awareness.

Single Word Reading

The Castles and Coltheart Word Reading Test—Second Edition (CC-2; Castles,
et al., 2009) was administered as a formal, standardised, norm-referenced measure
of single word reading ability. This test was selected as it has Australian normative
data, is freely available, and is an efficient measure of word reading across regular,
irregular, and nonsense words. This test is untimed and assesses a student’s ability
2.6 The Reading Assessment Process Used in the Reading Success … 33

to read aloud a series of single words, including 40 regular, 40 irregular, and 40

nonsense words. This test was administered online according to the test guidelines,
and the words were presented one at a time, in a pseudo-randomised order, and
with gradually increasing difficulty. Once a student makes > 5 errors on any of the
single word subtypes, the administration of that subtype is discontinued. The student
continues with the remaining word types until the ceiling is reached for all subtypes
or until all words have been read. A total raw accuracy score for each subtest type
(regular, irregular, and nonsense words) was calculated and then converted to a z-
score for the child’s age. A z-score below −1 indicated a student performing below
expectations on single word reading ability.

Orthographic Knowledge

The Letter Sound Test (LeST; Larsen, Kohnen, Nickels, & McArthur, 2015)
assessed orthographic knowledge. This freely available, formal, norm-referenced
assessment was chosen to assess a student’s ability to sound out single letters
and letter combinations (including consonant and vowel digraphs). The test has
been normed on Australian students (kindergarten to grade 3). This test was
administered online (www.motif.org.au), in a one-to-one setting, and took approx-
imately 5–10 min. Students were shown 51 graphemes (single letters and let-
ter combinations) in isolation, and they were asked to produce the target sound
. After the administration of the test, a total raw score (/51) was calculated and con-
verted to a z-score as per the test guidelines. In the current study, students with a
z-score less than −1 were classified as performing below expectations with their
orthographic knowledge, including the students attending Year 4 who were older
than the norming sample.

Phonological Awareness

The Sutherland Phonological Awareness Test—Revised (SPAT-R; Neilson, 2003)

was administered to assess the students’ phonological awareness skills. This stan-
dardised test was normed on 559 Australian students, is suitable for students in their
first to fourth year of schooling, and takes approximately 10–15 min to administer.
For students in Year 1, the first seven subtests of the SPAT-R were administered indi-
vidually according to the test manual instructions. The first seven subtests provided
an indication of phonological awareness skills in terms of syllable segmentation,
rhyme detection and production, blending and segmenting phonemes, and onset–
rime identification. All subtests involved the students completing four items for each
task. In this project, subtest scores below the 25th percentile were used to identify stu-
dents whose phonological awareness skills were below expectations and potentially
of concern.
For older students, in Step 3 of the assessment process, we used
subtests from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing—Second Edition
(CTOPP-2; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2013), including: (a) elision, measuring
a student’s ability to remove segments from spoken words to form other words; i.e.
phoneme awareness; (b) non-word repetition; (c) rapid automatic naming; and (d)
34 2 Methodology

non-word repetition. The CTOPP-2 is a restricted test (i.e. only allied health and
special education professionals can administer this test).

2.6.4 Step 4: Creating Speech-to-Print Profiles

Table 2.2 provides an overview of the assessments that were used in Steps 1–3.
Speech-to-print profiles were created for students who performed below expectation
on the RC subtest of the YARC. Information from all assessment measures (from
Steps 1 to 3) was mapped on to the speech-to-print profiles for each student. It is
paramount to ensure this step of the assessment process is in collaboration with all
stakeholders involved in the teaching and remediation of reading, including teachers,
speech pathologists, and learning support teachers. This collaborative process allows
for the identification of strengths and difficulties in the core components of language
comprehension and word recognition. Furthermore, this team approach provides an
avenue for identifying if any further assessments should be completed and by whom,
or whether some of this information has already been collected as part of routine
school-wide assessment processes. For example, as shown in Table 2.2, Step 4 may
require a comprehensive evaluation of a student’s spoken language skills, which
may involve a referral to the speech pathologist. The speech pathologist may, for
example, administer the CELF-5 and/or collect a spontaneous language sample in a
narrative (e.g. Profile of Oral Narrative Ability [PONA]; Westerveld & Vidler, 2016)
or expository context (Heilmann & Malone, 2014). For other students, more detailed
information may be needed regarding a student’s writing and spelling skills, which
may well be available from the classroom teacher. Completing the profile will then
promote discussion about appropriate intervention planning (see Step 5).

2.6.5 Step 5: Provision of Targeted Intervention

The next step was to discuss how appropriate and targeted intervention could be
provided for students with identified reading difficulties, based on their speech-to-
print profiles. For example students who showed a profile of dyslexia would benefit
from intervention aimed at improving these students’ phonological processing and
word recognition skills, whereas students who demonstrated specific comprehension
deficits would benefit from a programme aimed at improving their language com-
prehension skills. In this project, the speech-to-print profiles were discussed with the
school team to: (1) trial appropriate interventions for a selection of students within the
school setting, and (2) allow for the school team to plan and continue to implement
regular classroom instruction. Detailed information about the interventions imple-
mented and evaluated as part of the Reading Success project is provided in Chap. 5.
Case samples are presented in Chap. 6.
2.6 The Reading Assessment Process Used in the Reading Success … 35

Table 2.2 An overview of the areas assessed and the assessment methods used at each step
Area to assess Assessment used Skill Type of assessment
Step 1 Reading YARC—form A Student’s ability Standardised,
comprehension (text to answer norm-referenced
level) questions from a (scaled scores)
passage of text
that they had read
Step 2 Reading accuracy YARC—form A Student’s ability Standardised,
i (text level) to accurately read norm-referenced
aloud a passage (scaled scores)
of text
Step 2 Language CELF-4/CELF-5 Student’s ability Standardised,
ii comprehension (text Understanding to answer norm-referenced
level) Spoken comprehension (scaled scores)
Paragraphs questions after
Or use the listening to short
YARC—form B passages
Step 3 Word recognition CC-2 (Motif) Student’s ability Standardised,
(word level) to read aloud norm-referenced
single words of (z-score)
different word
types including:
regular, irregular,
and nonsense
words
Grapheme–phoneme LeST (Motif) Student’s ability Standardised,
correspondences to produce sound norm-referenced
to a (z-score)
corresponding
letter /letter
combination
Phonological SPAT-R Student’s ability Standardised,
awareness to complete norm-referenced
syllable, rhyme, (percentile ranks)
and phoneme
identification
tasks
CTOPP-2 Phonological Standardised,
processing, norm-referenced
including (standard scores)
phoneme
awareness, rapid
automatic
naming, and
non-word
repetition
(continued)
36 2 Methodology

Table 2.2 (continued)

Area to assess Assessment used Skill Type of assessment
Step 4 Spoken language: CELF-4/CELF-5 Student’s ability Standardised,
Vocabulary Core Language to complete core norm-referenced.
Syntax Subtests subtests tapping Standard score
Morphology semantic,
syntactic,
morphological
knowledge
Text structure Profile of Oral Student’s ability Formal (using a
knowledge Narrative Ability to retell a protocol). Norms
(PONA) well-sequenced for students in
coherent narrative Prep and Year 1
Expository Student’s ability Formal (using a
Scoring Scheme to produce a protocol), but not
well-sequenced, normed for this
coherent, and age range
informative
explanation of a
game or sport

2.7 Progress Monitoring

As explained in Chap. 1, progress monitoring underpins the response-to-intervention

framework. Monitoring of student progress was conducted on a regular basis as part
of normal school procedures, and more in-depth assessment of reading and spoken
language skills was undertaken following periods of targeted (Tier 2 and Tier 3)
intervention. Examples of progress monitoring practices are described next.

2.7.1 School-initiated Assessments for Reading

The school utilised several routine data collection methods for monitoring reading
outcomes across the school years. The following section describes these specific
methods; however, it is important to note that other Australian schools would have
different processes for measuring reading outcomes. At the school where the Reading
Success project was undertaken, it was reported by the school leadership team that
the assessments administered change throughout primary school based on student
year level and reading level. In the early foundational years of schooling, the PM
Benchmark Reading Assessment Resource Kit (Smith, Nelley, & Croft, 2009) was
used to measure reading skills. Once the students exceeded the maximum reading
level on the PM Benchmark (i.e. level 30), teachers administered the Prose Reading
2.7 Progress Monitoring 37

Observation Behaviour & Evaluation of Comprehension—Second Edition (PROBE

2; Parkin & Parkin, 2011) and the Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading (PAT-R;
Australian Council for Educational Research, 2018). Further information about these
assessment tools is provided next.
Learning to Read Cohort The PM Benchmark assesses students’ instructional
and independent reading levels using levelled fiction and non-fiction texts. The
assessment is criterion-referenced, is administered individually, and takes approxi-
mately 15–20 min to complete per student. There are different reading levels which
are expected for each year level to determine ‘average’ and ‘below average’ reading
performance. The highest level obtainable is level 30. The final reading level is based
on the student’s performance in decoding, retelling, and answering comprehension
questions. At early levels, these comprehension questions are literal, and as students
progress through the reading levels both literal and inferential questions are included.
At the school where this project was conducted, students in the early years of school-
ing were assessed on the PM Benchmark every term as part of the school’s process
for tracking reading progress.
Reading to Learn Cohort The PROBE 2 and PAT-R are two reading compre-
hension assessments that are commonly used in Queensland schools. As the PROBE
is organised across six-month developmental intervals, it is not sensitive enough to
measure progress each term. Therefore, once students reached a PM Benchmark
level of 30, the school alternated between administration of the PROBE 2 and the
PAT-R.
The PAT-R is a norm-referenced test of reading comprehension and can be used
with students in Prep to Year 10. It takes approximately 40 min to administer plus
15 min for scoring. However, the test can be administered and scored online, automat-
ically generating a range of reports, including group reports and individual reports.
The test yields scaled scores, percentile rank scores, and stanines.
The PROBE 2 consists of 20 sets (one fiction and one non-fiction passage) of
graded passages with reading ages ranging from 5 to 6 years to 14.5–15.5 years. The
test should be administered individually and takes about 15–20 min. The examiner
estimates the starting level and asks the student to first read the passage silently and
then to read it out loud. Following this, the examiner asks a series of comprehen-
sion questions. Both the student’s reading accuracy and reading comprehension are
scored. A reading level (and corresponding age range) is determined if the student
obtains > 95% correct in decoding and > 70% correct in comprehension.

2.7.2 Reading Success Project Assessments

In addition to the school-based measures, a number of assessments were conducted as

part of the Reading Success project to monitor student progress over time, including
response to interventions. This included the re-administration of key assessments
described above including the YARC, the LeST, and the CC-2. Chapter 5 provides
38 2 Methodology

a description of the outcomes for the Year 4–5 cohort across these assessments
following the relevant intervention programme.

2.8 Comparisons Between Project-Initiated Standardised

Reading Assessments and School Reading Data

As described above, the school already implemented reading assessments as part

of their common practice to monitor reading outcomes. As an additional reading
assessment (i.e. the YARC) was administered as part of the Reading Success project,
it was important to compare reading results on the YARC and these school-based
measures. Comparing student performance across the tools allowed us to evaluate
whether the school’s existing reading assessments would accurately identify students
who struggled in their reading comprehension and reading accuracy on the YARC.
For this project, school-based data on the PM Benchmark and PAT-R collected at a
similar point in time to the YARC were available. Chapter 3 reports these results.

2.9 Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the methodology that was used in the Read-
ing Success project to (1) understand teacher perspectives around the teaching of
reading, (2) identify students who show challenges in their reading accuracy and/or
comprehension skills, and (3) evaluate student reading self-concept and motivation.
It explained how the Simple View of Reading drives the reading assessment process
and provided details of the theoretically based assessments that were used, includ-
ing an overview of how to interpret different types of assessment results. Finally,
the importance of ongoing monitoring of student performance was highlighted as
students move from the learning to read to reading to learn phase.

Appendix 1: Pre- and Post-interview Prompt Questions

Pre-interview prompt questions

1. How would you describe your current school?
2. What is the general philosophy at this school?
3. What about the students who attend here?
4. Tell me about the programmes that are in place to support students’ literacy
learning.
5. Can you tell me about the students in the literacy support programmes?
Appendix 1: Pre- and Post-interview Prompt Questions 39

6. What aspects of the school’s philosophy and planning impact on these pro-
grammes?
7. What programmes are currently in place that aim to improve literacy outcomes
for students?
8. What are the current perceptions of the success as well as areas in need of
improvement of these programmes?
9. What future programmes and approaches to improving success in literacy
learning might be considered in your school?
Post-interview prompt questions

1. Firstly, can you tell me how you were involved in the project?
2. What are your thoughts on how the project went?
3. What do you think worked well in this project?
4. What do you think could be improved?
5. Have you noticed any differences in your students? For example, more effective
at reading, need more support?
6. What have you learnt from the project? For example, do you feel your skills
related to the teaching of reading have improved? If so, how? And if not, why?
7. What do you think would help more in relation to the teaching of reading? And
your students’ reading skills?

Appendix 2: Sample of Assessment Tools to Complete

the Speech-to-Print Profile
 40

Spoken language assessments

Test details Age range Country Areas assessed + Type of assessment Comments References
where approx.
normed administration
times
Underlying representations
Clinical Evaluation of 5; 0–21; 11 USA Spoken language; Norm-referenced • Includes Understanding Wiig et al.
Language Australia 30–45 min (core Spoken Paragraphs subtest (2017) (Aus
Fundamentals—5th subtests) • Administered by: version)
Edition (CELF-5) speech-language
pathologists only
Test of Integrated 6; 0–18; 11 USA Spoken (and Norm-referenced • Includes language Nelson et al.
Language and Literacy written language); comprehension subtest (2016)
Skills (TILLS) 90 min • Administered by:
speech-language
pathologists, special
educators, reading
specialists, learning
disability specialists,
neuropsychologists,
educational psychologists,
and other educational
specialists
Peabody Picture 2; 6–90; 0+ USA Vocabulary Norm-referenced • Administered by: allied Dunn (2018)
Vocabulary Test—5th knowledge health or special education
Edition (receptive); professional
(PPVT-5) 10–15 min
(continued)
2 Methodology
(continued)
Spoken language assessments
Test details Age range Country Areas assessed + Type of assessment Comments References
where approx.
normed administration
times
Profile of Oral 4; 0–7; 6 Australia Narrative Local norms: • Administered by educators Westerveld and
Narrative Ability New production and Norm-referenced and speech pathologist Gillon (2010);
(PONA) Zealand comprehension; 15 • For instructions, go to: Westerveld
min www.marleenwesterveld.com et al. (2012)
Westerveld and
Vidler (2016)
Test of Narrative 5; 0–15; 11 USA Narrative Norm-referenced • Not specified Gillam and
Language—2nd production and Pearson (2017)
Edition (TNL-2) comprehension;
15–20 min
Phonological processing
Appendix 2: Sample of Assessment Tools to Complete …

Sutherland YOS 1–4 Australia Identification and Norm-referenced • Administered by: Neilson (2003)
Phonological manipulation of speech-language
Awareness syllables, rhyme, pathologists or education
Test—Revised and phonemes, and specialist
(SPAT-R) includes tests of
non-word reading
and spelling;
15 min
(continued)
41
 42

(continued)
Spoken language assessments
Test details Age range Country Areas assessed + Type of assessment Comments References
where approx.
normed administration
times
Comprehensive Test of 4; 0–24; 11 USA Phonological Norm-referenced • Administered by: schools Wagner et al.
Phonological processing and speech-language (2013)
Processing—2nd Phonological pathologists
Edition (CTOPP-2) memory
Rapid automatic
naming;
40 min
Lindamood Auditory 5; 0–18; 11 USA Ability to perceive Criterion-referenced • Speech-language Lindamood and
Conceptualisation and conceptualise pathologists or occupational Lindamood
Test—Third Edition speech sounds; therapist (2004)
(LAC-3) 20–30 min
The Children’s Test of 4; 0–8; 0 Britain Assesses non-word Norm-referenced • Not specified Gathercole
Non-word Repetition repetition skills et al. (1994)
only; 15 min
TILLS—non-word As above As above Subtest assessing As above As above As above
repetition subtest non-word
repetition; 5–10
min
(continued)
2 Methodology
(continued)
Spoken language assessments
Test details Age range Country Areas assessed + Type of assessment Comments References
where approx.
normed administration
times
Clinically Useful Australia Assesses Informal • Not specified James (2006)
Words multisyllabic word Available from:
repetition skills https://speech-
only; 5 min language-
therapy.com/
index.php?
option=com_
content&view=
article&id=46
The Single-Word Test 4; 0 + Australia Assesses Informal • Not specified Gozzard et al.
of Polysyllables multisyllabic word (2006)
repetition skills
Appendix 2: Sample of Assessment Tools to Complete …

only; 10–15 min

Rapid Automatized 5; 00-18; 11 USA RAN—letters, Norm-referenced • Administered by: Wolf and
Naming and Rapid numbers, colours, psychology, school Denckla (2005)
Alternating Stimulus and objects counselling, occupational
(RAN/RAS) Tests RAS—letters and therapy, speech-language
numbers; letters, pathologists, social work,
numbers, and education, special
colours; education, or related field
5–10 min
43
 44

Written language assessments

Test details Age range Country Areas assessed Type of Comments References
where + approx. assessment
normed administration
times
Rule/concept knowledge
Letter Not Australia Assesses letter Informal No norms available Available
Identification Test specified identification from: https://
knowledge; www.motif.
5–10 min org.au
Letter Sound Test YOS K-3 Australia Assesses Norm-referenced Available
sounding out from: https://
single letters www.motif.
and letter org.au
combinations;
5–10 min
Diagnostic YOS K-3 Australia Assesses Norm-referenced Available
Spelling spelling of from: https://
Test—Sounds sounds using www.motif.
appropriate org.au
letters; 5–10
min
Word level—word recognition
Test of Word 6; 0–24; 11 USA Real words and Norm-referenced • Administered by: allied health or special Torgesen
Reading nonsense words; education professional et al. (2012)
Efficiency—2nd 10 min
Edition Individual
(TOWRE 2)
2 Methodology

(continued)
(continued)
Written language assessments
Test details Age range Country Areas assessed Type of Comments References
where + approx. assessment
normed administration
times
Castles and 6; 0–11; 6 Australia Regular, Norm-referenced Available
Coltheart— 2nd irregular, and from: https://
Edition (CC2) nonsense www.motif.
words; 10 min org.au
Word level—spelling
South Australian 6; 0–15; 0 Australia Assessment of Norm-referenced Administered by: educators Westwood
Spelling Test single word (2005)
(SAST) spelling; 15–
30min
Test of Written 6; 0–18; 0 USA Single word Norm-referenced Allied health or special education Larsen et al.
Spelling—Fifth spelling; professional (2013)
Appendix 2: Sample of Assessment Tools to Complete …

Edition 20 min
Group or
individual
Diagnostic YOS 1–7 Australia Spelling of Norm-referenced Available
Spelling Test for irregular words; from: https://
Irregular Words 10–30 min www.motif.
org.au
Diagnostic YOS 1–7 Australia Non-word Norm-referenced Available
Spelling Test for spelling; 10–30 from: https://
Non-words min www.motif.
org.au
(continued)
45
 46

(continued)
Written language assessments
Test details Age range Country Areas assessed Type of Comments References
where + approx. assessment
normed administration
times
TILLS—non-word As above As above Subtest As above As above As above
spelling test assessing
non-word
spelling; 10
min
Text level
York Assessment 5; 0–12; 0 • UK Accuracy, rate, Norm-referenced • Administered by: Snowling
of Reading for • Australia and school psychologists, et al. (2012)
Comprehension comprehension; speech pathologists,
(YARC) Individual and specialist teachers
10–15 min
Gray Oral 6; 0–23; 11 USA Accuracy, rate, Norm-referenced • Administered by: Wiederholt
Reading Test—5th and allied health or special and Bryant
Edition (GORT) comprehension; education professional (2012)
20–30 min
2 Methodology
References 47

References

Australian Council for Educational Research. (2018). Progressive achievement tests in reading
(PAT-R). Australia: Author.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (n.d.). ICSEA for
principals. Retrieved from https://www.myschool.edu.au/more-information/information-for-
principals-and-teachers/icsea-for-principals/.
Australian Government. (2016). National assessment program-literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN).
Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/.
Barton, G. (2020). Recollage as tool for self-care: Reflecting multimodally on first five years in the
academy through Schwab’s lines of flight. Qualitative Research Journal, 20(1), 49–62. https://
doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-04-2019-0039.
Barton, G., & McKay, L. (2014). Impact report for Nerang state high school: A collaborative,
community initiative. Mt Gravatt: Griffith University.
Barton, G., & McKay, L. (2016a). Adolescent learners and reading: Exploring a collaborative,
community approach. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(2), 162–175.
Barton, G., & McKay, L. (2016b). Conceptualising a literacy education model for junior secondary
students: The spatial and reflective practices of an Australian school. English in Australia, 51(1),
37–45.
Bornholt, L. J. (2002). An analysis of children’s task strategies for a test of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 80–98.
Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children’s inference generation: What
do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,
189–201.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Cartwright, K. B., Marshall, T. R., & Wray, E. (2016). A longitudinal study of the role of reading
motivation in primary students’ reading comprehension: Implications for a less simple view of
reading. Reading Psychology, 37(1), 55–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2014.991481.
Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Larsen, L., Jones, P., Saunders, S., & McArthur, G. M. (2009). Assessing
the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms
(CC2). Retrieved from www.motif.org.au.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts:
An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.87.
1.154.
Colenbrander, D., Nickels, L., & Kohnen, S. (2016). Similar but different: differences in compre-
hension diagnosis on the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability and the York Assessment of Reading
for Comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12075.
Cunningham, A., & Carroll, J. (2011). Age and schooling effects on early literacy and phoneme
awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(2), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jecp.2010.12.005.
Dunn, D. M. (2018). Peabody picture vocabulary test (5th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson
Assessments.
Gathercole, S., Willis, C., Baddeley, A., & Emslie, H. (1994). The children’s test of nonword
repetition: A test of phonological working memory. Memory, 2, 103–127.
Gillam, R., & Pearson, N. (2017). Test of narrative language (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Gozzard, H., Baker, E., & McCabe, P. (2006). Children’s productions of polysyllabic words.
ACQuiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing, 8(3), 113–116.
Heilmann, J., & Malone, T. O. (2014). The rules of the game: Properties of a database of expository
language samples. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 277–290.
James, D. G. H. (2006). Hippopotamus is so hard to say: Children’s acquisition of polysyllabic
words (Doctoral thesis). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney.
48 2 Methodology

Katzir, T., Lesaux, N. K., & Kim, Y.-S. (2009). The role of reading self-concept and home literacy
practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(3), 261–276. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9112-8.
Keenan, J. M., & Betjemann, R. S. (2006). Comprehending the Gray oral reading test without
reading it: Why comprehension tests should not include passage-independent items. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 10(4), 363–380.
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in
the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300.
Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to
enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228–237.
Larsen, S., Hammill, D., & Moats, L. (2013). Test of written spelling (5th ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Larsen, L., Kohnen, S., Nickels, L., & McArthur, G. (2015). The Letter-Sound Test (LeST): a
reliable and valid comprehensive measure of grapheme–phoneme knowledge. Australian Journal
of Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2015.1037323.
Leitch, S. (2006). Prosperity for all in the global economy: World class skills. Final report of the
Leitch review of skills. London: The Stationery Office.
Liamputtong, P., & Rumbold, J. (2008). Knowing differently: Arts-based and collaborative research
methods. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Lindamood, P. C., & Lindamood, P. (2004). Lindamood auditory conceptualization test-third
edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
McNiff, S. (2008). Art-based research. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts
in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues (pp. 29–40). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current
measures of reading skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–370.
Neale, M. D. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability (3rd ed.). Melbourne, VIC: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Neilson, R. (2003). Sutherland phonological awareness test—revised (SPAT-R) Revised. Jamberoo,
NSW: Author.
Nelson, N. W., Plante, E., Helm-Estabrooks, N., & Hotz, G. (2016). Test of integrated language
and literacy skills (TILLS). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Parkin, C., & Parkin, C. (2011). PROBE 2: Reading comprehension assessment. Wellington, NZ:
Triune Initiatives.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—
fourth edition—Australian (Standardised ed.). Marrickville: Harcourt Assessment.
Smith, A., Nelley, E., & Croft, D. (2009). PM Benchmark reading assessment resources (AU/NZ).
Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., &
Hulme, C. (2012). York assessment of reading for comprehension (YARC), (Australian ed.).
London: GL Assessment.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency (2nd ed.).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2013). The comprehensive test of phonological
processing—second edition (CTOPP-2). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Westerveld, M. (2009). Measuring reading comprehension ability in children: Factors influencing
test performance. ACQuiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing, 11(2), 81–84.
Westerveld, M. F., & Gillon, G. T. (2010). Profiling oral narrative ability in young school-aged
children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(3), 178–189. https://doi.org/
10.3109/17549500903194125.
Westerveld, M. F., Gillon, G. T., & Boyd, L. (2012). Evaluating the clinical utility of the profile of
oral narrative ability in 4-year-old children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
14(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2011.632025.
References 49

Westerveld, M. F., & Vidler, K. (2016). Spoken language samples of Australian children in con-
versation, narration and exposition. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(3),
288–298. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2016.1159332.
Westwood, P. (2005). Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment (2nd ed.). Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. (2012). Gray oral reading tests—fifth edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2017). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals
Australian and New Zealand (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Wolf, M., & Denckla, M. B. (2005). RAN/RAS: Rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating
stimulus tests. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Part II
The Reading Success Project (Results)
Chapter 3
Reading Success Results Across the Year
Groups

Rebecca M. Armstrong, Marleen F. Westerveld, and Georgina M. Barton

Abstract This chapter describes the Reading Success results across the year groups
and compares the students’ performance on the York Assessment of Reading for
Comprehension (YARC) with results from school-based reading measures. For stu-
dents in their learning to read phase (Year 1), we also report their Year 2 results.
For students in their reading to learn phase of schooling (Year 4), we only report
their reading results at the end of that school year. All results are described using
our five-step assessment to intervention framework, based on the Simple View of
Reading. We demonstrate how the assessment results can be used to create speech-
to-print profiles for students who can be categorised as demonstrating: (a) specific
word reading difficulties; (b) mixed reading difficulties; (c) specific comprehension
difficulties; and (d) non-specified reading difficulties. Based on these profiles, we
suggest which students may benefit from supplemental intervention (i.e. Tier 2 or
Tier 3).

Keywords Reading assessment · Reading comprehension · Reading rate ·

Reading accuracy

3.1 Learning to Read Cohort Results

As described in Chap. 2, parental consent for their children’s participation in the

project was provided for 93 students attending Year 1. These students were seen in
Term 4 of Year 1. The following sections first provide an overview of the results
obtained through the five-step assessment to intervention process (see Fig. 2.2), with
suggestions for supplemental intervention when indicated.

3.1.1 Step-by-Step Assessment Results—Year One

Step 1: Assess Reading Skills

All Year 1 students were assessed on the York Assessment of Reading for Compre-
hension (YARC; Snowling et al., 2012) in Term 4 of the school year. As a group,
© The Author(s) 2020 53
M. F. Westerveld et al., Reading Success in the Primary Years,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8_3
54 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

these students in the ‘learning to read’ phase of development scored within normal
limits on the three YARC scales (see Table 3.1): reading accuracy (RA), reading rate
(RR), and reading comprehension (RC). It should be noted that reading rate can only
be calculated if students complete levels 1 and 2 of the YARC (as opposed to the
beginner level and level 1).
Step 2: Further Assessment of Students who Scored below Expectations on
RC
As shown in Table 3.1, when applying a standard score cut-off of 85, 26 students
scored below expectations on the RC component of the YARC.
i. We first checked if students’ poor performance in RC could be explained by
their challenges in RA. Only 6 of the 26 students demonstrated poor RA on the
YARC.
ii. The next step was ascertaining the listening comprehension (LC) skills for the 26
students who scored below expectation in their RC ability. One student left the
school between assessment points, and therefore LC data were only available for
25 students. It was found that 8 of these 25 students scored below expectations
on the language comprehension task (Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest
of the CELF-5; Wiig, Semel, & Secord, 2017).
After checking RA and LC skills, there were 16 students who demonstrated RC
difficulties and performed within expectations for both LC and RA. Therefore, these
students were classified as showing non-specified reading difficulties. Of these 16
students, 6 students demonstrated low RR (SS < 85), and 4 students had RR not
calculated.
The flow chart in Fig. 3.1 provides a visual representation of the reading profiles
for all students in Year 1, including the 26 students who performed below expectations
for RC, including their skills in RA and LC.
Step 3: Further Assessment of Word Recognition Skills
Further assessments of the 6 students with poor RA were conducted. These results
showed that 5 of the 6 students with RA scores below expectations also showed ortho-
graphic difficulties on the LeST (Larsen, Kohnen, Nickels, & McArthur, 2015), i.e.

Table 3.1 Student performance on the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (n = 93)
Reading accuracy Reading rate (RR) n Reading
(RA) n = 93 = 80 comprehensiona (RC)
n = 92b
Mean (SD) 101.47 (13.17) 95.27 (13.88) 93.78 (14.10)
Range 70–130 70–122 70–127
n (%) below SS80 4 (4.3%) 10 (10.8%) 14 (15.1%)
n (%) below SS85 8 (8.6%) 22 (23.7%) 26 (28%)
=
a There was no significant difference between reading comprehension scores based on gender (p

0.599) or E/ALD (p = 0.452) when applying SS85 cut-off.; b 1 student had poor RA on beginner
level that meant RC was not able to be administered and therefore missing data
3.1 Learning to Read Cohort Results 55

Fig. 3.1 Results from Steps 1 and 2 from the assessment to intervention process. One student had
left the school by step 2

z-score < −1.0. Only 2 of the 6 students performed below expectations for phono-
logical awareness (score below the 25th percentile) on the Sutherland Phonolog-
ical Awareness Test—Revised (SPAT-R: Neilson, 2003). The single word reading
assessment (CC-2; Castles, Coltheart, Larsen, Jones, Saunders, & McArthur 2009)
showed strengths and difficulties across the 6 students, but all students performed
below expectations on at least one word type (i.e. regular, irregular, and/or nonsense
words).

Step 4: Creating Speech-to-Print Profiles (n = 26)

The assessment results for the 26 students who performed below expectations for
RC were compiled to provide an overall picture of their strengths and weaknesses in
the different domains assessed. The reading results for each reading profile for these
26 students are described below and shown in Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.
Specific Word Reading Difficulties Only 1 student (S303) presented with a spe-
cific word reading difficulties (SWRD) profile. As shown in Table 3.2, this student
showed difficulties in RA at both the text level and single word level. However, the stu-
dent’s RA difficulties did not seem to arise as a result of weaknesses in orthographic
knowledge or PA skills.
Mixed Reading Difficulties Table 3.3 outlines the assessment results for the five
students with mixed reading difficulties profiles at the end of Year 1. As shown, these
students had difficulties with both RA and LC. Based on further assessment of their
reading skills, it was also found that all 5 students demonstrated difficulties in single
word reading, as well as orthographic knowledge. Only 2 (S40 and S17) of the 5
students showed difficulties with phonological awareness.
Given the challenges across WR and LC, we recommend that students with this
type of profile receive supplemental intervention at a Tier 2 (or Tier 3) level of
 56

Table 3.2 Assessment results for students with a specific word reading difficulties (SWRD) profile in Year 1
Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS LC SS Single word reading Orthographic knowledgea PA
REGa IRa NWa
S303 F N 83 81 NC 10 −1.16 −1.37 −0.36 0.95 WNL
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; RC SS reading comprehension standard score; RA SS reading accuracy standard score; RR SS reading
rate standard score; LC SS language comprehension scaled score; PA phonological awareness; REG regular words; IR irregular words; NW nonsense words;
NC not calculated/completed; WNL within normal limits; a z-scores reported
3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups
Table 3.3 Assessment results for students with a mixed reading difficulties profile in Year 1
Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS LC SS Single word reading OKa PA
3.1 Learning to Read Cohort Results

REGa IRa NWa

S190 M N 70 79 70 4 −0.47 −1.26 −0.14 −1.2 WNL
S26 F Y < 70 76 NC 6 −1.52 −2.03 −1.46 −1.2 WNL
S40 F Y < 70 74 NC 6 −1.16 −1.65 −0.27 −2.41 BNL
S38 M N < 70 84 NC 4 −1.22 −0.73 −1.03 −1.04 WNL
S17 M N < 70 83 NC 4 −1.59 −1.37 −1.65 −1.75 BNL
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; RC SS reading comprehension standard score; RA SS reading accuracy standard score; RR SS reading
rate standard score; LC SS language comprehension scaled score; OK orthographic knowledge; PA phonological awareness; REG regular words; IR irregular
words; NW nonsense words; NC not calculated/completed; WNL within normal limits; BNL below normal limits; a z-scores reported
57
58 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

Table 3.4 Assessment results for students with a specific comprehension difficulties (SCD) profile
in Year 1
Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS LC SS
S93 M N < 70 88 NC 6
S95 M N 75 86 75 6
SS0 M Y 80 86 81 5
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; RC SS reading comprehension standard
score; RA SS reading accuracy standard score; RR SS reading rate standard score; LC SS language
comprehension scaled score; NC not calculated/completed

support, targeting both WR and LC skills based on their end-of-Year 1 performance.

With improved WR, these students would still be at risk of specific comprehension
difficulties (considering their poor performance in LC), and continued monitoring
should be in place.
Specific Comprehension Difficulties Table 3.4 shows the assessment results for
students identified with SCD. Because these students demonstrated adequate perfor-
mance in RA at the text level (based on the YARC), no further testing of single word
reading, orthographic knowledge, or PA was conducted. As shown in Table 3.4, the
students with SCD profiles at the end of Year 1 showed specific difficulties in lan-
guage comprehension, suggesting they would benefit from supplemental intervention
targeting their LC and RC skills.
Non-specified Reading Difficulties Table 3.5 shows the results for students who
could not be categorised into one of the three reading profiles described above.
As shown in Table 3.5, 11 of these 16 students with NS reading difficulties profiles
demonstrated challenges with RR (either SS < 85 or unable to be calculated). For these
students, ongoing monitoring is suggested, and further testing may be required. For
example, difficulties in RR could be indicative of phonological retrieval difficulties
and these students may thus require further assessment in this area. However, there are
other possible explanations for the poor RC performance of some of these students,
resulting in a non-specified reading difficulties profile without clear challenges in
WR or LC. We have listed possible reasons in the final column of Table 3.5 (see also
Chap. 1 for more detail).
Poor Comprehension Monitoring To adequately respond to the questions fol-
lowing the reading of a passage, students need to monitor their comprehension while
reading. One example is participant S16 who showed excellent reading accuracy
(SS 117) as well as a very fast reading rate (SS 113). This rapid rate may have
hindered this student’s ability to monitor her comprehension; when administering a
language comprehension task, S16 scored well within normal limits (SS10 on the
Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest of the CELF-5).
Limited Capacity Working Memory Model (Crystal, 1987) Another consideration
for the NS profiles is that these students are still in the ‘learning to read’ phase of
development, which means that more cognitive resources are needed for decoding,
with fewer cognitive resources available for RC, particularly for students whose
reading rate is poor. These results suggest that ongoing monitoring for students
3.1 Learning to Read Cohort Results 59

Table 3.5 Assessment results for Year 1 students with a non-specified reading difficulties profile
Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS OKa LC SS Possible reasons
for low RC
S27 M Y 82 100 101 8 Comprehension
monitoring
S48 F N 80 107 98 8 Comprehension
monitoring
S308 M N 80 97 93 10 Comprehension
monitoring
S92 F N 74 107 87 8 Comprehension
monitoring
S31 M Y 84 90 87 9 Comprehension
monitoring
S16 F N < 70 118 113 10 Comprehension
monitoring
S22 M Y 74 94 80 10 Poor reading
fluency
S23 F Y < 70 90 NC 11 Poor reading
fluency
S71 M Y 80 100 80 10 Poor reading
fluency
S49 F N < 70 86 NC −1.8 8 Poor reading
fluency—poor
single word
reading (regular)
S45 M N 83 88 NC −2.0 10 Poor reading
fluency—poor
single word
reading
S37 F N 83 85 NC −1.4 9 Poor reading
fluency—poor
single word
reading (regular
and nonsense
words)
S75 M N 74 87 80 −1.0 7 Poor reading
fluency—poor
single word
reading (and
language
borderline)
S30 F N 72 89 77 12 Poor reading
fluency—single
word reading
WNL
(continued)
60 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

Table 3.5 (continued)

Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS OKa LC SS Possible reasons
for low RC
S79 F N 84 88 75 10 Poor reading
fluency—single
word reading
WNL
S98 F N 84 86 75 8 Poor reading
fluency—single
word reading
WNL
S29 M Y 83 88 NC NA
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; RC SS reading comprehension standard
score; RA SS reading accuracy standard score; RR SS reading rate standard score; OK orthographic
knowledge; LC SS language comprehension scaled score; NC not calculated/completed; WNL
within normal limits; NA not available. a z-scores reported

with NS profiles may be required, and further assessment should be conducted if

difficulties in any reading domains persist.

3.1.2 Considerations When Changing Assessment

Cut-off to SS80

When conducting standardised assessments with normative data, it is important to

consider changes to reading profiles when different cut-offs are used to determine
reading performance. The decisions described in the previous sections were based on
employing a 1SD cut-off to indicate reading performance that was ‘below expecta-
tions’. As a result, we identified just over 28% of students needing follow-up assess-
ment at the end of Year 1. However, according to the YARC manual, SS < 80 is used
to indicate performance that is within the ‘severe’ range. If we had applied this SS80
cut-off in the Reading Success project, we would have identified 14 students with
RC skills that were below expectations (i.e. 15%; see Table 3.1). Following the same
assessment steps as described above and using a more stringent cut-off of SS < 80,
we would have identified the following reading profiles: mixed reading difficulties
profile: n = 3; specific word reading difficulties: n = 0; specific comprehension
difficulties: n = 4; and non-specified: n = 7. It is important that the school team
uses a collaborative approach in determining what cut-off will be applied to indicate
reading performance and understands the potential implications. In this case, using
a cut-off of SS80 may have been acceptable, although our research design does not
allow us to draw definitive conclusions. Regardless, it is important to consider other
available data, such as how the student is functioning in the classroom context to
guide the interpretation of assessment results and help inform the intervention plan
for each student.
3.1 Learning to Read Cohort Results 61

3.1.3 Summary—Year One Experimental Test Results

The results for the ‘learning to read’ cohort show that when using the YARC as a
standardised test of reading performance, using SS85 as a cut-off, approximately 28%
of students were considered at risk, based on their RC performance in the learning to
read phase of development. Using our step-by-step approach based on the SVR as a
framework, four different reading profiles were identified at the end of Year 1. The
students’ performance on the YARC assessment was compared with the results from
school-based reading measures (i.e. PM Benchmark Reading Assessments). We will
discuss these results in the following section.

3.2 School-Based Versus Experimental Test

Results—Learning to Read Cohort

During the early school years, the school used the PM Benchmark Reading Assess-
ments (Smith, Nelly, & Croft, 2009; see Chap. 2). Based on this individually admin-
istered test, students were categorised as average or below average (using level 16
as the benchmark for satisfactory performance). In this section, we compare the stu-
dents’ performances on the assessments administered as part of the Reading Success
project with the results from the PM Benchmark, a school-based reading measure.

3.2.1 Year 1: YARC RC Versus PM Benchmark

We found a significant moderate to strong correlation between student performance

on the PM Benchmark (level) and their performance on the YARC RC (SS), r =
0.68 (p < 0.001). Table 3.6 shows the results comparing the students’ performance
on the YARC RC subtest (applying SS85 cut-off) and the PM Benchmark. As shown
in Table 3.6, 75/92 students were correctly identified as performing within or below
expectations (81.5%). However, 17/92 students were misidentified (18.5%); i.e. the
results from one test did not match the results from the other test. These results are

Table 3.6 Year 1 students

PM Benchmark
identified with reading
difficulties on the RC Average Below average
component of the YARC YARC RC WNL 62 (67%) 4 (5%)
versus the PM Benchmark
Below 13 (14%) 13 (14%)
expectations
Note PM PM Benchmark Reading Assessments; YARC RC
York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension, Reading
Comprehension; WNL within normal limits
62 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

Table 3.7 Reading data of the 13 Year 1 students who passed PM Benchmark but who performed
below expectations on the YARC RC subtest
Code Gender E/ALD PM RC SS RR SS RA SS USP Reading profile
S30 F N 21 72 77 89 12 NS
S37 F N 16 83 NC 85 9 NS
S31 M Y 21 84 87 90 9 NS
S48 F Y 21 80 98 107 8 NS
S27 M Y 24 82 101 100 8 NS
S22 M Y 16 74 80 94 10 NS
S16 F N 24 < 70 113 118 10 NS
S308 M N 24 80 93 97 10 NS
S92 F N 18 74 87 107 8 NS
S71 M Y 17 80 80 100 10 NS
S29 M Y 16 83 NC 88 NA NA
S38 M N 21 < 70 NC 84 4 Mixed
S20 M Y 19 80 81 86 5 SCD
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; PM PM Benchmark Reading Assessment
in level of achievement; SS standard score with 85–115 indicating performance within age
expectations; USP Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest of the CELF-5; NS non-specified;
NC not calculated; NA not available; SCD specific comprehension difficulties

discussed further below. It is important to note, however, that the PM level is based
on a child’s performance across decoding and comprehension skills, whereas the
YARC reports a student’s skills separately across these two domains. Thus, while
the following compares these assessments in terms of identification of children at risk
of reading difficulties, the differences across the assessments must be acknowledged
and considered when interpreting these comparisons.
Table 3.7 outlines the assessment data for the 13 students who performed within
average expectations for their year level on the PM Benchmark, but failed to meet
expectations on the YARC RC component. As shown, 10 of these 13 students had
profiles consistent with ‘non-specified’ reading difficulties at the end of Year 1.
As shown in Table 3.6, a further 4 students showed average RC skills on the YARC
at the end of Year 1 but failed to meet the benchmark for PM. These students’ results
are shown in Table 3.8.

3.2.2 Year 1: YARC RA Versus PM Benchmark

Next, we compared performance on the RA component of the YARC with PM Bench-

mark performance. We found a strong correlation between student performance on
3.2 School-Based Versus Experimental Test Results—Learning … 63

Table 3.8 Reading data of four Year 1 students who performed below expectations for PM
Benchmark but who performed within normal limits on the YARC RC subtest
Code Gender E/ALD PM RC SS RR SS RA SS Reading profile
S9 M N 15 98 76 99 Typical
S87 M Y 11 104 83 92 Typical
S299 M N 14 86 87 89 Typical
S32 M N 9 93 NC 81 Typical
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; PM PM Benchmark Reading Assessment
in level of achievement; RC reading comprehension; SS standard score with 85–115 indicating
performance within age expectations; RR reading rate; RA reading accuracy; NC not calculated

Table 3.9 Year 1 students

PM Benchmark
identified with reading
difficulties on the RA Average Below average
component of the YARC YARC RA WNL 74 (79%) 11 (12%)
versus the PM Benchmark
Below 1 (1%) 7 (8%)
expectations
Note PM PM Benchmark Reading Assessments; YARC RA York
Assessment for Reading Comprehension Reading Accuracy; WNL
within normal limits

the PM Benchmark (level) and their performance on the YARC RA (SS), r = 0.81
(p < 0.001). The results from this comparison are shown in Table 3.9.
As shown in Table 3.9, 81 students met expectations on both assessments (87%).
However, 12 students (13%) only met expectations on one of the tests. Only one stu-
dent performed well on the PM Benchmark (level 21) but did not reach expectations
in RA on the YARC (S38; see Table 3.7). This student showed a mixed reading dif-
ficulties profile. The breakdown of assessment results for the remaining 11 students
who performed below expectations on the PM Benchmark but showed satisfactory
performance in RA on the YARC is shown in Table 3.10. The three students with
‘typical’ Year 1 reading profiles based on the YARC RA (S9, S87, S299) in the table
below are also included in Table 3.8 when investigating which students performed
WNL on the YARC RC, but below expectations on the PM Benchmark.

3.2.3 Summary Year 1 YARC Versus PM Benchmark Results

Performance on the PM Benchmark was significantly correlated with student per-

formance on the YARC RA (r = 0.81) and YARC RC (r = 0.68). Furthermore,
use of the PM Benchmark resulted in correct classification of 81% of students who
performed poorly in RC on the YARC. However, using the PM Benchmark does not
differentiate between students’ reading profiles and may miss some students who
64 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

Table 3.10 Reading data of 11 Year 1 students who performed below expectations on the PM
Benchmark, but within expectations for RA on the YARC
Code Gender E/ALD PM RC SS RR SS RA SS Reading profile
S9 M N 15 98 76 99 Typical
S87 M Y 11 104 83 92 Typical
S299 M N 14 86 87 89 Typical
S93 M N 7 70 NC 88 SCD
S95 F N 12 75 75 86 SCD
S79 F N 10 84 75 88 NS
S45 M N 14 83 NC 88 NS
S98 F N 15 84 75 86 NS
S75 M N 13 74 80 87 NS
S49 F N 7 70 NC 86 NS
S23 F Y 11 70 NC 90 NS
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect. PM PM Benchmark Reading Assessment
in level of achievement. RC reading comprehension; SS standard score with 85–115 indicating
performance within age expectations; RR reading rate; RA reading accuracy; NC not calculated;
SCD specific comprehension difficulties; NS non-specified

show reading comprehension difficulties. Thus, if the PM Benchmark is being used

within schools to assess reading performance, we recommend other available data
(e.g. based on classroom performance) are also considered by school teams to sup-
plement the PM Benchmark results and ensure students with reading comprehension
difficulties are being correctly identified in the early years.

3.3 Follow-up Results One Year Later—Year Two

All students were closely monitored during Year 2 with some students obtain-
ing supplemental intervention targeting their areas of difficulties (i.e. WR, LC, or
both, depending on their reading profiles). Most of the students were reassessed for
monitoring purposes in Term 4 of Year 2, and these results are discussed below.
A total of 70 students (75% of the original cohort of 93) were available (with
parental consent) for follow-up assessments one year later (Year 2). Four students
had left the school, and parent/caregiver consent forms were not returned for 19
students. Of these 19 students, five had been ‘flagged’ as at risk, based on their
performance in RC (see Fig. 3.1). The results of the Year 2 YARC performances are
displayed in Table 3.11.
When investigating these students’ performance on the YARC in Year 1, the
following results were found:
3.3 Follow-up Results One Year Later—Year Two 65

Table 3.11 Student performance on the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (n = 70)
in Year Two
Reading accuracy n = Reading rate n = 68 Reading
70 comprehension n = 70
Mean (SD) 100.99 (12.2) 100.68 (14.1) 99.86 (13.1)
Range 75–130 70–124 73–130
n (%) below SS85 4 (5.7%) 10 (14.7%) 6 (8.6%)

• Of the 4 students (S40, S49, S17, and S45) who scored below SS85 in RA in
Year 2, two students showed challenges in RA in Year 1 (S40 and S17), and all
four had shown difficulties with reading rate as well as significant difficulties in
orthographic knowledge (z-scores < −2.0).
• Of the 10 students who scored below SS85 in RR in Year 2, all 10 students had
also shown challenges in RR in Year 1.
• Of the 6 students (S40, S23, S303, S82, S49, and S17) who scored below SS85
in RC in Year 2, five students showed challenges in RC in Year 1 (SS < 85) and
3 students showed challenges in RA in Year 1. All students except S82 had been
flagged ‘of concern’ in Year 1. Unfortunately, no further assessment results are
available for S82, as this student was away when we conducted our follow-up
testing.

3.4 Overall Summary—Learning to Read Cohort

Using our five-step assessment to intervention framework, 28% of students at the end
of Year 1 were identified as having reading difficulties. Using the SVR as a guide,
four different reading profiles emerged. When comparing these results with school-
based reading measures reasonably high correlations between the PM Benchmark
data and student performance on the YARC RC and/or YARC RA were found with
more than 80% agreement in classification of average versus below average readers
on both assessments. Based on these results, the PM Benchmark may be a suitable
reading assessment during the early years of schooling, although we recommend
using a higher cut-off for the PM Benchmark and monitoring those students who end
up on level 16 or 17, particularly for reading fluency. For example, teachers may
administer the Test of Word Reading Efficiency 2nd Edition (TOWRE-2; Torgesen,
Wagner, & Rashotte, 2012), which assesses a student’s fluency in sight word reading
and phonetic decoding skills and takes only 5 min.
When the students were reassessed one year later, many students showed a marked
improvement. It was promising to see that at the end of Year 2 (third year of school-
ing), only 3 students showed significant reading difficulties; two of these students
demonstrated a mixed reading difficulties profile (S40 and S17) and one (S49) showed
66 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

specific word recognition difficulties. These students require focused, more inten-
sive support for WR. Further support is also indicated for all students who continued
to struggle in reading comprehension. Chapter 5 provides examples of interventions
that specifically target the language comprehension skills needed for successful read-
ing comprehension. Finally, the importance of fluent decoding (as measured through
RR) should not be underestimated. Fluency in word recognition is needed to obtain
automaticity in reading skills to allow students to move from their learning to read
to reading to learn stage of schooling.

3.5 Reading to Learn Cohort Results

The five-step assessment to intervention process was also applied to students in

Year 4 (i.e. reading to learn phase of development). Parental consent for their chil-
dren’s participation in the project was provided for 78 students attending Year 4;
77 students were available for testing in Term 4 of Year 4. The following sections
provide an overview of the results from the five-step assessment to intervention pro-
cess, with suggestions for supplemental intervention when indicated. Finally, the
students’ reading performance on the YARC is compared to their results obtained
from school-based reading measures.

3.5.1 Step-by-Step Assessment Results—Year Four

Step 1: Assess Reading Skills

As a group, the students in the reading to learn phase of development (i.e. Year
4 cohort) scored within normal limits on the three YARC scales. These results are
shown in Table 3.12.

Table 3.12 Year 4 student performance on the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (n
= 77)
Reading accuracy n = Reading rate n = 76 Reading
77 comprehensiona n =
77
Mean (SD) 91.97 (12.73) 88.18 (11.77) 88.26 (11.82)
Range 70–117 70–111 70–122
n (%) below SS80 15 (19.5%) 18 (23.7%) 23 (29.9%)
n (%) below SS85 23 (29.9%) 29 (38.2%) 33 (42.9%)
a There was no significant difference between reading comprehension scores based on gender (χ2 (1)

= 0.070, p = 0.792) or E/ALD (χ2 (1) = 0.210, p = 0.647) using SS85 as cut-off
3.5 Reading to Learn Cohort Results 67

Step 2: Further Assessment of Students who Scored Below Expectations on

RC
As shown in Table 3.12, 33 students scored below expectations on the RC component
of the YARC.

i. We first checked if students’ poor performance in RC could be explained by their

challenges in RA; 18 of the 33 students (54%) with poor RC demonstrated poor
RA on the YARC.
ii. The next step was ascertaining the LC skills for the 33 students who scored below
expectation in their RC. Only 32 of these 33 students were available for LC
testing. It was found that 13 of the 32 students (41%) scored below expectations
on the language comprehension task (Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest
of the CELF-4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2006).

After checking RA and LC skills, there were 9 students who demonstrated RC

difficulties but performed within expectations for both LC and RA. Therefore,
these students were classified as showing non-specified reading difficulties. Four
of these students demonstrated low RR (SS < 85) on the YARC.
The flow chart in Fig. 3.2 provides a visual representation of the reading profiles
for the 33 students who performed below expectations on RC, including their skills
in WR and LC, and shows the reading profiles based on these assessment results.

Step 3: Further Assessment of Word Recognition Skills

Further assessments of single word reading were conducted with the 18 students with
poor RA on the YARC. Of these 18 students with RA scores below expectations, a
total of 17 showed difficulties in single word reading on the CC-2 across at least one

Fig. 3.2 Results from Steps 1 and 2 from the assessment to intervention process. One student was
unavailable for testing at step 2
68 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

word type. Of interest, participant S09 performed below expectations in RA at the

text level but demonstrated age-appropriate decoding skills across all single word
types.

Step 4: Creating Speech-to-Print Profiles (n = 33)

The assessment results for the 33 students who performed below expectations for
RC were compiled to provide an overall picture of their strengths and weaknesses in
the different domains assessed. The reading results for these 33 students are shown
in Tables 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, and 3.16.
Specific Word Reading Difficulties Ten students presented with a SWRD profile.
As shown in Table 3.13, all students demonstrated weaknesses in RA at both the text
level and single word level. Seven of these students also had underlying orthographic
knowledge difficulties.
Mixed Reading Difficulties Table 3.14 outlines the assessment results for the
seven students with MRD profiles. As shown, these students demonstrated difficulties
with both RA and LC. Through further assessment of their reading skills, it was also
shown that all students, except one, demonstrated difficulties in single word reading.
These students should be considered for supplemental intervention at a Tier 2 or Tier
3 level of support, targeting both WR and LC skills.
Specific Comprehension Difficulties Table 3.15 presents the reading results for
students identified with a specific comprehension difficulties profile. These students
showed difficulties in comprehension, regardless of the modality (spoken or written).
Non-specified Reading Difficulties Finally, there were 9 students who performed
poorly in RC, but showed adequate performance in RA (on the YARC) and on a
language comprehension measure. The results are shown in Table 3.16. As previously
described in Chap. 1, reasons for poor performance in RC could include difficulties
in comprehension monitoring and working memory capacity (e.g. the students who
showed difficulty with RR and/or single word reading, including S37, S23, and S41).

3.5.2 Summary—Year 4 Experimental Test Results

In drawing together the findings from assessment for the ‘reading to learn’ cohort, it
was evident that approximately 43% of these Year 4 students (n = 33) demonstrated
RC skills below expectations (applying SS85 cut-off). Using our step-by-step assess-
ment process, based on the SVR as a framework, four different reading profiles were
identified, with 7 students showing MRD, 6 showing SCD, 10 showing SWRD, and
9 students demonstrating a non-specified reading deficit. Our assessment battery
seemed effective in helping us identify these different reading profiles. Using a lan-
guage comprehension task allowed us to differentiate between students with dyslexia
(who showed poor reading comprehension due to their challenges in word recogni-
tion) and those whose difficulties in language comprehension contributed to their low
scores in reading comprehension. Further assessment of students who demonstrated
Table 3.13 Assessment results for students with specific word reading difficulties (SWRD) profiles in Year 4
Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS LC SS Single word reading Orthographic knowledgea
REGa IRa NWa
S26b M Y 71 81 80 8 −1.53 −0.56 −2.35 −1.90
S46 M Y 73 70 70 12 −2.48 −2.12 −2.62 −2.32
3.5 Reading to Learn Cohort Results

S51 F N 75 78 70 7 −1.53 −0.76 −1.13 −1.51

S39 F N 77 70 70 10 −2.29 −1.72 −1.57 −0.79
S59 M Y 77 <70 75 7 −1.45 −1.37 −2.51 NC
S11b F N 77 83 80 11 −1.19 −1.35 −2.27 −0.68
S62 M N 79 71 <70 7 −2.39 −1.37 −3.09 −2.34
S33b F N 79 74 <70 11 −1.96 −0.83 −2.83 −2.13
S43 M N 81 83 82 11 −1.30 −0.91 −2.10 −1.80
S36b F N 83 78 80 10 −2.17 −0.91 −2.19 −1.13
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; RC SS reading comprehension standard score; RA SS reading accuracy standard score; RR SS reading
rate standard score; LC SS language comprehension scaled score; REG regular words; IR irregular words; NW nonsense words; NC not completed; WNL
within normal limits; N/A not available; a z-scores reported; b indicates these students received intervention as described in Chap. 5
69
 70

Table 3.14 Assessment results for students with mixed reading difficulties profiles in Year 4
Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS LC SS Single word reading
REGa IRa NWa
S67 M N <70 <70 NC 3 −2.97 −3.09 −3.09
S66 F N <70 <70 <70 2 −2.30 −2.03 −3.09
S02 F N <70 71 <70 5 −2.31 −1.37 −2.42
S09 M Y 70 83 99 3 0.12 −0.81 .33
S07 F Y 73 77 <70 5 −1.85 −1.09 −2.10
S05 F Y 77 71 85 3 −1.72 −0.76 −1.62
S61 F N 84 83 80 6 −1.81 −1.25 −1.48
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; RC SS reading comprehension standard score; RA SS reading accuracy standard score; RR SS reading
rate standard score; LC SS language comprehension scaled score; REG regular words; IR irregular words; NW nonsense words; NC not calculated/completed;
a z-score values reported
3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups
Table 3.15 Assessment results for students with specific comprehension difficulties (SCD) reading profiles in Year 4
Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS LC SS Single word reading
REGa IRa NWa
3.5 Reading to Learn Cohort Results

S68b M N 75 93 88 5 −0.22 −01.45 −0.87

S49b F N 75 93 90 6 −0.73 0.62 0.19
S74b M Y 83 95 77 3 −0.79 −1.35 −0.44
S56b M N 83 97 93 6 NC NC NC
S48b M N 83 85 94 5 −0.14 −0.21 −0.51
S31b M N 84 97 87 6 −0.73 −0.76 −0.13
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; RC SS reading comprehension standard score; RA SS reading accuracy standard score; RR SS reading
rate standard score; LC SS language comprehension scaled score; NC not completed; a z-scores reported; b students participated in an intervention described in
Chap. 5
71
 72

Table 3.16 Assessment results for students with non-specified reading profiles in Year 4
Code Gender E/ALD RC SS RA SS RR SS LC SS Single word reading
REGa IRa NWa
S37 M N 81 85 75 10 −0.41 −1.77 −0.11
S71 F N 77 97 93 8 NC NC NC
S60 F Y 79 103 95 8 −0.73 −0.76 −0.38
S50 F N 79 89 93 9 −0.73 0.41 −1.30
S17 F N 73 91 77 10 −0.41 −0.21 −0.83
S57 M Y 79 89 97 10 −0.14 −0.83 2.34
S23 M N 73 91 82 11 −0.73 −1.09 −1.04
S65 F N 84 95 87 8 NC NC NC
S41 M N 79 93 82 12 −0.35 −1.09 −1.14
Note E/ALD English as an additional language or dialect; RC SS reading comprehension standard score; RA SS reading accuracy standard score; RR SS reading
rate standard score; LC SS language comprehension scaled score; REG regular words; IR irregular words; NW non-words; NC not completed; a z-scores
reported
3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups
3.5 Reading to Learn Cohort Results 73

poor performance in word recognition at text level (i.e. SWRD and MRD profiles)
showed that all but one of these students demonstrated weaknesses in single word
reading (non-word reading and regular word reading) using the CC-2; 70% of the
students with SWRD showed significant difficulties with orthographic knowledge.
Students’ speech-to-print profiles may now be used to identify which skills should be
targeted in intervention, whether it is at Tier 2 or Tier 3 within an RtI framework. A
description of the interventions provided based on these reading profiles is described
in detail in Chap. 5.

3.6 School-Based Versus Experimental Test

Results—Reading to Learn Cohort

The students’ performance on the YARC subtests was then compared to the data
obtained as part of the school-based reading assessments. As described in Chap. 2,
the PAT-R (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2018) was routinely used
at the school to assess the reading skills of the Year 4 students. Data from 64 students
were available.

3.6.1 Year 4: YARC Versus PAT-R

We compared students’ performance on the PAT-R to their performance on the YARC

RC and YARC RA subtests. Students were considered to score average on the PAT-R
if their scaled score was ≥ 3; for the YARC subtests, we chose a cut-off of SS ≥ 85.
We found significant, moderate correlations between performances on the PAT-R
and the YARC RC (r = 0.481, p < 0.001) and between performances on the PAT-
R and the YARC RA (r = 0.487, p < 0.001). Table 3.17 shows the results when
cross-tabulating the students’ scores.

Table 3.17 Year 4 (n = 64) students identified with reading difficulties on the RC component of
the YARC versus the PAT-R
PAT-R
Average Below average
YARC RC WNL 31 4

Below expectations 12 17

Note PAT-R Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading; YARC RC York Assessment for Reading
Comprehension Reading Comprehension; WNL within normal limits. Shading represents the
students shown in Table 3.18
74 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

Based on these comparisons, 48 students (75%) were identified as either average

or below average on both tests. However, performance on the two tests did not align
for 16 students. Their results are shown in Table 3.18.
When comparing student performance on the YARC RA to their performance on
the PAT-R, similar results were found (see Table 3.19). Based on these comparisons,
44 students (68%) were identified as either average or below average on both tests.
However, performance on the two tests did not align for 20 students. Nine of the 20
students are included in Table 3.18; 4 students showed low reading accuracy on the
YARC; 7 students showed poor reading comprehension.

Table 3.18 Performance of the 12 students who passed the PAT-R but performed below expectations
on the YARC RC (shaded), as well as the 4 students who failed the PAT-R but performed WNL on
the YARC RC
Code Gender E/ALD PAT-R RC SS RA SS RR SS Reading profile

S07 F Y 4 73 77 70 Mixed
S11 F N 5 77 83 80 SWRD
S26 M Y 4 71 81 80 SWRD
S33 F N 4 79 74 70 SWRD
S36 F N 4 83 78 80 SWRD
S40 F N 5 83 72 77 NC
S48 M N 6 83 85 94 SCD
S49 F N 5 75 93 90 SCD
S50 F N 4 79 89 93 NS
S56 M N 5 83 97 93 SCD
S60 F Y 7 79 103 95 NS
S65 F N 4 84 95 87 NS
S04 F N 2 85 91 71 Typical –low RR
S22 F N 2 102 83 76 Typical – low
RA/RR
S34 M N 2 94 87 71 Typical – low RR
S69 F N 2 90 101 94 Typical

Note Standard scores reported for the YARC; scaled scores reported for the PAT-R; PAT-R
Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading; RC reading comprehension; RA reading accuracy;
RR reading rate; Mixed mixed reading difficulties; SWRD specific word reading difficulties; NC
non conclusive; SCD specific comprehension difficulties; NS non-specific reading difficulties

Table 3.19 Year 4 (n = 64)

PAT-R
students identified with
reading difficulties on the RA Average Below average
component of the YARC YARC RA WNL 33 10
versus the PAT-R
Below 10 11
expectations
Note PAT-R Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading; YARC
RC YorkAssessment for Reading Comprehension Reading
Comprehension; WNL within normal limits
3.7 Overall Summary—Reading to Learn Cohort 75

3.7 Overall Summary—Reading to Learn Cohort

Approximately 43% of the reading to learn cohort demonstrated poor reading skills
at the end of Year 4 (i.e. their fifth year of schooling). In applying the five-step assess-
ment to intervention process, four different reading profiles were identified. When
comparing students’ performance on the YARC RC and YARC RA with the PAT-R,
between 68 and 75% agreement in classification of average versus below average
readers was found. Closer inspection of the comparisons showed no clear pattern,
although students with specific word recognition difficulties (dyslexia) were likely to
perform well on the PAT-R. We suggest that the PAT-R may not be sensitive to read-
ing challenges and recommend for the school to consider an alternative monitoring
tool.

3.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the results of the assessments conducted as part of the Reading
Success project and described the comparisons between these assessment results
and school-based data. Assessment results were reported for two distinct cohorts
of children: (i) those in the learning to read phase and (ii) those in the reading
to learn phase of development. It was shown that at the end of Year 1, 28% of
the learning to read cohort demonstrated difficulties in RC. However, when these
students were followed up 12 months later, only 9% showed persistent difficulties
in RC at the end of Year 2, with the cohort showing improvements in all aspects
of reading development. When considering the assessment results for the reading to
learn cohort, approximately 43% of the students demonstrated poor RC skills at the
end of Year 4. We showed that, when guided by the SVR as a framework, we identified
which different underlying causes were contributing to the students’ RC challenges,
highlighting different reading profiles. Based on the findings reported in this chapter,
we urge school teams to implement targeted interventions based on each student’s
reading profile. Finally, this chapter showed that while the PM Benchmark may be
a suitable reading assessment during the early years of schooling, the PAT-R lacked
sensitivity in detecting reading challenges in older readers.

References

Australian Council for Educational Research. (2018). Progressive achievement tests in reading
(PAT-R). Australia: Author.
Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Larsen, L., Jones, P., Saunders, S., & McArthur, G. M. (2009). Assessing
the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms
(CC2). Retrieved from www.motif.org.au.
76 3 Reading Success Results Across the Year Groups

Crystal, D. (1987). Towards a bucket theory of language disability: Taking account of interaction
between linguistic levels. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 1, 7–22.
Larsen, L., Kohnen, S., Nickels, L., & McArthur, G. (2015). The Letter-Sound Test (LeST): A
reliable and valid comprehensive measure of grapheme–phoneme knowledge. Australian Journal
of Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2015.1037323.
Neilson, R. (2003). Sutherland phonological awareness test—revised (SPAT-R) (Revised ed.).
Jamberoo, NSW: Author.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—
fourth edition—Australian (4th ed.). Marrickville: Harcourt Assessment.
Smith, A., Nelley, E., & Croft, D. (2009). PM benchmark reading assessment resources (AU/NZ).
Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., &
Hulme, C. (2012). York assessment of reading for comprehension (YARC), (Australian ed.).
London: GL Assessment.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency 2 (TOWRE-
2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2017). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals
Australian and New Zealand (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 4
Reading Self-Concept and Student
Perceptions

Georgina M. Barton, Rebecca M. Armstrong, and Marleen F. Westerveld

Abstract This chapter describes the results of the Year 4 student responses to the
Reading Self-Concept Scale (RSCS; Chapman & Tunmer, 1995). It then outlines three
case studies that include data from interviews carried out with students involved in
the programme. These students were selected on the basis of their low responses on
the RSCS, regardless of their performance in reading. One member of the research
team invited the students to participate firstly in a focus group where the students
created a collage that represented themselves as a reader and also depicted how
they felt about reading. The students were then invited to talk to the researcher in an
individual interview with the collage as a stimulus for discussion and the development
of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats chart. Findings showed that the
students enjoyed reading for relaxation at home but felt the reading practices at
school were not always as engaging as they could be for them. The chapter outlines
a number of recommendations for schools and teachers in relation to the students’
feedback.

Keywords Student perceptions · Reading self-concept · Reading ability · Primary

school-age students

4.1 Introduction

As outlined in Chap. 1, it is important to investigate students’ reading motivation.

Previous research has suggested that motivation may show significant links with stu-
dents’ reading skills, both word recognition and comprehension (Cartwright, Mar-
shall, & Wray, 2016). As explained by Cartwright et al. (2016), motivation may be
influenced by students’ expectations to do well on a task. In the Reading Success
project, we investigated students’ self-concept of reading, using the Reading Self-
Concept Scale (RSCS) developed by Chapman and Tunmer (1995). This scale uses 30
items investigating: (a) perceptions of competence in reading, (b) perceptions of dif-
ficulty in reading, and (c) attitudes towards reading. Even though we were interested
in describing the Year 4 cohort’s self-perceptions, we wanted some more qualitative
information from the students who rated themselves poorly on these scales. We inter-
viewed three students, all of whom demonstrated the lowest scores on the RSCS,

© The Author(s) 2020 77

M. F. Westerveld et al., Reading Success in the Primary Years,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8_4
78 4 Reading Self-Concept and Student Perceptions

regardless of their performance on a standardised reading test. The students’ views

and opinions expressed during the interviews were analysed to gain insight into their
reading motivation. We explored these students’ self-concept towards being a reader,
but acknowledge that knowing more about the practices in their actual classrooms
would assist in painting the full picture of their reading experiences. However, the aim
of this book was not to describe or evaluate current literacy practices and we therefore
did not systematically gather information on classroom literacy practices. Although
results from the students’ focus group and follow-up interviews provided more in-
depth information, we acknowledge this was from the students’ perspectives. Results
from teacher interviews are reported in Chap. 7.

4.2 Reading Self-Concept Scale: Group Performance

All Year 4 students who participated in the Reading Success project were asked
30 questions from the RSCS (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995) to measure their reading
self-concept. As shown in Table 4.1, overall, the students scored between 3 and 4
on all three subscales (on a scale from 1 [no, never] to 5 [yes, always] indicating
generally positive perceptions regarding difficulty, competence, and attitude towards
reading. These results are very similar to those reported by Chapman and Tunmer
(1995). Closer inspection of individual student results showed that only 7 of the 78
students scored < 3 on the total RSCS. Ten students perceived reading to be difficult
(scores < 3 for difficulty); 13 students perceived themselves as not very competent in
reading (scores < 3 for competence); 8 students scored < 3 when asked about their
attitude towards reading. We investigated correlations between subscales and found
that the difficulty factor was correlated at r = 0.67 with competence (p < 0.001), r
= 0.26 with attitude (p = 0.023) and r = 0.80 with total (p < 0.001); the attitude
factor was correlated with competence at 0.40 (p < 0.001) and correlations between
attitude and total scale was 0.86 (p < 0.001).
We also investigated the links between students’ performance on the RSCS to
their performance on the Reading Comprehension subtest from the York Assessment
of Reading for Comprehension (YARC; Snowling et al., 2012). In our cohort of Year

Table 4.1 Year 4

Whole RC below RC typical n
performance on the Reading
sample n = expectations = 44
Self-Concept Scale
77 n = 33 M (SD)
M (SD) M (SD)
Difficulty 3.3 (.68) 3.0 (.69) 3.6 (.55)
Competence 3.6 (.62) 3.4 (.64) 3.7 (.56)
Attitude 4.2 (.67) 4.2 (.59) 4.1 (.73)
Total 3.7 (.51) 3.5 (.52) 3.8 (.46)
Note RC Reading comprehension performance on the YARC
4.2 Reading Self-Concept Scale: Group Performance 79

4 students, there was a positive, but mild correlation between reading comprehension
and the total self-reported reading self-concept score (r = 0.24, n = 77, p = 0.037).
This meant that students with higher RC scores also reported higher perceptions
of their reading self-concept. When looking at the individual components of the
RSCS, there was a statistically significant relationship between YARC RC score
and self-perceptions in terms of difficulty (r = 0.40, n = 77, p = < 0.001). This
can be interpreted to show that higher RC scores resulted in students’ perceiving
reading to be easier. However, there was no significant correlation between reading
comprehension performance on the YARC and self-concept in terms of ‘attitude’
towards reading (r = 0.012, n = 77, p = 0.918) and perceptions of competence
in reading (r = 0.143, n = 77, p = 0.215). Finally, we considered the students’
performance between subgroups of students who performed within expectations on
the YARC RC (SS > 85) and those below expectations. As shown in Table 4.1,
students who performed below expectations on the YARC RC (see also Chap. 3),
found reading more difficult (t(75) = −4.272, p = <0.001), and perceived themselves
as less competent (t(75) = −2.609, p = 0.011), but there were no group differences
in attitude (t(75) = .282, p = 0.779) towards reading.

4.3 Student Interviews

To better understand the students’ perceptions around reading and to gain insight into
their reading experiences, a focus group was carried out with three students from Year
4 (pseudonyms: Daisy [S03], Lily [S33], and Tiana [S36]), who rated themselves the
lowest on the Reading Self-Concept Scale. The students were invited to participate
in a small group to create their own individual collage by using pre-cut images from
magazines. The purpose of this activity was for the students to feel comfortable with
the researcher initially in a small group. In the focus group, the main questions were
(see also Chap. 2): (1) Tell me about you as a reader; and (2) Tell me about your
experiences in reading. The students then returned individually at different times
to talk to the researcher about their collage and themselves as a reader as well as
reading in general. In this interview, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats) analysis was completed by each student where they talked about their
own strengths and weaknesses as well as what would help and/or hinder their progress
in reading. The questions used in each section of the SWOT analysis are shown in
Table 4.2.

4.3.1 Results from the Focus Group

The students’ focus group revealed a number of themes including enjoyment of

reading, personal interest areas for reading, reading strategies, and reading groups at
school. These themes are expanded below.
80 4 Reading Self-Concept and Student Perceptions

Table 4.2 SWOT questions for students

Strengths: Weaknesses:
– What are you good at? At school? Outside – What do you find difficult at school?
of school? – What are some things you would like to
– What are you good at in terms of reading? improve in your learning?
– What about reading other types of texts, – How do you think this improvement could
e.g. digital, multimodal, etc.? happen?
– What things do you like to learn about? – What would help you?
– What do you know a lot about? – Where/who do you currently get help from?
Opportunities: Threats:
– Tell me about aspects of school that make – What are some things that do not help you
you feel valued? Smart? with learning?
– What about at home? – What are the things you find most difficult?
– Who helps you with your learning? How
often?

Enjoyment and Topics of Reading

The students all stated that they liked reading. They all felt it helped them to
relax and also provided an opportunity to not feel bored. Daisy liked to read with her
sister. The students also shared their areas of interest in terms of the distinct topics
and genres they liked to read.
I like reading as you can just pick up a random book on any topic. It is relaxing. I also like
reading because I can read if I get bored. I like reading about different cultures. I like reading
French books. I am reading the book Chocolat with my mum. (Daisy)
I like reading because you sometimes you feel like you just have to get away and sometimes
it just takes you to a different world. I just like reading any type of book. I read magazines,
newspapers, I like looking at the photos in the magazines, especially Kim Kardashian. (Lily)
I like all sorts of books – the most I like is about plants and animals. (Tiana)

The students also talked about reading a wide range of text types including chapter
books, magazines, information on their iPads, and non-fiction books such as about
natural disasters.

Reading Strategies

The students spoke about what they did when they had challenges reading some
of the texts they engaged in. Interestingly, from the three students, quite a number
of different strategies were discussed including skipping words that are not familiar
and seeing if the text still makes sense; using dictionaries; have an adult sound out
difficult words; writing down the words and practising the spelling and finding out
the meaning; asking for help.
I like being a reader but sometimes I don’t like reading cos there are really tricky words that
I can’t read and I don’t understand and I can’t sound out. I have trouble with really long
words. (Lily)
4.3 Student Interviews 81

I normally just skip the words but it makes sense to me. Mum says sound it out aloud but I
don’t like to do that because I am actually a really shy person. I had an incident where I read
out aloud…(Daisy)

Reading Groups at School

Each student said that they were placed in a specific reading group at school. They
explained that the reading groups were designed at different levels of proficiencies
and included the red group, the green group, the pink group, and the blue group.
Interestingly, although the reading groups changed once a term depending on student
progress, the students all said that they had been in the same group all year despite
them thinking they had probably improved enough to be moved up into the next
group.
The students then completed their re-collages and attended an interview one at a
time.

4.3.2 Interview Data Results

Results from Lily

Lily’s (S33) performance on the Reading Self-Concept Scale indicated very low
scores on ease of reading/difficulty and competence (1.8 and 2.2, respectively), but
better on attitudes (3.6), indicating she perceived reading to be difficult and that she
was not very confident, but maintained a positive attitude and liked reading. Lily’s
performance on the YARC showed significant difficulties in reading accuracy (SS
74) and reading rate (SS < 70), affecting her reading comprehension (SS 79). Her
language comprehension was within normal limits (SS 11 on the Understanding
Spoken Paragraphs subtest of the CELF-4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2006). Lily
demonstrated a specific word reading difficulties profile.
Lily talked about her collage (see Fig. 4.1) by saying she liked to read about
animals, in particular dogs, and in cartoons. She also said she found reading relaxing,
especially if she was reading outside and on the weekends. Lily liked to read chapter
books and mentioned the Dork Diaries and books by author Paul Jennings. She talked
about the reading groups in her classroom. These included the gold group—who
needed more practise, silver group—who did not read bigger books, blue group—
who had confidence, and turquoise group—who were more than average.
Lily described a range of strategies for reading in her interview. These included:
read in her head, read aloud, sound out the words, guessing the meaning of the story,
etc. She said her strengths as a reader related to being good at guessing or making
inference and also reading in her head aloud.
82 4 Reading Self-Concept and Student Perceptions

Fig. 4.1 Lily’s collage

Sounding out, reading a sentence and then come back to the word to try and figure it out
myself because it’s hard to understand some people when they put it in a way so I try to figure
it out myself, and most of the time that helps because sometimes other people use these big
words that I don’t understand so I can help myself with it because I just don’t understand
other people what they say, so usually I help myself with it and if I don’t I usually go to like
my friends and if they can’t help me I go to the teacher or my mum.

Lily mentioned that she mainly asks her mum for help as her dad is asleep a lot due
to having to go to work at 3 am. She also said she is really busy with scouts and
soccer, etc. Her dad also likes sports. This meant that most of her afternoons were
busy with extra-curricular activities. Lily believed that her reading would improve
through:
Confidence in myself, so if I’m doing something, if I can just believe in myself and have
courage…
I could improve by looking at the pictures to help me figure out the words and asking for
some help if I don’t know…

She said she did not like to make mistakes as she was worried about other students’
reactions.
Lily’s SWOT is shown in Table 4.3 where the researcher noted down any
comments Lily made but also observations.

Results from Daisy

Daisy’s (S03) performance on the Reading Self-Concept Scale indicated very

low scores on ease of reading/difficulty, competence, and attitude (1.9, 1.9, 2.9,
respectively), indicating she perceived reading to be difficult, was not very confident,
and had a reasonably low attitude towards reading. Daisy performed well on the
YARC, with RC, RA, and RR all within normal limits. We did not receive Daisy’s
PAT-R results.
4.3 Student Interviews 83

Table 4.3 Notes on Lily’s SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:
– Guessing the meaning of the text – Confidence in herself as a reader
– Reading in her head not aloud – Doesn’t ask for help
– Sport: soccer, swimming, scouts, nippers – Thinks she needs more reading strategies
– Maths – To practise more
– Speech, e.g. sounding out using coloured
blocks
– Spelling
Opportunities: Threats:
– Ask for more help – Doesn’t like making mistakes
– Ask more questions – Worried about people bullying her for
– Use whisper phones—can hear themselves making mistakes
reading – Needs to be quiet at home
– Her mum is a reader – Difficult to understand adults and their
– Her friends and teacher explanations
– She can rely on herself – Never asked what she wants to learn or read
– More rotations—working with friends and
reading aloud

Daisy, in her interview, explained that her bedroom had just been renovated and
they used pastel colours to create a relaxed feeling. As reading made her feel relaxed
she chose images that used the same colour palette (see Fig. 4.2). The other items
such as the cake, macrons, and the hanging chair all reminded her of how reading
was relaxing and how she likes to read. The gems meant that she was achieving great
things with her reading.
Daisy also talked about she was a dancer and is at dance 24/7. This experience
influenced the types of books she read including ones with costumes. She also read
about cooking and food as her mum had a Thermomix. Reading made her hungry,
so she usually has snacks when she reads. She said reading made her feel relaxed

Fig. 4.2 Daisy’s collage

84 4 Reading Self-Concept and Student Perceptions

I like reading books about mysteries, like I like reading, like I’ve just finished this book
about these girls went and lived in a palace and they kicked out because there was a special
thing in the palace that they always wanted, they’re like thieves cause they stole something
in the palace, so they stole like a jewel from the palace, but there were two jewels that they
wanted and so they had to keep going back and getting the jewels like without them getting
kicked out…
I looked at it because it’s kind of like a costume without the like tulle or whatever…and it’s
kind of like a costume and I like to read books about dance as well…at the moment I’m
reading Chocolat and I, so me and my mum are reading that, and then by myself I’m reading
the Maddie Diaries by Maddie Seigler which is really good and I like it.

In these comments, we can see that Daisy is able to recount the narratives from the
books she was reading at the time.
At school, Daisy said she is part of the pink reading group, but she thinks she
should be in the blue group. Her group had not changed throughout the entire year:
I think I’ve improved a lot with my reading, but like I would have liked to have moved up to
the blue group but I don’t know if I’m ready for that yet, like I can read really, like I’ve got
the fluency, my teacher says I’ve got fluency, I’ve got expression, I’ve got like, I can connect
to the text, she said I’ve got all that but I don’t know if she thinks I’m ready to go up to the
blue group…
I think because blue group is where all the really smart kids are…and they’re really good
readers so I don’t think I’m up to their standards yet, I think I’m in the middle of their
standards…

Daisy’s comments showed that she was well aware of reading levels and what these
levels entail. She could effectively gauge what type of reader she was and where she
sat in relation to her peers. She was also aware of the areas of reading she found
difficult and some strategies that could assist.
I think the words I find difficult because I’m only starting now to understand some words,
like the words are a bit hard for me… Sometimes I have trouble understanding the meaning
of the story…Unless I talk to mum about it… I don’t understand the meaning of this story
because a lot of the books I’m reading mum has read and I don’t understand the meaning of
the story.
I like getting criticism and feedback to help me grow because my mum said if you get
criticism then you know that your teacher or whatever is, you know that you’ve got someone
who is trying to help you do it so I like getting that.

When asked about whether or not Daisy felt she had a voice at school in terms of
choice she said she would prefer to have the option of reading a wider variety of texts
at school such as magazines and newspapers. She commented on feeling behind in
her work in other areas such as maths, as the topics changed quickly particularly due
to NAPLAN.
I try and ask for help, because I’m a year behind everyone, I can’t keep up with the work
as easy. I need, like usually we go on one topic, we learn that for a week and then the next
topic, but I understand because we missed so much of our learning in NAPLAN and we have
to do that, but I’m falling behind a bit in my maths and everything. (Daisy)

Daisy’s SWOT is shown in Table 4.4 where the researcher noted down any comments
Daisy made but also observations.
4.3 Student Interviews 85

Table 4.4 Notes on Daisy’s SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:
– Reading recipes – Her eyes sometimes don’t work
– Reads a range of genres, e.g. French books, – Maths
devices, diaries – Decoding difficult words
– Reads outside for relaxation – Summarising the meaning of texts
– Reading and oral expression fluency – Can’t provide honest feedback to peers or
– Has some metalanguage related to reading herself
strategies
– Finds feedback and information to assist
Opportunities: Threats:
– Her mum – Doesn’t like recording herself and listening
– Reading diversity and use of the library: she – Lack of variety of text types; doesn’t read
likes other countries, mysteries, and the magazines or picture books
Famous 5 – Lack of reading in other curriculum areas
– Reading with her teacher – Not asked what she wants to read in class
– A family friend who helps at dance but the higher levelled group is
– That reading has to be interesting

Results from Tiana

Tiana’s (S36) performance on the Reading Self-Concept Scale indicated low
scores for ease of reading/difficulty and competence, but relatively high scores for
attitude (1.8, 2.2, 3.6, respectively). These scores indicate she perceived reading to
be hard and was not very good at it. However, she liked reading and demonstrated a
positive attitude towards reading. Tiana showed difficulties in reading accuracy and
reading rate on the YARC (SS 78 and SS 80, respectively), which affected her reading
comprehension (RC 83). She obtained a scaled score of 10 on the Understanding
Spoken Paragraphs subtest of the CELF-4, indicating satisfactory performance in
language comprehension. Tiana’s single word reading (regular and non-words) was
significantly affected (z-scores < −2.0). Tiana presented with a specific word reading
difficulties profile.
Tiana’s collage (see Fig. 4.3) included lots of images from the garden such as
plants, flowers and a watering can. She explained that when she read she felt relaxed
and it made her grow.
I chose this because I like staying in the garden and I like reading in the garden. I always
would like a big Japanese tree to read under. I like to talk to myself a lot because I am really
lonely. I don’t really have many friends. Reading makes me feel relaxed.

Such a metaphor was quite powerful for Tiana as reading for her at school was the
opposite. In Year 1, she was asked to read aloud to the class but was very shy. When
she did not say anything for about 30 s everyone laughed at her. This experience for
Tiana impacted negatively on her reading confidence.
The memories in Year 1 just keep coming back to me. When I read in a circle – I can’t read
out aloud – I don’t like people hearing me. I like hiding behind someone. […] I didn’t speak
for 30 seconds and then everyone laughed at me. I am trying to get over it but it is really
hard to get over it.
86 4 Reading Self-Concept and Student Perceptions

Fig. 4.3 Tiana’s double-sided collage

Tiana talked about how she really did not like being singled out to read words or do
spelling it made her feel ‘really anxious’.
I don’t like people hearing me – even if you are in a corner. I get really anxious when it
comes to spelling…I only like to do things when everyone does it I don’t like being singled
out. I like reading to our buddies.

In relation to meeting challenges with reading, Tiana talked about feeling frustrated
sometimes but then she would usually find an easier book to read to feel better.
Normally I feel like this with reading. Sometimes I just rage quit and get really angry and
throw the book, I have some anger issues. Yeah I normally get a book that is easier to read.
Like my dad’s old yellow cat and dog book. It is about this friend who found a dog wandering
in the forest. They make stuff together and talk together.

She also used a number of other strategies such as sounding out chunks of words
that were difficult and ones she might experience when reading science texts.
Sounding out chunks of the words and I use the strategy of seeing a word inside a word. I
normally use that or if I have real trouble I skip the word and then come back to it so I know
what it will mean…It is normally the long words. I really like science. Mum and dad said if
you really like science we can go to a space place. There are really tricky words in science.

Tiana’s SWOT is shown in Table 4.5 where the researcher noted down any comments
Tiana made but also observations.

4.4 Discussion and Chapter Summary

As a group, the Year 4 students showed neutral to positive perceptions of their

competence in reading. They perceived reading as not too difficult and demonstrated
a positive attitude towards reading. These results are similar to those reported by
Chapman and Tunmer (1995) almost 25 years ago. Closer inspection of the results
from the current study showed that approximately 1 in 10 students demonstrated low
4.4 Discussion and Chapter Summary 87

Table 4.5 Notes on Tiana’s SWOT

Strengths: Weaknesses:
– Science – Spelling—‘rage quit’
– Letter chains—write the letters out for – Sounding words out in mind not aloud as
difficult words and sound out too shy
– Tennis, handball – Lack of confidence due to incident in Year
– Clarinet 1 where class laughed at her
– Taekwondo – Maths—fractions
– Readathon—read 40 books – Needs to be in a group to learn—does not
• Aussie Nibbles like being singled out
• Quests
Opportunities: Threats:
– Mum and dad – Having to do oral presentations—gets very
– Using more of sounding out chunks of nervous
words – Hates being singled out—will hide from
– To find ways of becoming more confident people
– Practising writing – Fear of getting things wrong
– Partner reading – Not saying words out aloud
– Reading to buddies out aloud – Year 1 incident still a threat

reading self-concept, which may affect their reading motivation and hence hamper
their reading performance. To better understand the views and perceptions of some of
these students, we shared findings from three of the Year 4 students who participated
in a focus group as well as individual interviews. They provided interesting feedback
related to their self-perception as readers including the need to have choice in what
they read, to receive support to improve their confidence towards reading, and to
have the option of being able to change reading groups when possible. Generally,
the students enjoyed reading outside of school but found reading practices in school
stressful at times and often uninteresting. These findings are useful for teachers,
the leadership team, and parents in relation to approaches to improving students’
reading self-concept.

References

Cartwright, K. B., Marshall, T. R., & Wray, E. (2016). A longitudinal study of the role of reading
motivation in primary students’ reading comprehension: Implications for a less simple view of
reading. Reading Psychology, 37(1), 55–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2014.991481.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts:
An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.87.
1.154.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—
fourth edition—Australian (4th ed.). Marrickville: Harcourt Assessment.
88 4 Reading Self-Concept and Student Perceptions

Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., &
Hulme, C. (2012). York assessment of reading for comprehension (YARC), (Australian ed.).
London: GL Assessment.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 5
Intervention Initiatives Across Three
Levels of Instruction

Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong, Georgina M. Barton,

and Jennifer Peach

Abstract This chapter describes four evidence-based intervention initiatives at three

levels of instruction (whole class, small group, and individual): (a) Robust Vocabulary
Instruction was provided in Year 5 classrooms by the classroom teachers with support
from the speech pathologist; (b) small-group intervention targeting expository struc-
ture was provided by the speech pathologist to Year 5 students demonstrating specific
weaknesses in comprehension; (c) individual students participated in a specific train-
ing programme targeting orthographic knowledge, using a commercially available
app, as well as phonological processing skills, using the LiPS programme; and (d) all
foundation year classes participated in Read It Again—FoundationQ!, a supplemen-
tary whole-class oral language and emergent literacy intervention implemented by
classroom teachers with coaching from the school-based speech pathologist. Results
from all four intervention trials were positive and highlighted the importance of tar-
geting specific areas of weaknesses in spoken or written language skills, based on the
speech-to-print profile, to facilitate improvement in reading comprehension skills.
Moreover, the importance of whole-class intervention during the learning to read
stage was shown, with the cohort who received Read It Again performing better than
the cohort who did not.

Keywords Intervention · Reading disorders · Phonological processing ·

Expository · Robust vocabulary

5.1 Robust Vocabulary Instruction

As outlined in Chap. 1, the importance of vocabulary knowledge to the reading pro-

cess cannot be underestimated. Vocabulary knowledge during the preschool years is
a strong predictor of future reading success (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008),
and vocabulary knowledge during the school years has strong links with both word
recognition and reading comprehension (Hiebert & Kami, 2005). For example, a
student’s ability to efficiently recognise words, particularly exception words such
as ‘yacht’, is facilitated by their vocabulary knowledge (Dawson & Ricketts, 2017).
Furthermore, students with better vocabulary skills perform better on tests of read-
ing comprehension across the primary school years. Not surprisingly, the National

© The Author(s) 2020 89

M. F. Westerveld et al., Reading Success in the Primary Years,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8_5
90 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

Reading Panel (2000) stressed the importance of vocabulary instruction for reading
success, and hence building teacher capacity in explicit and systematic vocabulary
instruction contributes to a language-rich teaching and learning environment.
Research shows that the ability to acquire and express spoken vocabulary is a
key to improve and sustain reading comprehension. The size of vocabulary, that
is, the number and variety of words that students know, is a significant predictor
of reading comprehension in the middle and secondary years of schooling, and of
broader academic and vocational success (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013; Clarke,
Truelove, Hulme, & Snowling, 2014). Students who lack adequate vocabulary have
difficulty getting meaning from what they read. As a result, they may read less
because they find reading difficult. Weak word recognition skills (including phonemic
awareness, phonics, and fluency) also contribute to the gap between how much good
and poor readers will read and encounter new vocabulary. As a result, they learn
fewer words because they are not reading widely enough to encounter and learn new
words.
Given this reciprocal relationship between reading and vocabulary growth, and
the difficulties faced by struggling readers particularly relating to exposure, explicit
instruction in vocabulary is considered one important intervention approach. Explicit
or robust vocabulary teaching provides explanations of word meaning, across varied
contexts, as well as multiple opportunities to explore and apply the words, which, in
turn, can add substantially to the vocabulary growth of all students (Beck, McKeown,
& Kucan, 2008). This teaching assists students to grow as readers and thinkers in both
fiction and non-fiction, develops a deeper understanding of the words and concepts
students are partially aware of, nurtures understanding of new concepts, increases
reading comprehension, and enhances both oral and written communication skills
(Allen, 1999). For this reason, Robust Vocabulary Instruction was conducted at the
Tier 1 level of classroom support to facilitate vocabulary knowledge for all students.

5.1.1 Robust Vocabulary Instruction Overview

What it means to ‘know’ a word is not a simple notion. Word learning is incremental,
that is, understanding a word is usually partial at first and grows with repeated
exposures. Dale and O’Rourke (1986) conceptualised word learning as being along
a continuum, ranging from never having seen or heard the word before, to having
a deep knowledge of the word and its different meanings, and the ability to use the
word confidently and accurately in speaking and writing contexts.
As outlined by Beck et al. (2013), research findings point to the need to create
classrooms that support and encourage sophisticated word usage through a rich oral
language environment characterised by:
• Multiple encounters (modelling and practice) in a variety of contexts;
• Rich and extensive opportunities to practise using new words that promote deep
processing and more complex levels of understanding;
5.1 Robust Vocabulary Instruction 91

• Ample structured reviews to revisit learned words within and across lessons;
• Numerous opportunities to learn and reinforce vocabulary through wide indepen-
dent reading;
• Nurturing an appreciation for words and how they are used; and
• Explicitly taught word meanings using clear, consistent, and understandable
language.

The current project adopted the vocabulary instruction model proposed by Beck
et al. (2013), in which vocabulary is classified into three tiers according to a word’s
frequency of use, complexity, and meaning. This classification of words into ‘tiers’
is based on the premise that not all words have equal importance when it comes to
recommended instructional time.
Tier 1 words, or basic words, are words that usually develop without help, even
if slowly. These words are seldom explicitly taught. Words such as ‘dog’, ‘red’, and
‘big’ would be classified as Tier 1 words, for example. Tier 2 words, or interesting
words, are very important because of the role they play in literacy. Tier 2 words
are the words that characterise written text—but are not so common in everyday
conversation. What this means is that learners are less likely to be exposed to these
words during everyday conversations. The opportunities to learn Tier 2 words come
mainly from interaction with text. Because gaining meaning from written context is
more difficult than gaining meaning from oral contexts, learners are less likely to learn
Tier 2 words on their own in comparison with the words of everyday oral language.
For example, words such as ‘fortunate’, ‘ordinary’, ‘wonderful’, and ‘plead’ would
be classified as Tier 2 words. Tier 3 words are generally subject or domain-specific
and as such do not have high use. These words are best learned if/when specific need
arises. ‘Isotope’, ‘conduit’, and ‘beaker’ are examples of Tier 3 words.
In choosing words for instruction, McGregor and Duff (2015) suggested the
following questions are asked:
• Is this word more likely to occur in written language than in spoken language?
• Would this word occur across various subject areas?
• Can the word be explained in student-friendly terms? A student-friendly expla-
nation involves an explanation of a word’s meaning in everyday, connected
language.

Words selected for explicit instruction should be drawn from the curriculum; from
texts or books read in class; or from assessment materials. The words targeted in the
Reading Success project were Tier 2 words drawn from curriculum to the classroom
(C2C) texts in conjunction with the speech pathologist and classroom teacher. These
C2C materials included texts or books that would be read in class throughout the
school term.
Intervention All school staff (across all year levels), including the leadership
team, attended a 1-hour professional development (PD) session on Robust Vocabu-
lary Instruction at the beginning of the school year. This PD covered the relationship
between vocabulary and reading comprehension, Beck’s tiers of vocabulary, word
selection, student-friendly definitions, and the steps in Robust Vocabulary Instruction.
92 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

The Reading Success project then focused on Robust Vocabulary being implemented
within the Year 5 cohort. As part of this project two Year 5 classrooms were ‘control
classes’, meaning the teachers received the whole-school training at the beginning
of the school year but chose to not actively complete the programme in their class-
rooms. The speech pathologist and the class teacher implemented Robust Vocabulary
Instruction within two ‘intervention classes’ each week.
The intervention was provided at the whole-class level and included adhering to
the nine steps for introducing a new word (see Appendix for a lesson plan example).
Each week, six words were introduced. In the first four weeks, the speech pathologist
introduced 3–4 words and the teacher observed. The teacher then completed the
remaining 2–3 introductions and follow up for all words throughout the week, with
one follow-up session being demonstrated by the speech pathologist. Follow-up
activities aimed at providing the students with opportunities to: (1) use the Robust
word in multiple contexts, (2) create links with other words, (3) use the Robust word
in a sentence to show the meaning, and (4) ensure repeated exposure to the word. For
example, the teacher may ask (1) the student to think of a person or job that relates to
the word; (2) the teacher may ask the students to think of a word that has the opposite
meaning; (3) the teacher provides an object or topic and asks the student to make
a sentence related to the topic and containing the Robust word; and (4) the teacher
may ask the student to describe the Robust word so that other students can guess
what it is. For more examples of activities, please refer to the two books authored by
Beck and colleagues (Beck et al., 2008, 2013). From week 5 onwards, the teachers
were responsible for introducing all vocabulary words and completing the follow-up
activities for the words during the week. To support fidelity of implementation across
classrooms, an observation checklist was developed and completed by the speech
pathologist in each classroom during the implementation of the programme.
Assessments All students participated in pre- and post-testing of 12 Tier 2 words,
in the first week (week 1) and final week (week 10) of each school term. The words
included in the testing comprised both Tier 2 words that would be targeted within the
Robust Vocabulary Instruction that term (as described above) and also control words
that would not be explicitly taught. The list of Tier 2 words that were included in
the pre- and post-testing for Term 1 are shown in Table 5.1. Students were provided
with a sheet of paper that included the target word, and space for writing their own
definition of the target word and a sentence containing that word. Students were then
given the following instructions:
Please write your name at the top of the sheet.
I will read each word and then I would like you to write what you think the word means in
the first box. The meaning could be just one word that means the same as the word I read, or
it could be a few words that explain the meaning. I would then like you to write a sentence
that uses the word. (read example).This is not a spelling test and it doesn’t matter if you spell
words incorrectly in your sentences. Just have a go. If I read the next word and you haven’t
finished your sentence, you can come back to it later. You might not know some of these
words, so I would just like you to do your best and have a go.
5.1 Robust Vocabulary Instruction 93

Table 5.1 The list of 12 Tier 2 words that were used for pre- and post-assessment
No Word Meaning Sentence
Ex. Delighted Very happy I was delighted when my mum bought my favourite cake for
my birthday
1 Reliable
2 Guarantee
3 Diversity
4 Attitude
5 Genuine
6 Raucous
7 Imposing
8 Colony
9 Dwellers
10 Menace
11 Prevent
12 Vulnerable

Table 5.2 Score guide for robust vocabulary pre- and post-assessments
Points Description Relation to robust vocabulary instruction
0 Not able to provide a sentence or Never heard it before
definition that reflects the meaning of the Heard it, but don’t know what it means
word
1 Can provide a sentence that demonstrates In context, I know it has something to do
some knowledge of the word. Has some with…
difficulties defining the word
2 Can provide a sentence and definition Know it and use it
which reflects the true meaning of the
word

Student responses for each of the 12 words were scored from 0 to 2 according to the
procedure outlined in Table 5.2. A total pre- and post-test score was then tallied for
each student.

5.1.2 Intervention Results

Pre-and post-assessment results were available for 70 students, 36 of whom attended

the intervention classes, and 34 attended the control classes. As explained above, each
student was asked to provide the meaning for 12 words (six target words that were
explicitly taught and six control words that were not explicitly taught) and provide a
sentence that contains that word. Each response was scored on a scale of 0–2, which
94 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

Table 5.3 Group performance on target and control words prior to and the following intervention
Target words Pre-post Control words Pre-post
Pre Post Effect size Pre Post Effect size
Intervention 3.53 (2.0) 6.85 (2.4) 2.023* 3.18 (2.1) 4.1 (2.1) 0.582*
classes 0–9 1–12 0–8 0–8
Control classes 3.47 (1.7) 4.61 (1.8) 0.753* 3.0 (1.4) 3.25 (1.8) 0.190
0–7 1–7 1–7 0–8
Note Max score is 12. * significant improvement in performance from pre to post (p < 0.05)

means the maximum score for this task was 24 (12 for the target words and 12 for
the control words). Table 5.3 provides an overview of the results. To determine if
the differences between the two groups were clinically significant, i.e. observable
in the classroom, effect sizes were calculated and reported using Cohen’s d (Cohen,
1988). Following Cohen’s guidelines, d = 0.2 is considered a ‘small’ effect size,
0.5 represents a ‘medium’ effect size, and 0.8 represents a ‘large’ effect size. As
shown in Table 5.3, although both groups showed a significant improvement on the
target words following the school term, the intervention classes showed a much larger
improvement, with a very large effect size. Only the intervention classes showed a
significant improvement on the control words, with a large effect size.

5.1.3 Discussion

The results from this small-scale investigation showed that a Robust Vocabulary
Approach, using an integrated service delivery model where speech pathologists
and teachers work collaboratively to support vocabulary instruction was effective in
enhancing student performance on a vocabulary task in which students were asked
to demonstrate their understanding of Tier 2 words. Not only did the students in
the intervention classrooms show better performance than their peers in the control
classes on the target words post-intervention, they also demonstrated better perfor-
mance on the control words. These results suggest that robust vocabulary may indeed
‘kindle a lifelong fascination with words’ (Beck et al., 2013).

5.2 Orthographic Knowledge and Phonological Processing

Instruction

Based on the students’ performance on the YARC reading accuracy subtest (Snowl-
ing et al., 2012), as outlined in Chap. 2 (step 3), combined with their performance on
tasks tapping the skills needed for efficient word recognition skills, 12 students from
the Year 4 cohort were invited to participate in an intervention programme aimed at
5.2 Orthographic Knowledge and Phonological Processing Instruction 95

enhancing orthographic knowledge as well as phonological processing skills. These

students all demonstrated specific word recognition difficulties, as shown by the
YARC reading accuracy, standard score < 85, accompanied by significant word read-
ing difficulties on the CC-2 (Castles, Coltheart, Larsen, Jones, Saunders, & McArthur,
2009; motif.org.au), and low scores on the letter-sound knowledge test (LeST; Larsen,
Kohnen, Nickels, & McArthur, 2015; motif.org.au). All students performed within
normal limits in reading comprehension (SS ≥ 85 on the YARC) and/or language
comprehension (SS ≥ 7 on the CELF-4, Understanding Spoken Paragraphs). These
12 students were then randomly allocated to an intervention or a control group, so
that the intervention group received the intervention first, while the control group
continued with their usual classroom instruction. As shown in Table 5.4 there were
no significant group differences prior to intervention on any of the pre-intervention
measures (all p’s > 0.301). At this stage, we administered an additional measure
of phonological processing, the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualisation Test (LAC;

Table 5.4 Student performance prior to the intervention

LeST RS Single word reading York Assessment of Reading for CELF-4
(/51) CC-2 (z-scores) Comprehension (YARC)
Reg Irreg NW RA SS RR SS RC SS USP (SS)
(AE) (AE)
Intervention
S22 38 −1.09 −1.37 −1.04 83 (7;11) 76 98 (9:10) 13
S26 31 −1.53 −0.56 −2.35 81 (7;11) 80 71 (6;11) 12
S33 29 −1.96 −0.83 −2.83 74 (7;9) <70 79 (8;0) 11
S39 38 −2.29 −1.72 −1.57 <70 (6;5) <70 77 (7;5) 10
S43 32 −1.30 −0.91 −2.1 83 (7;11) 82 81 (7;8) 11
S62 24 −2.39 −1.37 −3.09 71 (6;10) <70 79 (7;5) 7
Mean 32 −1.76 −1.13 −2.16 77 74.7 80.8 10.67
Control
S11 39 −1.19 −1.35 −2.27 83 (8;5) 80 77 (7;8) 11
S36 36 −2.17 −0.91 −2.19 78 (7;9) 80 83 (8;0) 10
S40 24 −1.77 −1.08 −2.23 72 (7;7) 77 83 (8;5) 10
S45 40 −1.28 −0.83 −1.43 74 (7;7) 83 122 11
(12;8)
S46 26 −2.48 −2.12 −2.62 <70 (6;4) <70 73 (6;11) 8
S51 35 −1.53 −0.76 −1.77 78 (7;9) 70 75 (7;3) 7
Mean 33.3 −1.74 −1.18 −2.09 75.8 76.7 85.5 9.5
Note LeST Letter-Sound Test Raw Score (max 51); CC-2 Castles and Coltheart; CELF-4 Clinical
Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—4th Edition; Reg regular words, Irreg irregular words; NW
non-words; RA SS Reading accuracy standard score; RR reading rate; RC reading comprehension
(with age equivalent); USP Understanding Spoken Paragraphs (scaled score)
96 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

Lindamood & Lindamood, 2004), which measures the student’s ability to discrim-
inate speech sounds (phonemes) and to analyse the number and order of sounds in
spoken patterns. Students are asked to demonstrate their knowledge by matching the
number and the colour of small blocks to the number and patterns of sounds (e.g.
show me /d//d/: two blocks, same colour; show me /m//ch//ch/, three blocks, first
block a different colour to the next two blocks). According to the LAC manual, at the
start of Year 5, the minimum recommended score is 86. All students scored below the
minimum recommended score. There were no differences in performance between
the intervention and the control group.

5.2.1 Intervention Overview

Students completed a six-week programme, comprising two sessions per week, one
30-mins individual session, and one 60-mins group (three students) session. Each
session covered two components: (1) phonological processing and (2) orthographic
knowledge. Although all students completed similar activities (as described below),
the specific phonemes or phoneme combinations that were targeted in both compo-
nents of the intervention were based on the students’ performance on the LeST. The
two components of the intervention will now be discussed in more detail below.
Phonological processing This programme explicitly targets students’ phonolog-
ical processing skills and was firmly based on Gillon and Dodd’s (1995) work, in
which ten students with significant reading difficulties participated. The programme
itself is based on the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Programme, now into its
fourth edition (LiPS; Lindamood & Lindamood, 2011), which systematically teaches
students to segment, manipulate, and blend the speech sounds (phonemes) in syl-
lables and words. We used Gillon and Dodd’s adapted version of this programme
by using traditional letter names to teach the students to encode sounds in syllables
(using simple syllable sets, simple syllable chains, and complex syllables). We used
the metalinguistic approach recommended in the LiPS programme which drew the
students’ attention to changes in syllables by explicitly describing these during the
activities. The sessions involved reading and writing (of real and nonsense words) to
ensure a transfer of segmentation and blending skills to reading and writing. Finally,
as per the process outlined in the LiPS manual, the sessions included the teaching
of some basic spelling rules (magic /e/; the /c/ in reading; two vowels go walking).
Figure 5.1 provides an overview of the six-week programme.
Progress tracking sheets were used to monitor progress and to ensure students
only moved on to the next level (simple syllables, CVC, varied, shifts) when they
achieved 70–80% success at a certain level. Once a student was proficient with the
coloured blocks, i.e. could quickly and accurately work through all levels using the
coloured blocks and described the changes that were made with confidence, the
student would only work with letter tiles. Use of progress checking sheets allowed
for an individualised approach.
5.2 Orthographic Knowledge and Phonological Processing Instruction 97

Week Activities
Week 1 1. Tracking speech sound changes – coloured blocks, simple syllables (VC
and CV).
2. Tracking speech sound changes – letter tiles, simple syllables.
3. Writing and reading simple syllables (game).
Week 2 1. Tracking speech sound changes with blocks, move from VC to C, to
CVC and Varied.
2. Tracking speech sound changes with letter tiles as above.
3. Writing and reading simple syllables (game).
Week 3 1. Tracking speech sound changes with blocks, varied syllables, using a
timer.
2. Tracking speech sound changes with letter tiles – aiming for 80%
accuracy on CVC before moving to CCVC.
3. Writing and reading CVC words (game).
Week 4 1. Tracking speech sound changes with blocks, some students move on to
shifts (e.g.ask to aks). Use a timer.
2. Tracking speech sound changes with letter tiles, using individualised
tracking sheets to match students’ orthographic knowledge.
3. Real word reading (CVC) – cut out and put face up on the desk. Read as
many as you can in 1 min.
4. Real word and non word (CVC) spelling – write on cards.
5. Teach the magic /e/ rule: write the pairs on cards (e.g. bit – bite).
6. Board / bingo game – using the cards.
Week 5 1. Tracking speech sounds with blocks (only those students who had not
yet achieved this level). Use a timer.
2. Tracking speech sound changes with tiles.
3. Real word reading in 1 min (using cards).
4. Simple spelling (CVC) – write on cards.
5. Teach the ‘C in Reading’ rule – write on cards.
6. Reading the cards (game).
Week 6 1. Tracking speech sound changes with blocks – improve your time.
2. Tracking speech sound changes with letter tiles – improve your time.
3. Real word reading (include magic /e/ and soft /c/ rules).
4. Teach the two vowels go walking rule – create cards.
5. Game – read the cards.

Fig. 5.1 Overview of the six-week programme targeting phonological processing skills

Orthographic knowledge Students’ orthographic knowledge was targeted using

the commercially available Reading Doctor App Letter Sounds 2 Pro (www.
readingdoctor.com). The programme includes 70 of the most common letters-sound
patterns and suffixes but was customised for each student based on their LeST results.
The students were given access to the App twice a week for approximately 10–
15 min, under supervision of the speech pathologist. As outlined on the Reading
Doctor website:
Children are taught meaningful associations between the way that letters look and the speech
sounds they typically represent through a unique system of visual, auditory and articulatory
(speech sound) memory aids, or mnemonics. The teaching system in the app automatically
identifies what a child knows, what the child does not know, and which letter sound patterns
the child confuses. Letter Sounds™ 2 Pro teaches children to discriminate between confusing
patterns, and strengthens weaknesses in letter-sound understanding.
98 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

Table 5.5 Mean group performance before and after intervention (SD in brackets)
Measures Intervention group Control group
Pre Post Pre Post
Orthographic knowledge LeST – raw scores 32 (5.4) 46.3 (3.7) 33.3 (6.7) 34.8 (7.8)
Single word reading CC-2 Regular words 24.7 (6.9) 28.5 (6.5) 24.8 (7.5) 25.3 (7.6)
Raw score

Irregular words 16.8 (2.6) 17.8 (1.7) 17.2 (3.2) 19.2 (5.3)
Raw score

Nonwords 7.0 (8.5) 18.2 (9.36)# 10.5 (6.7) 13.3 (5.8)

Raw score
Reading Accuracy YARC – RA SS 77.0 (6.0) 78.3 (4.2) 75.8 (4.8) 74.8 (7.3)

Note Shading indicates significant progress from pre- to post-intervention p < 0.05; # n = 5 as
missing non-word data for B39

5.2.2 Intervention Results

All students were re-assessed after the six weeks of intervention on measures of
orthographic knowledge (LeST), single word reading (CC-2), and reading accuracy
(YARC RA). Repeated measures t-tests were used to calculate changes in perfor-
mance from pre- to post-intervention. As shown in Table 5.5, the students in the
intervention group demonstrated significantly greater gains (p < 0.05) on measures
of letter-sound knowledge and single word reading (regular and non-words). No
significant group differences were found on measures of irregular word reading or
reading accuracy.
To determine if the differences between the two groups were clinically significant,
i.e. observable in the classroom, effect sizes were calculated and reported using
Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988). Following Cohen’s guidelines, d = 0.2 is considered a
‘small’ effect size, 0.5 represents a ‘medium’ effect size, and 0.8 represents a ‘large’
effect size. As shown in Fig. 5.2, although both groups demonstrated progress over
time, the intervention group made significantly more progress than the intervention
group on measures of orthographic knowledge, regular, and non-word reading.

5.2.3 Discussion

The six-week intervention programme was effective in boosting students’ perfor-

mance in important print-related skills that underlie successful word recognition, i.e.
orthographic knowledge and decoding of regular and nonsense words. Unfortunately,
no generalisation was observed to the students’ reading accuracy performance on the
YARC. The most reasonable explanation is that the students need more time to apply
their skills to sentence-level reading, which was not addressed in the intervention
itself (i.e. the focus was on single words). Moreover, although most of the students
5.2 Orthographic Knowledge and Phonological Processing Instruction 99

5 4.914

4.5
4
3.5
2.861
3
2.5
2
1.498
1.5
1 0.711 0.685
0.463 0.339
0.5 0.2820.253
0.095
0
LeST CC2 Regular CC-2 Irregular CC-2 Nonwords YARC - Reading
Accuracy
Intervention Control

Fig. 5.2 Effect size comparison (Cohen’s d) of the progress made in the intervention versus control
group following six weeks of intervention

had made significant progress in single word reading (improving more than 1 z-
score), closer inspection showed that many of the students still scored significantly
below expectations (i.e. z-score < −1).
These results raise important questions regarding the timing of the interven-
tion (Year 5). Research suggests intervention targeting word recognition difficul-
ties is more effective during the earlier school grades than during the later years
(see Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). Early detection of reading difficulties is possible as
long as sensitive and specific assessment tasks are used (see Chap. 3). By using an
RtI approach, students showing early signs of dyslexia (i.e. fail to make satisfac-
tory progress in word recognition despite high-quality classroom instruction) can
then receive timely intervention. Another important issue to consider is the dura-
tion of the intervention. Although little is known about the exact dosage needed to
effect more significant changes in reading accuracy, research suggests more exten-
sive intervention is needed than the six weeks we provided as part of the Reading
Success project (see Al Otaiba, Gillespie Rouse, & Baker, 2018). Finally, it is not
clear what the active ingredients were as the intervention contained a combination
of phonological processing and orthographic knowledge tasks, using both examiner-
and computer-assisted instructional methods.
100 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

5.3 Expository Text Structure Intervention

Based on the students’ performance on the YARC reading comprehension subtest

(Snowling et al., 2012), followed by investigation of their reading accuracy perfor-
mance on the YARC, and their performance on the Understanding Spoken Para-
graphs subtest of the CELF-4 (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2006), as outlined in Chap. 2
(steps 1 and 2), eight students from the Year 4 cohort were invited to participate
in an intervention programme aimed at enhancing their expository text structure
knowledge. Six of these students demonstrated specific comprehension difficulties,
as shown by the discrepancy between performance on the YARC reading compre-
hension and reading accuracy subtests (standard scores) accompanied by poor per-
formance (i.e. standard score < 7) on the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest
of the CELF-4. The reading results for these students are shown in Table 5.6.

5.3.1 Intervention Overview

Students completed a six-week programme focusing on oral language in an expos-

itory context. The programme was adapted from Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, and
Hulme (2010), who used a randomised control study design to investigate the effec-
tiveness of three interventions aimed at improving the reading comprehension per-
formance of 8- to 9-year-old students with specific reading comprehension deficits:
text comprehension training, oral language training, and both trainings combined.
All students received 30 h of intervention over 20 weeks (three 30-min sessions per
week; two in pairs, one individually) implemented by a trained research assistant.
Results from Clarke et al.’s (2010) study showed that the oral language groups made
the greatest gains in reading comprehension following intervention. We adapted the
intervention in the following ways:
• Duration and dosage. The intervention lasted six weeks (two 60-mins group ses-
sions per week) for a total of 12 h of intervention per student. All sessions were
in groups of four.
• Agent. The intervention was delivered by the speech pathologist.
• Focus. Our focus was on expository text, as opposed to narrative.

Similar to the Clarke et al. (2010) study, all sessions contained a range of evidence-
based techniques, including “comprehension monitoring, cooperative learning,
graphic organizers for story structure training, question answering and generat-
ing, summarisation, and multiple-strategy teaching” (p. 1108). Each session had the
same structure and contained the four components of vocabulary, graphic organiser,
reciprocal teaching, (figurative language, if applicable), and spoken expository (see
Table 5.7). All sessions adhered to the following principles: (a) rich interaction and
high-quality contextualised discussion; (b) integrate opportunities for relating mate-
rial to personal experiences, and (c) exploration of vocabulary and spoken expository
Table 5.6 Student performance prior to (end of Year 4) and following the intervention (mid Year 5)
Pre-YARC CELF-4 Post-YARC CELF-4 YARC
Groups Age RA SS RC SS RC AE USP (SS) RC SS RC AE USP (SS) RC AE pre-post RC SS pre-post
Intervention
S31 9;03 97 84 7;10 6 79 7;08 3
S74 10;03 95 83 8;03 3 101 11;01 7
S49 9;09 93 75 7;01 6 96 10;0 7
S57 10;03 89 79 7;10 10 88 9;03 12
5.3 Expository Text Structure Intervention

Mean (SD) 80.3 (4.1) 7;11 6.25 91.0 (9.6) 9;06 p = 0.08 p = 0.163
(0;06) (1;04) g = 1.27 g = 1.06
Control
S68 10;03 93 75 7;05 5 <70 7;01 3
S56 9;11 97 83 7;10 6 85 8;09 5
S48 10;03 85 83 8;03 5 74 7;08 10
S23 9;06 91 73 6;08 11 <70 5;07 11
Mean (SD) 78.5 (5.3) 7;07 74.8 (7.1) 7;04 p = 0.65 p = 0.200
(0;08) (1;02) g = 0.138 g = 0.43
Note YARC York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension, reading accuracy (RA), reading comprehension (RC); USP Understanding Spoken Paragraphs
from the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-4); SS standard score; AE age equivalence; g = Hegde’s g
101
102 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

Table 5.7 Session overview of expository language intervention programme (adapted from Clarke
et al., 2010)
Duration
3 min Introduction Summary Session 2
5 min Vocabulary Introduce a Tier 2 word, Session 2. Ask students to
related to the topic, using a come up with a synonym
Robust Vocabulary and a sentence to
Approach (Beck et al., demonstrate understanding
2013). Learning additional
words through context
10 min Graphic organiser Introduce the Repeat
passage article, or YouTube
clip. Explain the type of
expository it is and explain
why
10 min Reciprocal teaching Listen to the expository Keywords or key phrases
passage and write down only
keywords on the graphic Use a game with students
organiser. Students raise drawing question cards they
their hand if they do not need to answer
understand a concept,
sentence, or passage. Model
this behaviour
Question generation
activity: what, when, how,
where, who, why, can,
which?
Activate background
knowledge and develop
visual representations; use
reciprocal teaching
strategies
5 min Figurative language If applicable. Explore Repeat
non-literal language such as
jokes, riddles, and idioms
10–20 min Spoken expository Using the graphic Students take turns and
organiser, one student provide each other with
provides oral summary; feedback. Students are
others provide feedback. given a graphic organiser
Scaffolded by the SLP each with a pencil so they
Practice is key can tick if the other student
has included the
concepts/descriptors
3 min Plenary Wrap-up. Today we looked at…
5.3 Expository Text Structure Intervention 103

through varied games and activities, as well as worksheets. For further details see
also Clarke et al. (2014).
The following five types of expository discourse were targeted during the interven-
tion: (1) description, (2) procedure sequence, (3) comparison, (4) cause and effect,
and (5) problem and solution. Each type of discourse had an accompanying graphic
organiser, which was printed on A3 paper and used during the session. Graphic organ-
isers were sourced online, for example, by performing a Google search or by visiting
the www.readwritethink.org website. All five types of expository discourse were
briefly introduced during the first session, and students were informed they would
focus on a different type each week. The topic or content of the expository passages
was matched to the topics that were covered in the classroom during those six weeks.
For example, Unit 3.1 focused on ‘the Riddle of the Black Panther–The Search’ (Edu-
cation Services Australia). As a consequence, the first expository session focused on
the Black Panther (What’s a Black Panther, Really? National Geographic, 2015).
Other sessions included comparing rugby union to soccer, why native goannas are
dying (invaders), and flying foxes.
In week 6, the content of the previous five weeks was covered by introducing a
topic (in this case ‘flying foxes’) and asking students what type of expository they
could think of for the same topic, using the graphic organisers as prompts.

5.3.2 Intervention Results

All students were re-assessed after the intervention on Form A of the YARC to investi-
gate their reading comprehension performance (standard score and age equivalence).
Repeated measures t-tests were used to calculate changes in performance from pre-
(i.e. at the end of Year 4) to post-intervention. As shown in Table 5.6, the students
in the intervention group demonstrated larger gains in reading comprehension than
the control group who participated in the regular classroom activities, as shown by
the effect size (Hegde’s g, whereby small effect [cannot be discerned by the naked
eye] = 0.2; medium effect = 0.5; large effect [can be seen by the naked eye] = 0.8).
Although the progress in reading comprehension made by the intervention group
was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), the intervention group’s performance
showed a large effect size for both their standard score and their age equivalence
(i.e. > 1 standard deviation change) compared to the control group who showed < 0.4
standard deviation change. These results indicate the experiment was underpowered
(very small sample size), but also suggest the students in the intervention group made
noticeable gains in reading comprehension following the intervention.
104 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

5.3.3 Discussion

The results from this pilot study showed the potential effectiveness of a short intensive
intervention aimed at enhancing students’ expository structure knowledge. Although
replication is needed with larger numbers, our results are in line with those from
previous studies (e.g. Clarke et al., 2010).

5.4 Supplementary Whole-Class Oral Language

and Emergent Literacy Intervention

In response to the high literacy needs of the middle year students, the school imple-
mented a supplementary whole-class oral language and emergent literacy interven-
tion in the foundation year of schooling. This programme was based on Read It
Again-PreK (Justice & McGinty, 2010), which is freely available online (see refer-
ence list), but adapted, with permission for the local context. The adapted version
is called Read It Again—FoundationQ! (Department of Education, Training and
Employment, 2013), and can be downloaded for free from the same website (see
reference list).

5.4.1 Intervention Overview

Read it Again—Foundation Q! is a scientifically based oral language programme

designed to develop and strengthen student’s early foundations in four key areas
of language and literacy—vocabulary, narrative, phonological awareness, and print
knowledge:
Read It Again - FoundationQ! is designed to systematically build students’ language and lit-
eracy abilities in four areas. The scope of instruction encompasses: • Vocabulary - receptive
and expressive repertoire of words • Narrative - ability to understand and produce extended
discourse that describes real or fictional events occurring in the past, the present, or the future
P a g e | 4 Read It Again – FoundationQ! • Phonological awareness - sensitivity to the phono-
logical - or sound - structure of language • Print knowledge - interest in print, knowledge
of the names and distinctive features of various print units (e.g. alphabet letters, words),
and the way in which different prints may be combined in written language. (Department of
Education, 2013, p. 3)

Read It Again is firmly based on current research regarding how adults can support
children’s language and literacy development using systematic and explicit instruc-
tion presented in highly meaningful literacy events such as storybook reading. A
key feature of Read It Again is the repeated use of children’s storybooks as a way
to enhance language and literacy development. Studies indicate that repeated book
reading influences both story-related vocabulary and story-related comprehension
5.4 Supplementary Whole-Class Oral Language and Emergent … 105

and that the average effect size for the relationship between repeated book reading
and outcomes is larger when a book is read four or more times (Trivette, Simkus,
Dunst, & Hamby, 2012; Zucker, Cabell, Justice, Pentimonti, & Kaderavek, 2013).
FoundationQ! is aligned to the Australian curriculum for the foundation (first)
year of schooling and can be delivered as either a Tier 1 (differentiated) or Tier 2
(focused) teaching strategy within a response-to-intervention model. In this project,
FoundationQ! was delivered as a Tier 1 strategy across all Prep (foundation year
of schooling) classrooms. As explained in Chap. 1, differentiating instruction is a
critical feature of a response-to-intervention model and advocates for active planning
for student differences to ensure that every student is engaged, participating, and
learning successfully (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Tomlinson,
2000).
Read It Again—FoundationQ! incorporates six differentiation strategies (three
Too Easy strategies and three Too Hard strategies) that educators can use to scaf-
fold students’ performance on similar tasks or activities. To enhance teachers’ use
of the differentiated instructional strategies, a capacity-building model including
coaching by the speech pathologist was implemented. The provision of coaching by
speech pathologists is a natural extension of their consultative and collaborative ser-
vices within a response-to-intervention framework and has been found to be effective
when combined with in-service workshops (Milburn, Weitzman, Greenburg, & Giro-
lametto, 2014). The professional development programme implemented employed a
combination of a 1.5 h workshop that explained the intent, content, and structure of
the programme and provided opportunities to identify and apply the Too Easy and
Too Hard differentiation strategies; and individual coaching sessions incorporating
demonstration lessons, scheduled observations, and instructional feedback.
To increase teachers’ awareness of individual student needs and to assist teach-
ers in differentiating instruction, Read It Again—FoundationQ! includes a student
progress checklist (see the website for a copy), which measures individual students’
progress against the learning objectives in each of the four domains specific to Foun-
dationQ!. The checklists are administered at three separate points (after week 2, week
12, and week 21) during the 30-week intervention period. Development of skills is
rated by teachers as:
– Acquiring: student never or occasionally demonstrates the skill
– Building: student often demonstrates the skill, but is not yet consistent and/or
requires assistance, or
– Competent: student consistently demonstrates the skill

5.4.2 Intervention Results

To obtain preliminary data regarding the effectiveness of the implementation of this

Tier 1 intervention initiative in reducing the overall number of students requiring
additional support in oral and written language, we compared the performance of the
106 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

100 94.3
91.5
90 85.5
80
69.2
70
60.3
60 56.4

50
40
30
20
10
0
YARC RC YARC RA YARC RR
Yr4-pre RIA Yr2-post RIA

Fig. 5.3 Cohort (Year 2 vs. Year 4) performance on the YARC pre-and post-implementation of Read
It Again (RIA): percentage of students performing within normal limits in reading comprehension,
reading accuracy, and reading rate

Year 4 cohort (n = 78) who had not participated in the Read It Again—FoundationQ!
programme (see Chap. 3 for specific cohort results) to the performance of the Year
2 cohort (n = 69; see Chap. 3 for specific cohort results when these students were in
Year 1) on the YARC. On paper, these cohorts were similar with the Year 4 cohort
comprising 6% indigenous students; 31% English as a Second Language (School
ICSEA score 1005) and the Year 2 cohort comprising 6% indigenous students, and
35% ESL (ICSEA, 2013).
As shown in Fig. 5.3, a significantly higher percentage of students in Year 2
performed within normal limits (i.e. SS ≥ 85) on the YARC reading comprehension
(91.5% vs. 57.1%). Similar results were seen for reading accuracy and reading rate.

5.4.3 Discussion

Implementation of Read It Again—FoundationQ! seems to be successful in lifting

the literacy success rates of students attending the school. These findings provide
preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of implementing this programme that was
developed in the US (McGinty & Justice, 2010) but adapted for the Australian con-
text, in Australian classrooms (see also Lennox, Westerveld, & Trembath, 2018).
Further research is now needed to determine the effectiveness of these types of
interventions for children with lower oral language ability (see Gillon et al., 2019).
5.5 Chapter Summary 107

5.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the results from four evidence-based intervention initiatives.
In the reading to learn cohort, Robust Vocabulary Instruction was provided at the
whole-class level, with results showing larger gains in vocabulary knowledge in the
intervention classes compared to the control classes. The other two intervention ini-
tiatives for this cohort of students involved students who had been identified with
specific areas of weaknesses in spoken and/or written language skills impacting their
reading comprehension performance. Expository structure intervention was provided
to a group of students with specific comprehension difficulties, whereas a group of
students with specific word recognition difficulties participated in an orthographic
knowledge and phonological processing intervention programme. Results from these
interventions were positive but modest, highlighting the importance of early identi-
fication of reading difficulties to enable more timely intervention. In the learning to
read cohort, Read It Again—FoundationQ! was implemented at whole-school level
in all Prep classes. Although our research design did not allow for firm conclusions
regarding the effectiveness of this initiative, cohort mapping results showed a sig-
nificant improvement in reading performance over time prior to and following the
implementation of Read It Again—FoundationQ within the school. Implementation
of the five-step assessment framework introduced in this book will now be needed
to identify those students who need additional support, as our previous research has
shown that implementation of this type of whole-class supplementary oral language
and emergent literacy intervention alone may not be sufficient for long-term reading
success (Lathouras, Westerveld, & Trembath, 2019).

Appendix Example of Lesson Plan Outlining the Nine Steps

to Introducing a New Word

Introduction to word
Tier 2 Target: misconception
Steps of introduction Tier 2 target word outline
1. Text or Activity Text: ‘What’s a Black Panther, Really?’
Teacher reads the text to the students or Author: Liz Langley
completes other Key Learning Area activity Target word: Misconception
2. Context The article we are about to read is about a
Teacher contextualises the word within the misconception
text/activity
3. Repeat What’s the word? Misconception
Students repeat the word
(continued)
108 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

(continued)
4. Friendly Definition A misconception is an idea that is not correct.
Teacher provides a friendly definition of the You could also call it a myth
word
5. Teacher Examples There are many fears and misconceptions
Teacher provides examples in contexts other about cancer
than the one in the text/activity I think people have the misconception
that restaurants make a lot of money
It is a misconception that you have to wait
24 h before filing a missing person report
6. Repeat What’s the word? misconception
Students repeat the word.
7. Interaction I’m going to say some things and if you think
Teacher creates a situation/activity where the they are a misconception that kids could have,
students ‘interact’ with the word say ‘misconception’; if you think they are
correct, say nothing
– Chocolate milk comes from brown cows
– The sky is blue
– 1+1=2
– If you dig a really deep hole in the ground,
you will get to China
8. Students’ Examples Do you think you have ever had a
Students provide some of their own examples misconception? You could say, I had a
misconception when I thought…
9. Repeat What’s the word that means you have an idea
Teacher says friendly definition and students about something that turns out not to be
say the word again correct? misconception

References

Al Otaiba, S., Gillespie Rouse, A., & Baker, K. (2018). Elementary grade intervention approaches
to treat specific learning disabilities, including dyslexia. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 49(4), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0022.
Allen, J. (1999). Words, words, words: Teaching vocabulary in Grades 4-12. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse Publishers.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2008). Solving problems in the teaching of literacy.
Creating robust vocabulary: Frequently asked questions and extended examples. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life—Robust vocabulary instruction
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Larsen, L., Jones, P., Saunders, S., & McArthur, G. M. (2009). Assessing
the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms
(CC2). Retrieved from www.motif.org.au.
Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children’s reading-
comprehension difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1106–
1116.
References 109

Clarke, P. J., Truelove, E., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2014). Developing reading comprehension
(1st ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1986). Vocabulary building: A process approach. Columbus, OH: Zener-
Bloser.
Dawson, N., & Ricketts, J. (2017). The role of semantic knowledge in learning to read exception
words. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1044/
persp2.SIG1.95.
Department of Education, Training and Employment. (2013). Read It Again-FoundationQ! Queens-
land, Australia: Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment. https://
earlychildhood.ehe.osu.edu/research/practice/read-it-again-prek/.
Gillon, G., & Dodd, B. (1995). The effects of training phonological, semantic, and syntactic pro-
cessing skills in spoken language on reading ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 26(1), 58–68.
Gillon, G., McNeill, B., Scott, A., Denston, A., Wilson, L., Carson, K., et al. (2019). A better start
to literacy learning: Findings from a teacher-implemented intervention in children’s first year at
school. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9933-7.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public
elementary schools. Teachers college record, 109(4), 877–896.
Hiebert, E. H., & Kami, M. L. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research
to practice. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Justice, L., & McGinty, A. (2010). Read it again-PreK! A preschool curriculum supplement to
promote language and literacy foundations. Columbus, OH: Crane Center for Early Childhood
Research and Policy. https://earlychildhood.ehe.osu.edu/research/practice/read-it-again-prek/.
Larsen, L., Kohnen, S., Nickels, L., & McArthur, G. (2015). The Letter-Sound Test (LeST): A
reliable and valid comprehensive measure of grapheme–phoneme knowledge. Australian Journal
of Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2015.1037323.
Lathouras, M., Westerveld, M., & Trembath, D. (2019). Longitudinal reading outcomes in response
to a book-based, whole class intervention for students from diverse cultural, linguistic and socio-
economic backgrounds. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24, 147–161. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19404158.2019.1640755.
Lennox, M., Westerveld, M. F., & Trembath, D. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of PrepSTART
for promoting oral language and emergent literacy skills in disadvantaged preparatory students.
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17549507.2016.1229030.
Lindamood, P. C., & Lindamood, P. (2004). Lindamood auditory conceptualization test: Examiner’s
manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lindamood, P. D., & Lindamood, P. D. (2011). Lindamood phoneme sequencing program for
reading, spelling, and speech (4th ed.). USA: Pro-Ed.
McGregor, K., & Duff, D. (2015). Promoting diverse and deep vocabulary development. In T. A.
Ukrainetz (Ed.), School-age language intervention: Evidence-based practices (pp. 247–278).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Milburn, T. F., Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2014). Enhancing preschool edu-
cators’ ability to facilitate conversations during shared book reading. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 14(1), 105–140.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (Vol. NIH
Publication No. 00-4769): Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
110 5 Intervention Initiatives Across Three Levels of Instruction

Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—
fourth edition—Australian (4th ed.). Marrickville: Harcourt Assessment.
Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., &
Hulme, C. (2012). York assessment of reading for comprehension (YARC), (Australian ed.).
London: GL Assessment.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). What is differentiated instruction. In Carolyn M. Callahan & H. L.
Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives
(pp. 287–300). New York, NY: Routledge.
Trivette, C. M., Simkus, A., Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Repeated book reading and
preschoolers’ early literacy development. Center for Early Literacy Learning, 5(5), 1–13.
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading
interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561.
Zucker, T. A., Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Pentimonti, J. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2013). The role of
frequent, interactive prekindergarten shared reading in the longitudinal development of language
and literacy skills. Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1425–1439.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 6
Case Studies

Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong, and Georgina M. Barton

Abstract In this chapter, we provide three case studies of students with different
reading profiles. We demonstrate how using the five-step assessment to intervention
approach explained in Chap. 2 assists in creating a detailed profile of each student’s
strengths and weaknesses in spoken and written language skills that are needed
for successful reading comprehension. We highlight the importance of collabora-
tion between professionals involved in the identification of students who experience
difficulties in reading, to avoid duplication of assessments and to ensure targeted
intervention can be provided by the most relevant professional at the required tier of
intervention within a response-to-intervention (RtI) model.

Keywords Case studies · Speech-to-print profile · Reading difficulties

6.1 Case Study 1: James

James (S46: not his real name, age 9 years, 8 months) attended Year 4 at the school
and had attended the school since Prep (foundation year). His enrolment form iden-
tified him speaking English as an additional language or dialect, but his teachers
reported no concerns about his command of the English language. However, his
teachers were concerned about his reading comprehension skills and had noticed dif-
ficulties in his spelling too (see Fig. 6.1). James’ NAPLAN results (https://www.nap.
edu.au/results-and-reports/how-to-interpret) were at the national minimum standard
when he was tested in Year 3, particularly for writing and grammar and punctuation
(reading band 3; writing band 2; spelling band 3; grammar and punctuation band 2).
James performed at age level on the PROBE 2 (Parkin & Parkin, 2011); however, his
performance on the PAT-R (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2018) was
stanine 2, indicating performance well below expectations. When administering the
Reading Self-Concept Scale (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995), James’ response indicated
average perceptions of difficulties, competence, and attitude. We investigated James’
reading skills using our five-step assessment to intervention approach, as described
in Chap. 2 (Fig. 2.2).

© The Author(s) 2020 111

M. F. Westerveld et al., Reading Success in the Primary Years,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8_6
112 6 Case Studies

Fig. 6.1 James’

performance on the Single
Word Spelling Test (SWST;
Sacre & Masterson, 2000)

6.1.1 Assessment Overview: Steps 1 to 4

Step 1: Assessment of Reading Skills

York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC; Snowling et al., 2012)

results indicated severe difficulties in reading comprehension (SS = 73; age
equivalent [AE] 6 years, 8 months).

Step 2i: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations:

Check RA

James showed significant difficulties in reading accuracy (SS = 70, AE:

6;03 years), with 42.9% mispronunciations and 57.1% substitutions; and reading
rate (SS < 70; AE 6;0 years) on the YARC.
Step 2ii: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations:
Check LC

James showed satisfactory performance (SS = 12) in language comprehension, using

the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest from the CELF-4 (Semel, Wiig, &
Secord, 2006).

Step 3: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations on

RA

Further assessment of word recognition, using the Castles and Coltheart test of single
word reading (CC2; Castles, Coltheart, Larsen, Jones, Saunders, & McArthur, 2009)
showed severe difficulties in single word reading across regular, irregular, and non-
sense words (z’s < −2.0). James performed poorly in orthographic knowledge (z =
−2.32 using Year 3 norms of the Letter-Sound Test (LeST; Larsen, Kohnen, Nickels,
6.1 Case Study 1: James 113

& McArthur, 2015). Furthermore, James performed significantly below expectations

(SS = 5) on the Elision subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
(CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2013), indicating difficulties in phoneme
awareness.

Step 4: Create a Speech-to-Print Profile

A speech-to-print profile was created based on the assessment results from Steps
1 to 3. The speech pathologist administered the Rapid Automatic Naming task of
the CELF-4 which showed performance within normal limits. In addition, informa-
tion was gathered from the classroom teacher, including James’ performance on the
Single Word Spelling Test (SWST; Sacre & Masterson, 2000) as shown in Fig. 6.1
(age equivalence 6 years, 9 months). James also participated in a curriculum-based
assessment in English, based on the Novel Rowan of Rin by Emily Rodda. For this
assessment, students had to explain how the author of this novel represents the main
character in an important event. Students had to select an important event, complete
several scaffolded tasks, including writing a draft, before producing a final copy
of their response, which the teacher marked as not satisfactory for James’ level of
schooling (see Fig. 6.2). Because of the teacher’s concerns about James’ ability to
answer some of the scaffolded questions and create a coherent response, the speech
pathologist also administered an expository task (Heilmann & Malone, 2014) in
which James was asked to explain his favourite game or sport. James chose to explain
how to play soccer. The speech pathologist noticed James did not make effective use
of the planning sheet in that he did not write down any keywords on page 1, but
chose to draw a picture instead (Fig. 6.3). Although he used long sentences, he had
difficulty formulating complex ideas and his explanation lacked cohesion (i.e. “little
discernible order to topics; much jumping between topics; and abrupt transitions
between topics”). The final speech-to-print profile is shown in Fig. 6.4.

Fig. 6.2 James’ final copy of his English assessment

114 6 Case Studies

Fig. 6.3 James’ expository planning sheet. (Source saltsoftware.com)

Spoken Language Written Language

Underlying Phonological Processing

representations
Vocabulary Phonological Storage and Rule/concept Word – level Text-level
knowledge Awareness Retrieval knowledge

Syntax Syllable level Non word Print concepts Word Reading

repetition recognition accuracy
SS: <70
Morphology Onset-rime Multisyllabic Grapheme- Regular word Reading
level word Phoneme reading comprehension
repetition Correspondences: Z = -2.48 SS: 73
Phonology: Phoneme level Rapid Naming Z = -2.32 Irregular Reading
No concerns Elision subtest WNL (Yr3 norms) Z = -2.12 fluency/rate
SS: 5 (CTOPP) SS: <70
Text structure: Non-word Writing:
Poor cohesion on Z = -2.62 Teacher
expository concerns –
generation task. class example
Understanding Spelling: (Fig 6.2)
Spoken teacher
Paragraphs concerns (Fig
ScS:12 6.1).

Fig. 6.4 James’ speech-to-print profile (Adapted from Gillon, 2004, with permission from the
author). Note for interpretation of scores, see Fig. 2.1 (Bell curve). Shading: white = not tested;
light grey = within normal limits/no concerns; dark grey = significant difficulties
6.1 Case Study 1: James 115

6.1.2 Case Discussion and Suggestions

for Intervention (Step 5)

Based on the assessment results, it is clear that James has a profile of dyslexia (i.e.
specific word recognition difficulties). James demonstrates reading comprehension
difficulties due to his weaknesses in accurate and fluent word recognition skills, even
though he shows adequate language comprehension skills. As explained in Chap. 1,
these reading difficulties generally stem from phonological processing weaknesses;
in James’ case, he showed particular challenges with phoneme awareness tasks, but
demonstrated age-appropriate performance in rapid automatic naming (i.e. phono-
logical retrieval). James’ difficulties in reading accuracy at sentence-level on the
YARC were confirmed at word level on the CC-2, with significant difficulties on
regular, irregular, and non-word reading. Moreover, James struggled on the LeST;
closer inspection showed poor performance in naming of short vowels, digraphs, and
diphthongs.
Worth mentioning is James’ poor performance on the expository generation task,
with limited use of complex sentences and poor cohesion. As shown in Fig. 6.3,
James did not make efficient use of the planning sheet to organise his explanation of
how to play the game/sport of his choice, soccer. James’ difficulties on this task are
most likely the result from reduced exposure to complex written materials due to his
persistent word recognition difficulties (see also Chap. 1 for a discussion). Consider-
ing the emphasis on expository text from Year 4 of schooling (Snyder & Caccamise,
2010), this places James at high risk of facing challenges in most academic subjects,
including English but also History and social studies.
Although James’ teachers had been concerned about his reading skills, he had not
been identified with specific word recognition difficulties. It seems likely that James’
strong language comprehension skills masked his reading accuracy/word recogni-
tion difficulties during the early years of schooling. Early identification of James’
significant difficulties in word recognition would have prompted early intervention.
Considering the evidence that early intervention is critical for children with dyslexia
to avoid long-term challenges in academic achievement and socio-emotional well-
being, the importance of routinely use of sensitive reading assessment tools cannot
be underestimated.

Step 5: Provision of Targeted Intervention

Based on James’ profile (see also Fig. 6.4), he would benefit from intervention
aimed at systematically improving: (1) his grapheme–phoneme knowledge; and (2)
his phonological processing skills, making sure the intervention includes practice in
spelling and reading to reach automaticity (see Al Otaiba, Gillespie Rouse, & Baker,
2018, for a review). Chapter 5 provides an example of an intensive intervention for
students with a profile of specific word recognition difficulties. In addition, James
would benefit from explicit instruction in how to use visual planners when evaluating
and/or generating expository texts to guide not only his comprehension, but also his
ability to generate these types of discourse genres.
116 6 Case Studies

6.1.3 Case Study 2: Hannah

Hannah (S02: not her real name) attended Year 4 when she became involved in the
Reading Success project. Hannah (age 9 years, 10 months) spoke English as her first
and only language and had attended the school since Prep (foundation year). Hannah
had been referred to the speech pathologist because of concerns about her spoken
language skills when she was in Prep but had not been verified with speech-language
impairment (SLI). Hannah’s teachers were still concerned about her oral language
skills and had become increasingly concerned about her reading skills. Hannah’s
NAPLAN results were at the national minimum standard when she was tested in
Year 3 for writing and spelling in particular (reading band 3; writing band 2; spelling
band 2; grammar and punctuation band 3). Hannah’s performance on the PAT-R was
stanine 2 (5th percentile), indicating performance well below expectations. Hannah’s
PROBE-2 results were not available. When administering the Reading Self-Concept
Scale (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995), Hannah’s responses indicated very low self-
ratings for reading difficulties and reading competence, but a high rating on reading
attitude. We investigated Hannah’s reading skills using our five-step assessment to
intervention approach, as described in Chap. 2 (Fig. 2.2).

6.1.4 Assessment Overview: Steps 1 to 4

Step 1: Assessment of Reading Skills

York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension results indicated severe difficulties

in reading comprehension (SS < 70; age equivalent [AE] 6 years, 0 months)

Step 2i: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations:

Check RA

Hannah showed significant difficulties in reading accuracy (SS = 73, AE:

6;11 years)—with 29.2% mispronunciations, 62.5% substitutions, 4.2% additions,
and 4.2% omissions; as well as reading rate (SS < 70; AE 6;07 years) on the YARC.

Step 2ii: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations:

Check LC

Hannah demonstrated significant difficulties (SS = 5) in language comprehension,

using the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest from the CELF-4 (Semel et al.,
2006).

Step 3: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations on

RA

Further assessment of word recognition, using the CC-2 showed severe difficulties in
single word reading across regular (z = −2.31), irregular (z = −1.37), and nonsense
6.1 Case Study 1: James 117

words (z = −2.42). Hannah also performed poorly in orthographic knowledge (z =

−1.9 using Year 3 norms of the LeST). However, Hannah performed within typical
limits on phonological awareness on the CTOPP, based on her scores on the elision
and blending words subtests (composite score 88; 21st percentile).

Step 4: Create a Speech-to-Print Profile

Based on the assessment results from Steps 1 to 3, a speech-to-print profile was

created. The speech pathologist administered additional subtests from the CTOPP
and found Hannah to score within normal limits in rapid naming (Composite score 94;
35th percentile), but below expectations on tasks measuring phonological memory
(Composite score 76; 5th percentile). To obtain a complete picture of Hannah’s
spoken language skills, the speech pathologist also administered the CELF-4. It was
found that Hannah showed significant receptive and expressive spoken language
difficulties (core language standard score 63; receptive language composite SS 70;
expressive language composite SS 61).
To investigate Hannah’s spoken language skills at text-level in a context that is
relevant to her school environment, the speech pathologist administered the Test of
Narrative Language (TNL; Gillam & Pearson, 2004) which assesses a child’s oral
narrative comprehension and production skills across three formats: (a) the child first
listens to a script without pictures, then answers comprehension questions, before
retelling the script; (b) the child first listens to a story based on a sequence of five pic-
tures, then answers comprehension questions, before generating a story with five new
pictures; and (c) the child listens to a fictional story while looking at a picture (dragon
story), and asked comprehension questions related to that story, before generating
a fictional story based on a different single picture (alien story). Hannah obtained
standard scores of five for narrative comprehension and oral narration, which yielded
an overall Narrative Language Ability Index of 70, indicating significant difficulties.
Hannah’s speech-to-print profile is shown in Fig. 6.5.

6.1.5 Case Discussion and Suggestions

for Intervention (Step 5)

Based on the assessment results, it is clear that Hannah has a profile of mixed read-
ing difficulties. In other words, her reading comprehension difficulties stem from
significant weaknesses in word recognition and language comprehension. It is inter-
esting to note that Hannah performed within normal limits on phoneme awareness.
This may reflect the fact that she had received phonological awareness interven-
tion from the speech pathologist in Year 2. It is not clear whether this intervention
included activities aimed at improving Hannah’s grapheme knowledge (i.e. letter-
sound correspondences), particularly more complex ones. Further inspection of her
LeST results showed a mastery of all 26 letters of the alphabet (except for /i/ and /x/),
but difficulty with most digraphs (e.g. /ng/, /gn/, and /igh/ ) as well as diphthongs. It
118 6 Case Studies

Spoken Language Written Language

Underlying Phonological Processing

representations
Vocabulary: Phonological Storage and Rule/concept Word – level Text-level
Expressive ScS:4 Awareness Retrieval knowledge
Word Classes
ScS: 5
Syntax Syllable level Non word Print concepts Word Reading
Expressive ScS:3 repetition recognition accuracy
Receptive ScS: 5 SS:76 SS: 73
(CTOPP)
Morphology Onset-rime Multisyllabic Grapheme- Regular word Reading
level word Phoneme reading comprehension
repetition Correspondences: Z = -2.31 SS < 70
Phonology: Phoneme level Rapid Naming Z = -1.90 Irregular Reading
No concerns SS:88 CTOPP: WNL (Yr3 norms) Z = -1.37 fluency/rate
(CTOPP) SS <70
Text structure: Non-word Writing
TNL: SS70 Z = -2.42
Expressive SS:5
Receptive SS: 5
Understanding Spelling
Spoken
Paragraphs ScS:5

Fig. 6.5 Hannah’s speech-to-print profile (Adapted from Gillon, 2004, with permission from the
author). Note For interpretation of scores, see Fig. 2.1 (Bell curve). Shading: white = not tested;
light grey = within normal limits/no concerns; dark grey = significant difficulties

is also not clear if this intervention specifically included spelling and reading tasks
aimed at improving fluency (automaticity). It is of concern that Hannah showed a
relatively low self-concept when we asked her questions regarding reading using the
Self-Concept Scale (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995), indicating she found reading diffi-
cult and that she was not very good at it. In contrast, she scored higher when asked
about her attitudes towards reading, highlighting she quite liked reading. As shown
in Chap. 4, it is important to consider the students’ self-perceptions when initiating
intervention to ensure they are engaged in the process. In Hannah’s case, a SWOT
analysis would have provided invaluable information.
Considering Hannah demonstrated significant spoken language difficulties on
standardised tests of language ability (the CELF-4 and the TNL), the speech pathol-
ogist transcribed Hannah’s alien story (from the TNL), using Systematic Analy-
sis of Language Transcripts, New Zealand/Australia version (SALT-NZ/AU; Miller,
Gillon, & Westerveld, 2017) to perform a more detailed language sample analysis
(Miller, Andriacchi, Nockerts, Westerveld, & Gillon, 2016). As shown in Fig. 6.6,
Hannah’s story was short, and showed a few grammatical errors, such as incorrect
use of an article, referential pronoun, and noun-verb agreement. When comparing
her performance to age-matched peers from the TNL database using SALT-NZ/AU,
Hannah showed little use of complex sentences (low MLU: mean length of utter-
ance); semantics (low semantic diversity in number of different words), and gram-
matical accuracy (in % utterances with errors). The SALT-NZ/AU database standard
measures report is shown in Fig. 6.7 (with areas of difficulty highlighted in grey).
6.1 Case Study 1: James 119

$ Child, Examiner
+ Language: English
+ ParticipantId: Hannah
+ Gender: F
+ CA: 9;6
+ Grade: 4
+ Context: Nar
+ Subgroup: TNL
+ Aliens
C there was a[ew] alien ship what[ew] just landed.
C and they were coming out.
C they were : a mum, a kid, a dog .
C and a dad.
C : and another girl.
C and there's a boy and a girl in the corner.
C and (the boy :02) the girl was trying to drag the boy.
C and the aliens[ew] girl : was waving.
C and the : girl : was shouting get the man to come out and say hello.
C and the little girl was leading the dog.
C and they looked like they were gonna Camp.
C that's it.

Fig. 6.6 Hannah’s SALT transcript of the alien story (TNL, Gillam & Pearson, 2004). Note C =
child; ew = error at word level; :02 = pause of 2 s

Next, the speech pathologist analysed Hannah’s narrative at macrostructure level

for the use of story grammar elements and cohesion (Hughes, McGillivray, &
Schmidek, 1997). Hannah provided a description of the picture (i.e. characters),
but there was little evidence of a problem-oriented narrative (i.e. problem “and they
were coming out”), with no mention of a plan, actions, and a resolution. In Year 4,
students are expected to produce true narratives containing all story grammar ele-
ments (characters, setting, initiating event, problem, plan, actions, resolution, and
conclusion) across multiple episodes (Applebee, 1978). Considering the importance
of narrative proficiency for classroom participation and academic achievement (Aus-
tralian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2012; Milosky,
1987), narrative intervention is clearly warranted.

Step 5: Provision of Targeted Intervention

Based on Hannah’s profile (i.e. mixed reading difficulties), she would benefit from
intervention targeting both her language comprehension and word recognition skills.
Intervention for word recognition should aim to systematically improve: (1) her
grapheme–phoneme knowledge; and (2) her phonological processing skills, making
sure the intervention includes practice in spelling and reading to reach automaticity.
Chapter 5 provides an example of an intensive intervention aimed at enhancing word
recognition skills. In addition, Hannah would benefit from narrative intervention
aimed at improving her story structure knowledge (i.e. story grammar) as well as her
ability to use complex sentences (e.g. Gillam & Gillam, 2016; Westerveld & Gillon,
2008). Considering Hannah’s significant reading difficulties, ongoing monitoring of
her spoken and written language skills is clearly needed.
120 6 Case Studies

Fig. 6.7 SALT—standard measures database report

6.2 Case Study 3: Bill

Bill (S38: not his real name) attended Year 1 of his local primary school. Bill (age
7 years, 1 month) had attended the school since the commencement of Prep (foun-
dation year) the previous year. His enrolment form identified him as only speaking
English in the home environment. At the end of Year 1, Bill demonstrated reading
skills that were considered to be ‘within expectations’ for his Year level, with a PM
Benchmark (Smith, Nelley, & Croft, 2009) level of 21 (with level 16 considered
satisfactory at the end of Year 1). As part of the Reading Success project, we inves-
tigated Bill’s reading skills using our five-step assessment to intervention approach,
as described in Chap. 2 (Fig. 2.2).
6.2 Case Study 3: Bill 121

6.2.1 Assessment Overview: Steps 1 to 4

Step 1: Assessment of Reading Skills

York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension results indicated severe difficulties

in reading comprehension (SS < 70; age equivalent [AE] < 5 years).

Step 2i: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations:

Check RA

On the YARC, Bill showed mild difficulties in reading accuracy (SS = 84, AE: 5;
10 years), with 14.3% mispronunciations, 71.4% substitutions, and 14.3% refusals.
We were unable to calculate reading rate as the beginner level passage is not timed
and Bill exceeded the maximum number of reading accuracy errors on Level 1 of
the YARC.
Step 2ii: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations:
Check LC

Bill showed language comprehension skills well below expectations (SS = 4), using
the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest from the CELF-5 (Wiig et al., 2017).

Step 3: Further Assessment of Students Who Scored Below Expectations on

RA

Further assessment of word recognition, using the CC-2 showed difficulties in single
word reading across regular (z-score = −1.22), and nonsense words (z-score = −
1.03). However, Bill demonstrated satisfactory skills in irregular word reading (z
= −0.73). Bill performed within expectations on the SPAT-R (Neilson, 2003); he
showed difficulties in his orthographic knowledge on the LeST (z-score = −1.04).

Step 4: Create a Speech-to-Print Profile

A speech-to-print profile was created, based on the assessment results from Steps 1
to 3. The final speech-to-print profile is shown in Fig. 6.8.

6.2.2 Case Discussion and Suggestions

for Intervention (Step 5)

Based on the assessment results, it is evident that Bill has a reading profile most
consistent with mixed reading difficulties, that is, Bill demonstrated reading accu-
racy below expectations as well as difficulties with his language comprehension. In
looking more closely at Bill’s word recognition skills, it was evident that he had dif-
ficulties with his single word reading, including regular and nonsense words on the
CC-2. He also showed poor orthographic knowledge. However, an area of strength
122 6 Case Studies

Spoken Language Written Language

Underlying Phonological Processing

representations
Vocabulary Phonological Storage and Rule/concept Word – level Text-level
knowledge Awareness Retrieval knowledge

Syntax Syllable level Non word Print concepts Word Reading

SPAT-R WNL repetition recognition accuracy
SS: 84
Morphology Onset-rime Multisyllabic Grapheme- Regular word Reading
level word Phoneme reading comprehension
SPAT-R WNL repetition Correspondences: Z = -1.22 SS: <70
Phonology: Phoneme level Rapid Naming Z = -1.04 Irregular Reading
No concerns SPAT-R WNL Z = -0.73 fluency/rate
SS: Not
calculated
Text structure Non-word Writing
Z = -1.03
Understanding Spelling
Spoken
Paragraphs SS: 4

Fig. 6.8 Bill’s speech-to-print profile (Adapted from Gillon, 2004, with permission from the
author). Note For interpretation of scores, see Fig. 2.1 (Bell curve). Shading: white = not tested;
light grey = within normal limits/no concerns; dark grey = significant difficulties

for Bill included reading irregular words at the single word level, which reflects a
strength in sight word reading. He also showed adequate phonological awareness
skills when we administered the first seven subtests of the SPAT-R.
Bill would benefit from further assessment of his spoken language skills by the
speech pathologist to determine whether his difficulties on the Understanding Spoken
Paragraphs subtest of the CELF-5 stemmed from difficulties at word- and sentence-
level. We would also want to check his ability to use spoken language at the discourse
level, for example, to tell or retell a fictional narrative (see Chap. 2 for an overview
of relevant assessment tasks). In addition, we would ask the teacher for classroom
examples of Bill’s written work, including the most recent results of a spelling test.
It is of concern that Bill’s reading difficulties had not been identified by the school-
based reading assessment, PM Benchmark. This assessment was administered at a
similar point in the school year to the YARC. As outlined in Chap. 3, Bill is one of the
13 students (14% of the Year 1 cohort) who performed within typical limits on the PM
Benchmark but showed significant difficulties on the YARC reading comprehension
subtest.

Step 5: Provision of Targeted Intervention

Following the completion of the assessment, as part of the Reading Success project,
Bill received access (without one-on-one support in a whole-class setting) to the
Reading Doctor App by his classroom teacher to target his orthographic knowledge.
Re-assessment on the LeST following this intervention indicated continued difficul-
ties with orthographic knowledge (z-score = −1.62). Closer inspection of time spent
6.2 Case Study 3: Bill 123

on the app showed Bill was given access for only 56 min, reaching level 6 (out of 10).
This is significantly less than the time spent by the students in Year 5 (see Chap. 5),
indicating the importance of future research investigating the dosage effects of this
type of intervention.
In terms of other support, Bill’s narrative comprehension and production skills
were assessed by the speech pathologist in Term 1, Year 2. He subsequently received
small-group intervention targeting his narrative skills in Terms 2 and 3 of Year 2.
These small groups were run by the speech pathologist at the school with support from
a teacher aide. Following this intervention and on re-assessment with the YARC at
the end of Year 2 (i.e. one year later), Bill demonstrated improvements in his reading
accuracy (now SS 88) and reading comprehension (SS <70 to SS 86). Bill’s reading
rate continued to reflect difficulties (RR 76), though, suggesting he was still decoding
at a slower rate than expected for his age. Considering the importance of fluent word
recognition for reading comprehension, it is important Bill’s reading skills are closely
monitored.

6.3 Chapter Summary

In this chapter, we shared three case examples to demonstrate the usefulness of our
five-step assessment to intervention framework (based on the Simple View of Read-
ing) in: (a) determining which students may need further assessment of their spoken
and/or written language skills, (b) understanding an individual student’s strengths
and weaknesses in the skills needed for successful reading comprehension, and (c)
selecting specific targets for intervention. Both Year 4 students James and Hannah
had performed at or above the benchmark on the NAPLAN in Year 3; both students
showed difficulties on the PAT-R. However, further inspection revealed very different
reading profiles, with significant implications for intervention and progress monitor-
ing practices. Our case example Bill emphasised the importance of identification of
reading difficulties during the early years of schooling and how timely intervention
may assist early reading success. As outlined in Chap. 1, using the stepped assess-
ment framework and its corresponding speech-to-print profile will thus encourage
collaborative practice, by not only ensuring there is no double-up of assessments,
but also by promoting a shared understanding between all professionals involved in
the teaching of reading to aim for timely and effective instructional practices within
a multitiered systems of support approach.
124 6 Case Studies

References

Al Otaiba, S., Gillespie Rouse, A., & Baker, K. (2018). Elementary grade intervention approaches
to treat specific learning disabilities, including dyslexia. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 49(4), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0022.
Applebee, A. (1978). The child’s concept of story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2018). Progressive achievement tests in reading
(PAT-R). Australia: Author.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2012). The Australian
Curriculum—English. Retrieved from www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.
Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Larsen, L., Jones, P., Saunders, S., & McArthur, G. M. (2009). Assessing
the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms
(CC2). Retrieved from www.motif.org.au.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts:
An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.87.
1.154.
Gillam, S. L., & Gillam, R. B. (2016). Narrative discourse intervention for school-aged children
with language impairment: Supporting knowledge in language and literacy. Topics in Language
Disorders, 36(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000081.
Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. A. (2004). Test of narrative language. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Heilmann, J., & Malone, T. O. (2014). The rules of the game: Properties of a database of expository
language samples. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 277–290.
Hughes, D., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for
assessment. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Larsen, L., Kohnen, S., Nickels, L., & McArthur, G. (2015). The Letter-Sound Test (LeST): a
reliable and valid comprehensive measure of grapheme–phoneme knowledge. Australian Journal
of Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2015.1037323.
Miller, J. F., Andriacchi, K., Nockerts, A., Westerveld, M., & Gillon, G. (2016). Assessing language
production using SALT software. A clinician’s guide to language sample analysis. New Zealand—
Australia version (2nd ed.). Middleton, WI: SALT Software.
Miller, J. F., Gillon, G. T., & Westerveld, M. F. (2017). Systematic analysis of language transcripts
(SALT), New Zealand/Australia Version 18 [computer software]. Madison, WI: SALT Software
LLC.
Milosky, L. M. (1987). Narratives in the classroom. Seminars in Speech and Language, 8(4), 329–
343.
Neilson, R. (2003). Sutherland phonological awareness test - revised (SPAT-R) (Revised ed.).
Jamberoo, NSW: Author.
Parkin, C., & Parkin, C. (2011). PROBE 2: Reading comprehension assessment. Wellington, NZ:
Triune Initiatives.
Sacre, L., & Masterson, J. (2000). Single word spelling test (SWST). Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-
Nelson.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—
fourth edition—Australian (4th ed.). Marrickville: Harcourt Assessment.
Smith, A., Nelley, E., & Croft, D. (2009). PM benchmark reading assessment resources (AU/NZ).
Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., &
Hulme, C. (2012). York assessment of reading for comprehension (YARC), (Australian ed.).
London: GL Assessment.
Snyder, L., & Caccamise, D. (2010). Comprehension processes for expository text: Building mean-
ing and making sense. In M. A. Nippold & C. M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children,
adolescents, and adults (pp. 13–39). NY: Psychology Press.
References 125

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2013). The comprehensive test of phonological
processing—Second Edition (CTOPP-2). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Westerveld, M. F., & Gillon, G. T. (2008). Oral narrative intervention for children with mixed
reading disability. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24(1), 31–54.
Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2017). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals
Australian and New Zealand (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Part III
Findings from Teacher Interviews
and Recommendations
Chapter 7
Feedback

Georgina M. Barton, Marleen F. Westerveld, and Rebecca M. Armstrong

Abstract In this chapter we share results from the qualitative data collected prior to
(phase 1) and after completion (phase 2) of the Reading Success project. Information
from staff interviews revealed some broader issues related to a whole-school approach
to the teaching of reading. Findings showed several common themes, including the
importance of positive and collaborative learning environments; having consistent
language and communication across the whole school in relation to literacy education
and more specifically the teaching of reading; and the inclusion of varied approaches
that can be demonstrated for the purpose of professional learning.

Keywords Teacher interviews · Literacy education · Whole-school approaches

7.1 Phase 1 Staff Interviews

Initially, we were interested in knowing what the teachers and leaders thought about
the literacy practices already being implemented in the school. We, therefore, carried
out a number of interviews with staff involved in the teaching of reading at the school
to find out what approaches and/or programmes were being used in the teaching of
reading and whether the staff thought these were effective or not. It is important to
note that these interviews were carried out at the beginning of the school’s reform in
literacy and reading instruction.
As outlined in Chap. 2, questions included: (1) What programmes are currently in
place that aim to improve literacy (and more specifically reading) outcomes for
students?; (2) What are the current perceptions of the success as well as areas
in need of improvement of these programmes?; and (3) What future programmes
and approaches to improving success in literacy learning might be considered in
your school? We also gathered demographic information about the teachers that are
displayed in Table 7.1.
Further, questions were semi-structured and focused on the approaches used
within the school to improve literacy learning, and more specifically reading out-
comes. Questions were based around the context of the school, the programmes
being used for literacy, and what the teachers feel about the effectiveness of such

© The Author(s) 2020 129

M. F. Westerveld et al., Reading Success in the Primary Years,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8_7
130 7 Feedback

Table 7.1 Teachers’ demographic information

Teacher pseudonym Teaching experience Current year level Qualifications
in years teaching
Lisa 4½ 4/5 BEd—Early
Childhood
Polly 15 4 BEd and Masters
Marie 4 4/5 Undergraduate and
Graduate Diploma in
Education
Geoff 15 Member of Postgraduate Diploma
leadership team in Education
Amelie 20 Not available BEd Primary
Mina 30 5 BEd and Masters
Georgia 25 4 Diploma of Teaching
Note BEd Bachelor of Education

methods. We also asked what the teachers thought should be enhanced and how this
could happen.
All interviews were transcribed and member checked (Koelsch, 2013; Oliver,
Serovich, & Mason, 2005). The team all read the transcripts and wrote down any
recurring codes and then themes (de Casterle, Gastmans, Bryon, & Denier, 2012).
After initial themes were identified one team member took the lead on further analysis
using an inductive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and consequently a
number of themes were identified in these data including:
• The importance of a positive learning environment;
• A consistent language for literacy learning;
• Varied activities as well as a targeted approach;
• Cultural diversity.

7.1.1 The Importance of a Positive Learning Environment

All staff interviewed commented extremely positively about the school’s culture and
learning environment. They unanimously felt that the ‘culture’ of the school had been
greatly improved over the past three years since the implementation of the Positive
Behaviour Learning programme, called RISE. Having a consistent approach that was
visible throughout the school via posters and slogans was making a difference. Staff
believed that the students were willing to learn as a result and that parents were also
aware of the school’s overarching philosophy. This, in turn, had also impacted on
the reputation of the school in the community.
It’s actually a really great school. The kids are really good. They’re very positive. They love
to learn which is great. You notice a huge change in their attitude towards school when they
7.1 Phase 1 Staff Interviews 131

hear RISE. So if you all of a sudden say what’s RISE, they go, Respect, Independence,
Safety, Effort and it’s one of those things that’s now drilled into them and they take it home
with them which is really good too. There’s a lot of visuals around the school which is great.
It’s a constant reminder for them. Lisa

Many of the teachers commented on how the school has a wide range of cultures
represented in its school cohort. They felt that this diversity contributed to the positive
learning environment established in the school. However, they also mentioned that
a number of students come and go regularly which makes teaching them difficult.
Overall, they felt the school had a good reputation in the community, which had not
always been the case.
Probably low to mid socio-economic backgrounds, varied culture. Fairly, transient I think.
Marie
I would suggest it is a school that is very multi-cultural but also very accepting. So we’re a
bit of a mixed bag. We’ve got high flyers, low flyers, different cultures all the way through.
I actually think that it’s a school that’s really progressing forward. […] I think a lot of effort
has gone into focusing on where the children have come from and then making them progress
forward. Polly

7.1.2 A Consistent Language for Literacy Learning

All staff commented on a whole-school literacy approach that had been developed
collaboratively over the past few years. The importance of a consistent language for
literacy learning was highlighted by each interviewee. All staff believed that the six
strategies for reading comprehension, for example, impacted positively on students’
learning as it enabled teachers to focus on other areas of instruction; children were
able to recite this quickly and move on to the next task. The reading and writing
strategies, as well as differentiation and behaviour management plans as outlined in
the school’s improvement priorities (Table 7.2), were certainly having an effect.
The school recognised that professional development (PD) was an important com-
ponent of all priority areas. Korthagen (2017) noted that both new and traditional
approaches to PD are needed for teachers. He highlighted how a lot of “teacher
learning takes place unconsciously and involves cognitive, emotional and motiva-
tional dimensions” (p. 387). Others have also revealed that professional development
needs to be varied and not always top-down (Bahr, Dole, Bahr, Barton, & Davies,
2007; Hargreaves & Ainscow, 2015) and should take into account all teachers’ needs.
Bahr et al. (2007) offered a model of effective PD that notes the importance of teach-
ers being able to choose the type of professional learning that suits their needs best.
Further, the staff felt valued and that their voice was being heard.
In the last three years … new ideas coming out and they are monitored properly. Teachers are
given time like this to sit down and discuss things and the peer observation we can go to other
classes where teachers sit through what they’re doing and then pick up something from there.
Then they come to your class and they pick up something. There’s a lot of opportunities.
There’s a lot of time factor given to us to collate all this information.
132 7 Feedback

Table 7.2 The school’s improvement priorities

Reading and writing Differentiation Behaviour management
Pedagogy Pedagogy Support
– Scheduled literacy blocks – PD – Positive Behaviour for
– Explicit teaching – Coaching and mentoring Learning (PBL)
– School reading framework – Collaborative development of – Internal PBL coach
– Jolly Phonics (Prep) Individual Curriculum Plans Strategies
– Robust Vocabulary and Personal Learning Plans – RISE
Instruction – Evidence-based decisions – Classroom rules
– Heggarty’s phonemic – Case management – Behaviour matrix
awareness (Prep-2) Support staff – Official launch
– Read It Again – Student support team – STAR mascot
– FoundationQ! (Prep) – Teacher aides – STAR student of the
– Professional development – Head of student learning week
(PD) – SEP teachers and aides – Classroom behaviour
– Student goal setting – Speech pathologist walks
– Effective student feedback – EAL/D teacher – Time out buddies
– Running records – Guidance officer – Newsletter
– Moderation – External agencies PD
– Differentiation Support programmes – PBL tiers and
– Reading data wall – Intervention programmes visualisation
– Whole-school home – Extension programmes, e.g. – Effective behaviour
reading approach robotics, U2B management strategies
Support – Social skills – Behaviour data trends
– Master Teacher and Head – Mindfulness—growth
of Curriculum coaching
– Peer coaching
– Student support team
– Planning meetings
– PD
– Instructional feedback
(five weeks)

Generally, the staff felt supported in their work in the teaching of reading and noted
that there were a number of improvements that had been happening over the past
year, since the implementation of the school’s reading plan.
Our school’s very focussed at the moment in terms of reading. Literacy is a really big push for
us, especially reading. We do a lot of data meetings and collaborative meetings based around
reading. We’ve got a huge data wall that we use to track how the kids are going in terms
of the age appropriate level and their year level targets. We are just constantly focussing on
reading and trying to improve it. Lisa
A couple of years ago we developed a framework to try and have consistent language and
consistent practices. It takes time to implement. It takes time to up-skill teachers and it
takes time – that’s continuous. But it takes time also to monitor it and to offer support
and coaching, etc. Part of it was around consistent strategies in oral reading, as such and
strategising comprehension. So there are two elements to it. Geoff
7.1 Phase 1 Staff Interviews 133

7.1.3 Varied Activities as well as a Targeted Approach

Another area mentioned consistently by staff was not only the targeted approach
involving the six strategies but also the fact that their literacy plans consisted of varied
activities for the students. Even though staff were asked to implement three literacy
blocks per week that included guided reading activities, they were also able to develop
and implement a range of pedagogical approaches to ensure all students’ needs were
met. Included in these activities were:
• Learning support lessons;
• Small group work;
• Explicit instruction;
• Time for reading;
• Guided reading;
• Comprehension skills;
• Text variance;
• Literacy blocks.

While the variety of activities was seen to be important, some staff did find there
was limited flexibility due to time constraints and the requirement to do three literacy
blocks each week. Further, some staff felt the need for more professional development
on guided reading and that there were just too many expectations as to what to use
in the classroom. Teachers still wanted more experience around particular teaching
strategies in comprehension and in particular inferential comprehension.

7.1.4 Cultural Diversity

When staff described their school they were all well aware of the range of cultural
diversity present in the student cohort—with 33% of students from ESL/EAL back-
grounds and 6% Indigenous. While they mentioned this as a challenge, they also
believed it was strength of the school. Interestingly, some of the staff were also from
culturally diverse backgrounds and had extensive knowledge of different pedagogical
approaches that supported diverse students’ learning needs. Two staff members, for
example, spoke about the importance of having a range of bilingual resources such
as early readers in other languages for the children. They also recognised the need
to acknowledge what the children bring to school with them from home in terms
of experience. Similarly, some staff mentioned the need to improve the school’s
partnership with the community via a range of ways.
134 7 Feedback

7.2 Phase 2 Staff Interviews

After the project was completed, a number of interviews with the staff who were
available as arranged by the deputy principal, were conducted by an independent
research assistant. Post-interviews involved Lisa, Polly, Marie, and Georgia. The
same analytical process was carried out in this phase as in Phase 1, whereby codes
were initially identified and then the codes were clustered into several themes. The
themes in this phase of the project were identified as: communication, the importance
of demonstration, a variety of strategies, and high expectations.

7.2.1 Communication

A strong theme from the second round of interviews was communication. All of
the classroom teachers indicated that there was limited communication about the
project’s final results. They all felt that knowing the results of the children who
participated in the intervention as well as how they improved would have been good.
There wasn’t a lot of communication…I didn’t understand really in the end how… I guess
if it was an improvement I would have liked to have seen the results. The post results for the
kids that I had for those two years, because they are now in year six, and I’ve got no idea
how they’ve progressed. (Lisa)

The teachers were also concerned about how the communication about the process
itself was sometimes confusing. For example, Marie and Polly commented:
I think one of the things that we had the most difficulty with to be honest was just the way
that we were all communicating with each other about what was going on. (Marie)
I don’t really know anything else about the project … They were just being taken out to be
tested with the speech pathologist in the last month or so… I know very little about it except
that [it had] something that had to do with the university and that they were getting data and
that sort of thing (Polly)

Additionally, the teachers indicated that they would have liked to know what the
students were receiving in the small-group instruction. The teachers were, however,
aware of whether or not they were a control group or not. They also knew about
some of the measures such as the YARC, testing sound-letter correspondence, and
the assessments that the speech pathologist was doing. Despite this, they all felt
that knowing more about the results of the overall project as well as what activities
the students were engaging in would have contributed to a more effective approach
across the school.
I think there was some improvement shown from the students that went, but for the rest of
the class, I don’t know that it had a huge impact. Like I said, we being the control group, we
didn’t really get much to support I guess. The kids were being taken out of the classroom to
do it, so it was hard to know what skills they were being shown. (Georgia)
7.2 Phase 2 Staff Interviews 135

One of the positive aspects about communication about the project was that the
teachers observed that there was now a consistent language being used across the
school in relation to teaching of reading. This included the guided reading sessions
as well as the robust vocabulary instruction. The teachers all felt these were both
good approaches but more time reading and further understanding by the students
about reading as a process would enhance the practice overall.
Robust vocab is definitely a strength that we’ve got across the school. You talk about robust
vocab to kids [and they] know exactly what you’re talking about. Pretty much every class in
the school have now got RVI walls. I think it just makes it come to the forefront of teachers’
minds before they teach things. (Lisa)

7.2.2 The Importance of Demonstration and Professional

Development

Another theme related to the second round of interviews was the importance of
demonstrated practice. All of the teachers commented on how powerful it was for
them to see someone else demonstrate and support their practice in the classroom con-
text. This was particularly apparent with the Robust Vocabulary Instruction method.
The teachers, however, would have liked to have seen a similar approach to some of
the other activities related to the teaching of comprehension and decoding.
And I think as a school we’ve just taken on some skills from the reading and we’ve actually
applied it across the whole school level, so including smaller fluency groups, including
smaller vocab groups, doing robust vocab in the whole school I think has really improved as
well, so I think that’s improved my skills, but also just a whole skill level. I thought it was
really good because it was really good to be able to teach the robust vocab instruction and
have someone set that example for us. (Marie)

Marie commented that having someone else show them what to do directly in the
classroom with their students was extremely helpful. This also meant that the teach-
ers were directly involved rather than, as previously explained, the students just
being taken out of the class without the teachers knowing what activities they were
doing. The teachers indicated that they would like more opportunities for someone
to show them explicitly how to improve reading through a number of methods in
their classroom spaces.
Another positive demonstrated practice was identified as the student SWOT inter-
views and speech-to-print profiles. The teachers agreed that these data sets told
them specifically what the students needed once they were back in their mainstream
classrooms.
And I also thought it was really good that we had the interviews [and profiles] because we
could actually see specifically what the kids needed in reading. It told us a bit more than
just the general test, the diagnostic assessments that we would do with them in terms of
PROBE and things like that. It actually broke it down into their phonemic ability and their
phonological awareness, which was really good. (Marie)
136 7 Feedback

The professional learning gained from direct experience was an important notion for
the teachers and links with the theme of communication. It also aligns with the next
theme of being able to utilise a range of strategies to improve reading outcomes.

7.2.3 Variety of Strategies for Teaching Reading

As per the first round of interviews, using a variety of strategies to improve reading
results was encouraged by the staff. These strategies, it was also revealed, needed
to be communicated and understood across the whole school. Teachers mentioned
some of the consistent approaches that were expected to be implemented such as
guided reading, robust vocabulary, and a number of comprehension strategies such
as skimming, scanning, and summarising. The interviews revealed teachers were
using a range of strategies, but they wanted to know more so they could support their
students further:
I think any focus on literacy, and vocabulary, and comprehension is a good thing. I think it
did help staff across the school, because as a school we have actually adopted the specific
instruction of robust vocab. It makes us think when we’re doing whole unit planning, about the
language involved, and the demands that are going to be needed from the kids to comprehend
the task. (Lisa—second interview)
We have a vocab group that we do when we’re reading, and that’s before they start to read.
We’ve got a fluency group that we’ve got going. We obviously have independent and guided
reading and things like that that we do. And then there’s also a small group that comes up
and admin actually works with them in terms of their phonemic awareness for those smaller
groups, which is really good. And then as a whole class I do robust vocab for those texts that
we do in the classroom, so it’s really good. (Marie)

Despite the teachers having new knowledge about a variety of strategies, it was
clear that more direct links between the classroom work and the Reading Success
project were needed. As highlighted, a whole-school approach needs a comprehen-
sive management plan that includes all methods being connected in meaningful ways.
Unfortunately, both time and money were mentioned as inhibitors to such practices.
We’re looking at different strategies and we do reading groups and we’ve just started doing
inferential questioning…We have a designated time when the children split into their differ-
entiated groups reading and that’s what I’ve been doing all year…They’ve all improved…I
have six groups in my class and I have one group that go with one teacher aide for half an
hour, and they’re doing vocabulary and a cold read. After that they go to the fluency group
the next day and in fluency group they are annotating the passage and after that they come
to me and that’s when I do the harder questions with them and we look at all the things that
they’ve annotated and vocab that they don’t know and then we do a really deep read and that
rotates and keeps rotating. (Polly)

As described by Polly the teachers now have a bank of approaches they can use to
support their students’ reading progress. These, however, seemed not to relate clearly
with the Reading Success programme.
7.2 Phase 2 Staff Interviews 137

7.2.4 Having High Expectations and Celebrating

Achievements

An additional theme the teachers regularly mentioned was the importance of having
high expectations and rigorous approaches to teaching reading. The teachers’ dis-
course focused on how they were committed to supporting improvements in the stu-
dents’ overall learning and this required them to expect hard work and high achieve-
ment levels. They felt that the project did ensure that gains were made, particularly,
for the students who may have been struggling more than others.
Just to try, and lift the rigor that’s in a guided reading lesson. And then the second program
is, we actually have our leadership team coming in at least twice a term to actually watch,
observe, and give specific feedback on our guided reading. The children know exactly what
to expect from a guided reading lesson, and teachers are heavily supported in that process.
(Lisa)
And trying to find time and ways to do a more rigorous work, because in the half an hour,
you can only do so much…I think it’s more important that they’re I guess having more time
to look more deeply at the reading. (Georgia)

Finally, the staff believed that as the students were demonstrating improvements this
needed to be reported to the whole school and community. Further, the leadership
team acknowledged how teachers had learnt more about the teaching of reading and
in particularly teaching vocabulary. Not sharing these successes could potentially
make teachers and students feel their efforts are unrewarded. This sentiment also
relates to the need for clearer communication of the results of the project generally.

7.3 Feedback from the School Leadership Team

When interviewing the leadership team, it became clear involvement in the Reading
Success project had been a positive experience. When asked what the school had
learned from their involvement in the project and whether it had changed the way
they approached the teaching of reading, Geoff commented that:
The Reading Success Project confirmed that our school is on the right track in terms of
the targeted teaching of reading. It confirmed and highlighted the importance diagnosing
individuals’ needs and early and ongoing targeted intervention. It highlighted the fact that we
need to invest more time into focusing on comprehension and as a result we have introduced
‘Text Dependent Questioning’ to help in this area.

The leadership team had appreciated the additional human and financial resources
that were offered as part of the project which assisted the school in conducting
the specific reading assessments and in providing the additional targeted reading
interventions. However, there was acknowledgement of the need for ongoing pro-
fessional development for teachers to help them accurately diagnose areas of needs
and to develop specific teaching strategies to help make improvements.
138 7 Feedback

However, the leadership team acknowledged the challenges faced during the
project in “finding a balance between the project’s needs and the school’s needs”.
Although Geoff said there were many positives to come out of being involved in the
project, the school’s main challenges in the implementing the model relates to time
and resources:
There is also a need to ensure teachers have the knowledge, skills and time to implement
additional testing and to provide ongoing targeted teaching as a result of this. This requires a
significant amount of time (ongoing) and resources. Developing a sustainable model is one
of the challenges we face at a school level.

7.4 Chapter Summary

This chapter has shared findings from the staff interviews, prior to and following the
school’s involvement in the Reading Success project. Common themes within the
staff interviews showed the importance of clear and consistent communication across
the whole school in relation to approaches adopted towards teaching reading more
generally, as well as the Reading Success project more specifically. The teachers, in
particular, found demonstrated practice on a range of approaches to teaching reading
extremely beneficial.
It became clear from the teacher interviews that communication regarding the spe-
cific results of the Reading Success project (both assessment and interventions) did
not always filter back to all the teachers even though several professional development
sessions were held with small teams of teachers involved in the project. Achieving
whole-school reform is difficult, as acknowledged in the previous research (Ful-
lan, 2007; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006), particularly, in relation to literacy learning
and the teaching of reading (Barton & McKay, 2016). Despite such challenges, it
is important that all staff, students, and the community understand the particular
approach being adopted and why. Chap. 8 will summarise what we have learned
from the Reading Success project and how we may ensure these findings are shared
with all stakeholders involved in ensuring reading success for all children.

References

Bahr, N., Dole, S., Bahr, M., Barton, G., & Davies, K. (2007). Longitudinal evaluation of the
effectiveness of professional development strategies. Queensland: University of Queensland &
Bond University.
Barton, G., & McKay, L. (2016). Conceptualising a literacy education model for junior secondary
students: The spatial and reflective practices of an Australian school. English in Australia, 51(1),
37–45.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
References 139

de Casterle, B. D., Gastmans, C., Bryon, E., & Denier, Y. (2012). QUAGOL: A guide for qualitative
data analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(3), 360–371.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Hargreaves, A., & Ainscow, M. (2015). The top and bottom of leadership and change. Phi Delta
Kappan, 97(3), 42–48.
Koelsch, L. E. (2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 168–179.
Korthagen, F. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development
3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211523.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communi-
ties: Professional strategies to improve student achievement (Vol. 45). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Oliver, D. G., Serovich, J. M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities with interview
transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces, 84(2), 1273–1289.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 8
Implications and Transferability
to Other School Contexts

Marleen F. Westerveld, Rebecca M. Armstrong, Georgina M. Barton,

and Jennifer Peach

Abstract This chapter starts by outlining what we have learned from the Reading
Success project. Based on a summary of the main findings from the Reading Success
project, we then consider ways in which the Reading Success project findings and
practices shared in this book may be transferable to other contexts. We offer recom-
mendations for best practice for schools wanting to investigate their current practices
in the identification of, and support for, students experiencing difficulties in learning
to read. We also describe some strategies that can be used by schools when striving
for scalability. To finish, we provide recommendations on how the approach taken
in this study might be adapted and adopted within other school contexts.

Keywords Scalability · Transferability · Educational implications

8.1 Introduction

It is undisputable that the teaching of reading is high stakes for all schools. Stu-
dents’ educational success relies on their ability to read fluently and to comprehend
a range of complex texts. To implement the proposed interdisciplinary assessment
and monitoring framework to assist in the identification of students experiencing
difficulties in reading may require some schools to change their practice. Change
is very much a constant in education, and it is important that these practices can
be sustainable over time (Mioduser, Nachmias, Forkosh-Baruch, & Tubin, 2004).
Pendergast, Main, Barton, Kanasa, Geelan, & Dowden (2015) discussed educational
reform that targets improvement in student outcomes, and argued that educational
change becomes increasingly more complex due to the different federal, state, and
local systemic expectations. We understand that schools already have mandated lit-
eracy progress monitoring practices in place, such as NAPLAN at the federal level,
and specific reading assessments at the regional level (see Chap. 2). One major chal-
lenge identified in the literature in relation to sustaining best practice is that schools
are different to each other (i.e. no one size fits all) and that schools can rapidly
change themselves. As suggested by Barton and Woolley (2017), to plan for change,
the importance of an in-depth context analysis should not be underestimated (see
also Thomson, 2010). In the next few sections, we will first provide an overview of

© The Author(s) 2020 141

M. F. Westerveld et al., Reading Success in the Primary Years,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3492-8_8
142 8 Implications and Transferability to Other School Contexts

our take-home messages from the project, before briefly considering scalability and
sustainability of our proposed framework.

8.2 Take-Home Messages From the Reading Success

Project

The overall aim of the Reading Success project was to implement within the target
school, a systematic process for identifying reading difficulties across the primary
school years, using an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach. We believed that
the introduction of an assessment and monitoring framework that was firmly based on
the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) would not only facilitate the
early identification of reading difficulties, but would also enable timely and targeted
intervention to address these challenges in reading. Moreover, creating speech-to-
print profiles (see Table 1.2) for students who demonstrated challenges in reading
served different purposes: (a) to highlight the underlying spoken language skills that
are needed for written language (Gillon, 2018), (b) to encourage interdisciplinary
collaborative practice in collecting assessment data, and (c) to ensure consistent
language was used across the school.
The vision of the Department of Education is that every student in Queensland state
schools receives the support they need to belong to the school community, engages
purposefully in learning, and experiences academic and social success. Students
experience inclusive education when they can access and fully participate in learning
alongside their similar-aged peers, supported by reasonable adjustments and teaching
strategies tailored to meet their individual needs. As highlighted in Chap. 7, it was
clear that the school staff were highly committed to improving literacy learning
outcomes for all students. It was evident that over the past three years or so the
school had made great progress due to a number of strategies implemented around
positive behaviour and reading. The school staff were extremely happy to be working
at this school and commented on the nature of the school and students positively.
This is of credit to all staff and the families at the school. Results from the interview
data were overwhelmingly positive with also room for improvement.
The results from our project showed that the implementation of this assessment
model was possible within a school context and successful in highlighting which
students would benefit from more intensive reading interventions within a response-
to-intervention framework (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). However, several issues came to
light which may affect scalability, including time and resources, communication, and
the need for professional development.
8.2 Take-Home Messages From the Reading Success Project 143

8.2.1 Time and Resources

Choice of Assessments

To meet the learning needs of all students, the Department has a commitment to
a whole-school approach to quality teaching and improving student achievement.
A whole-school approach directs support to different levels of need in response to
student achievement data and is based on the premise that every student can learn
and should have the opportunity to demonstrate progress on an ongoing basis. Imple-
mentation of a whole-school approach requires gathering and analysis of data that
reflects departmental, regional, and school priorities and demonstrates the integral
link between curriculum, interventions, and student outcomes.
At the differentiated level within a whole-school approach, cohort mapping pro-
vides the information teachers require to adequately differentiate reading instruction
to meet the learning needs of all students within the curriculum. Teachers in schools
have a range of cohort mapping tools available to them, such as Early Start for
Prep—Year 2, and the National Literacy Learning Progression tool from Prep–Year
10 (www.australiancurriculum.edu.au) and it is up to the school team involved in
the teaching of reading to decide which tools best suit their school’s needs and are
sensitive to early difficulties in reading performance. For young school-age students,
these tools should relate to the development of the following six elements as discussed
in Chap. 1 (see also Fig. 1.2): phonological awareness, phonics and phonemic aware-
ness, oral language, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Hempenstall, 2016;
Konza, 2014).
To more accurately gather information about a student’s learning rate and level
of achievement, both individually and in comparison with a peer group, a combina-
tion of cohort mapping and progress monitoring is recommended. Progress moni-
toring ensures that all students, including high-achieving students are appropriately
engaged, challenged, and extended, by designing class activities to meet students’
learning needs, levels of readiness, interest, and motivation. Progress monitoring is
used at a differentiated level to monitor response-to-intervention and may involve
re-administering the cohort mapping tool or the use of curriculum-based measures.
Progress monitoring is also used at focused and intensive levels but may be admin-
istered more frequently and will usually reflect the varying types of intervention
individual students are receiving.
It became clear during the Reading Success Project that the school staff admin-
istered a wide range of assessments on a routine basis, for reporting, as well as
progress monitoring purposes. Administering the York Assessment of Reading for
Comprehension on a routine basis may be too time consuming. However, the results
from this assessment greatly assisted in the early identification of students with dif-
ferent profiles of reading strengths and challenges. To determine if administering
this specific test on a routine basis was needed within the school context, we con-
ducted some comparisons with routinely used reading assessment tasks. Our results
(Chap. 3) showed high correlations between student performance on the PM Bench-
mark Reading Assessments (Smith, Nelly, & Croft, 2009) and the YARC reading
144 8 Implications and Transferability to Other School Contexts

comprehension subtest during the early years of schooling, with excellent specificity
and sensitivity data (i.e. > 80% of students were correctly identified). Our results
also suggest that using a higher cut-off score on the PM Benchmark combined with
a reading fluency task (e.g. TOWRE-2; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2012) may
improve the sensitivity of this assessment.
A different picture emerged when comparing student performance on the Pro-
gressive Achievement Tests in Reading (PAT-R; Australian Council for Educational
Research, 2018) to their performance on the YARC. About 20% of students were
missed when using the PAT-R as a benchmark for reading competency, with these
students showing very different reading profiles, despite adequate performance on
the PAT-R. Therefore, use of the PAT-R on a routine basis may not only misidentify
some students as competent readers, the results of the PAT-R will not help guide
further assessment nor suggest which specific skills to address in intervention (see
case studies in Chap. 6 for more information).
Taken together, our results show the importance of careful consideration of the
routine assessments that are used to identify strengths and weaknesses in reading
performance. As time is a precious resource, we recommend only administering
high-quality assessments that are sensitive to ability and progress and will inform
intervention.
A Team Approach to Differential Diagnosis

The importance of detailed diagnostic assessments to pinpoint individual stu-

dents’ strengths and weaknesses in reading comprehension is clear. It goes beyond
the scope of this book to delve deeper into the potential underlying causal factors
that may contribute to individual students’ reading difficulties. While phonological
processing deficits may be a primary cause of dyslexia or specific word recogni-
tion difficulties (see Table 1.2 speech-to-print profile), other cognitive skills such
as attention and working memory may also play an important role (Catts, McIl-
braith, Bridges, & Nielsen, 2017; see also Gray, Fox, Green, Alt, Hogan, Petscher, &
Cowan, 2019). It is therefore important to carefully monitor progress in response-to-
intervention and involve other members of the school-based interdisciplinary team
(class teachers, speech pathologists, literacy support teachers, and guidance officers)
in further assessment if students’ progress is slower than expected. In some cases, an
educational psychologist may be able to assist in providing a better understanding
of each student’s individual cognitive functioning, including their working memory
profiles.
In summary, diagnostic assessments may be required to carefully describe indi-
vidual students’ strengths and weaknesses in reading comprehension in order to help
target instruction and intervention appropriately. Differential diagnosis is time con-
suming and should only be used with those students who despite quality teaching
and focused interventions are not meeting age- or year-level expectations. We rec-
ommend the use of increasingly diagnostic tools within a whole-school approach
for students identified with reading difficulties, as per the process undertaken in the
Reading Success project.
8.2 Take-Home Messages From the Reading Success Project 145

8.2.2 Communication

Positive outcomes of reform are possible if the whole school is committed to making
a change in practice happen. In order to do this, effective and ongoing communication
is necessary. As became clear in Chap. 7, the lack of direct communication between
the research team and the teachers affected the teachers’ feelings towards the project.
During the course of the project, we mainly interacted with the leadership team
through regular meetings, although several small-scale professional development
and information-sharing events were held. Often in schools, leadership teams that
include principals, deputy principals, and lead literacy or master teachers, make the
decisions on what approaches to the teaching of reading are used in all classrooms.
Known as a top-down model, this approach frequently results in teachers taking up
mandated approaches rather than have a voice in change, with an increased chance
of failure (Hargreaves & Ainscow, 2015).
Based on the teachers’ feedback, we suggest that schools which consider adopt-
ing the evidence-based reading assessment and monitoring approach presented in
this book develop a comprehensive communication plan across the whole school.
This should include sharing and celebrating the results from projects, such as
the Reading Success project, as well as other professional learning and devel-
opment activities that have impacted positively on teachers’ practices. In addi-
tion, we acknowledge the importance of taking a ‘leading from the middle’
approach (Hargreaves & Ainscow, 2015) that involves schools in an entire dis-
trict, including the community. As Hargreaves and Ainscow argued when such an
approach is taken schools will be better able: (1) to respond to local needs and
diversities; (2) take collective responsibility for all students’ and each other’s suc-
cess; (3) exercise initiative rather than implementing other people’s initiatives; (4)
integrate their own efforts with broad system priorities; and (5) establish transparency
of participation and results (p. 44).

8.2.3 Professional Learning

One of the key elements in implementation of any new innovation is high-quality

professional learning. This was an important theme that came out of the teachers’
interviews (see Chap. 7). Graner and Deshler (2012) identified three key features of
high-quality and effective professional learning. These are:
• Active participation of adult learners;
• Coaching, modelling, and instructional feedback; and
• Assessment of adult learning, implementation, and impact on student learning.

A large body of literature suggests that coaching, that is, individual teaching inter-
actions between an experienced mentor and learner, enhances teachers’ capacity to
make changes in their practice, and that coaching within classrooms is a high yield
146 8 Implications and Transferability to Other School Contexts

strategy in delivering better literacy outcomes for students (see https://www.aitsl.

edu.au/ for more information). Quality professional learning also has great potential
to raise teachers’ self-efficacy and sense of agency in relation to the teaching of lit-
eracy (Ryan & Barton, 2019). One way to support teachers’ work in this area is to
administer pre- and post-large-scale self-efficacy measures. (e.g. Tschannen-Moran
& Johnson, 2011). In relation to the teaching of reading specifically, continued pro-
fessional development as well as evidence-based approaches to supporting students’
learning is needed. Given the highly politicised and public scrutiny of teachers’ prac-
tices in classrooms greater support of, and trust in, teachers’ professional judgment
is recommended.
In the Reading Success project, coaching played a major role in the success-
ful and sustainable implementation of Robust Vocabulary Instruction and Read It
Again—FoundationQ! We suggest establishing an inclusive approach to mentoring
or coaching in the classroom. Given each unique school context, it is advised the
whole of staff discuss what this may look like but one approach would be to buddy
up teachers with a partner and that time is allocated in the timetable for teachers
to visit each other’s classroom more regularly. These teachers then share their own
practices with each other and then with another pair.
We recommend that all staff, including teaching staff, speech pathologists, teacher
aides, and school leaders, engage in ongoing professional development on the teach-
ing of reading within the Australian Curriculum. This professional development
should consider diagnosis, support, and intervention at all levels within a whole-
school approach with a focus on the ‘big six’ in reading instruction as outlined above.
Further, whole-school professional development and training should be ongoing and
involve a range of strategies such as intensive full-day professional development, for-
mal and informal discussion amongst staff, coaching, demonstration, and inclusion
of all stakeholders such as speech pathologists and other support staff.
It became clear from the teacher interviews that although a common language
was used, not all reading practices were based on the most up to date evidence. For
example, teachers’ grouping practices play an important role in facilitating effective
implementation of both reading instruction and inclusion of students with challenges
in educational achievements. Flexible grouping allows students to move in and out of
a variety of groups across learning areas and to benefit from collaboration with a wide
range of peers. Flexible grouping is considered an effective practice for enhancing the
knowledge and skills of students without the negative social consequences associated
with more permanent groups (Tiernan, Casserly, & Maguire, 2018). With respect to
reading skills, students can, for example, be grouped on the basis of interests and
readiness, rather than ability. Research in inclusive education supports the practice of
flexible grouping (e.g. Hanushek, Kain, Markman, & Rivkin, 2003; Justice, Logan,
Lin, & Kaderavek 2014; Tiernan, Casserly, & Maguire, 2018). These studies con-
sistently demonstrate that students’ growth in various dimensions of achievement is
influenced by the skill levels of their classmates, that these peer effects tend to be
positive, and that these effects are largest amongst the least-skilled students.
8.3 Scalability 147

8.3 Scalability

To promote adoption of the evidence-based interdisciplinary assessment framework

described in this book, we now consider what steps are needed for transferability
to a different setting. Scalability looks at whether a practice or an initiative can be
implemented with similar or better results in other settings or with other groups.
Scalability helps us understand when larger-scale implementation is appropriate and
when it is not. Successful implementation of evidence-based interventions into edu-
cation environments requires a systematic exploration of implementation strategies,
to determine what works under what conditions. The following three strategies are
important early in the process during initial implementation:
• Exploration strategies such as conducting a school-based needs analysis, deter-
mining stakeholder readiness or buy-in for innovation, and identifying specific
barriers and facilitators of successful implementation.
• Education strategies to address material development and preparation, building
educator capacity, professional learning, and methods of monitoring learning and
performance.
• Financing strategies which focus on developing incentives to use innovations,
providing support for professional learning and assessing the economic value of
implementing an innovation (Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Wallace, 2009).

Additional strategies are needed when moving beyond the implementation in a sin-
gle setting to multiple settings and may address staffing mix, professional roles, and
physical and organisational structure to support innovation. A major challenge in
scaling up new practices or models is to identify the policy that facilitates imple-
mentation of evidence-based practice, minimises barriers to implementation, and
promotes the innovations at a state-wide or national level (Fixsen, Blase, Metz, &
van Dyke, 2013).

8.4 Concluding Thoughts

In all classrooms, teachers are expected to provide differentiated instruction. Dif-

ferentiated instruction involves active planning for student differences to ensure
that every student is engaged and learning successfully (Tomlinson, Brimijoin, &
Narvaez, 2008). Differentiated teaching means effective inclusion of all students in
high-quality first teaching, scaffolding for all students, and standard adjustments that
teachers can make to meet the learning needs of all students. As shown throughout
this book, reading is a complex process and no two readers may demonstrate the
same speech-to-print profile. Considering the importance of targeted intervention
based on each student’s reading profile, supporting students with reading difficulties
in the classroom may thus be challenging. In our opinion, using an interdisciplinary
and evidence-based approach to the timely identification of students at risk for or
148 8 Implications and Transferability to Other School Contexts

experiencing difficulties in reading at all stages of their reading development is a

crucial first step when striving for reading success.
There are several key factors that enabled innovation and scalability in the Read-
ing Success project. First of all, an education department with a strong commitment
to evidence-based practice and an educational region that values and supports inno-
vation and actively supports sharing of practice. Second, a leadership team in the
school who recognised the integral link between spoken language and literacy and
made the decision to allocate resources, both human and financial to ensure that all
stakeholders were engaged and that programmes including Read It Again—Founda-
tionQ! and Robust Vocabulary Instruction were delivered with fidelity. At the point
of delivery, there were class teachers and speech pathologists who were open and
brave enough to adopt an integrated service delivery model bringing together and
enhancing the unique skills of each to create language-rich teaching and learning
environments to support the educational outcomes for all students.
Although there are different philosophies around the teaching of reading, we
worked collaboratively towards our common goal which was simple: Reading
Success for all children. Ultimately, literacy is a basic human right.

References

Australian Council for Educational Research. (2018). Progressive achievement tests in reading
(PAT-R). Australia: Author.
Barton, G., & Woolley, G. (2017). Developing literacy in the secondary classroom. UK: Sage.
Catts, H. W., McIlraith, A., Bridges, M. S., & Nielsen, D. C. (2017). Viewing a phonological deficit
within a multifactorial model of dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 30, 613–629. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11145-016-9692-2.
Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence
based programs. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 213–230.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components.
Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 531–540.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how
valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4.
Gillon, G. T. (2018). Phonological awareness: From research to practice (2nd ed.). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.
Graner, P. S., & Deshler, D. D. (2012). Improving outcomes for adolescents with learning disabilities.
In B. Wong & D. L. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed., pp. 299–323).
US: Academic Press.
Gray, S., Fox, A. B., Green, S., Alt, M., Hogan, T. P., Petscher, Y., et al. (2019). Working memory
profiles of children with dyslexia, developmental language disorder, or both. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 62(6), 1839–1858. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-
18-0148.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect
student achievement? Journal of Applied Psychometrics, 18, 527–544.
Hargreaves, A., & Ainscow, M. (2015). The top and bottom of leadership and change. Phi Delta
Kappan, 97(3), 42–48.
References 149

Hempenstall, K. (2016). Read about it: Scientific evidence for effective teaching of reading CIS
research report. Australia: Centre for Independent Studies.
Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A., Lin, T. J., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2014). Peer effects in early childhood
education: Testing the assumptions of special-education inclusion. Psychological Science, 25(9),
1722–1729.
Konza, D. (2014). Teaching reading: Why the Fab five should be the Big six. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education (Online), 39(12), 153–169.
Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Tubin, D. (2004). Sustainability, scala-
bility and transferability of ICT-based pedagogical innovations in Israeli schools. Education,
Communication & Information, 4(1), 71–82.
Pendergast, D., Main, K., Barton, G., Kanasa, H., Geelan, D., & Dowden, T. (2015). The education
change model as a vehicle for reform: Shifting year 7 and implementing junior secondary in
Queensland. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 15(2), 4–18.
Ryan, M., & Barton, G. (2019). Literacy teachers as reflexive agents? Enablers and constraints. The
Australian Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00349-9.
Smith, A., Nelley, E., & Croft, D. (2009). PM benchmark reading assessment resources (AU/NZ).
Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Truelove, E., &
Hulme, C. (2012). York assessment of reading for comprehension (YARC), (Australian ed.).
London: GL Assessment.
Thomson, P. (2010). Whole School Change: A literature review. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK:
Creativity, Culture and Education.
Tiernan, B., Casserly, A. M., & Maguire, G. (2018). Towards inclusive education: instructional
practices to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs in multi-grade settings.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–21, 01. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.
1483438.
Tomlinson, C., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Making revolutionary
changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency 2 (TOWRE-
2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs:
Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2010.12.005.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.