Learning Strategies Curriculum: The Word Identification Strategy
Study: Lenz & Hughes (1990)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

The 12 subjects were seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-grade students who met the state of Florida requirements for being classified as learning disabled. The requirements at the time of this study were as specified by Florida State Board of Education Rule 6A-6.3018 and included (a) evidence of a basic psychological process disorder as documented by a standardized instrument selected by the school district; (b) evidence of academic achievement that is significantly below the student's level of intellectual functioning as documented (for ages 11 and above) by a discrepancy of 1 Vi standard deviations or more between an intellectual standard score and academic standard score in reading, writing, arithmetic, or spelling; (c) evidence that the learning problems are not due primarily to other handicapping conditions; and (d) evidence that indicates that general education alternatives have been attempted and found to be ineffective in meeting the student's educational needs. Subjects attended two different schools (a middle school and a high school) and were served in classes for students with learning disabilities for no more than two periods per day. In addition, subjects were only selected if they met the following criteria: (a) read at or above the third-grade level, (b) had knowledge of phonic sounds, and (c) could find words in the dictionary.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):

A total of 21 students met the selection criteria. Twelve students were randomly selected as subjects for this study. Three females and 9 males composed the student sample. Eight of the students were white and 4 of the students were black. Student ages ranged from 13 to 15 years (M = 13.2 years); 4 were seventh graders, 2 were eighth graders, and 6 were ninth graders. IQ scores (obtained within the last 3 years—Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) (Wechsler, 1974)-ranged from 82 to 113 (M = 94.3, SD>=11.3). Grade- level reading scores, as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977), ranged from 3.5 to 7.0; reading percentile scores ranged from 7 to 32 ( M = 15.7, SD = 8.8); standard scores ranged from 78 to 93 (M= 84.17, SD> = 9.17).

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
• identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?

100.0%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• emotional disability label,
• placed in an alternative school/classroom,
• non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
• designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?

%

Please describe the study design:

A multiple-baseline across subjects design (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968) was employed and replicated three times. Three students participated in each design. The first subject in each group of three students received a minimum of two pretests on materials written at ability and grade levels prior to instruction. The second subject in each group received a minimum of four pretests. The third subject in each group received a minimum of five pretests. Training was instituted only after baseline data were stable.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:

The treatment was instruction in the Word Identification Strategy (Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, & Beals, 1984), a systematic cognitive process through which multisyllabic words can be recognized in reading assignments in content areas such as science and social studies. The intervention consisted of training the student in a general problem-solving strategy in which specific substrategies are applied for the quick identification of difficult words. The substrategies, based in part on work presented by Forgan and Mangrum (1976) and Wolf (1974), follow the premise that most words in the English language can be pronounced by identifying prefixes, suffixes, and stems and by following three short syllabication rules. These rules, combined with several other practical approaches to word attack, are embedded in a general problem-solving procedure and make up the seven-step strategy. The seven steps of the strategy required the student to focus on the context surrounding the word, dissect the word into component parts using simple rules, and use available resources (e.g., teacher, dictionary) if needed. The keywords used to teach the steps of the strategy form a first-letter mnemonic device, DISSECT, that can be used to facilitate student memorization of the steps. The first step, Discover the Context, requires the student to skip a difficult word, read to the end of the sentence, and then use the meaning of the sentence to guess the best word that fits in the place of the word in question. If the guessed word does not match the difficult word, the student proceeds to the next step, Isolate the Prefix. In this step, the student is taught to look at the beginning of the word to see if the first several letters create a phoneme that the student can pronounce. A list of prefixes is taught to the student to facilitate recognition. If a prefix is recognized, it is isolated by boxing it off (e.g., hyper\ sonic). Using similar procedures and a list of suffixes, students then Separate the Suffix. Whether or not the word contains a suffix, students proceed to the fourth step and Say the Stem. Students are taught that the stem is what is left after the prefix is isolated and the suffix is separated. If the stem is recognized, the student says the prefix, stem, and suffix together. (Note: For the purposes of this strategy, the terms prefix and suffix are broadly defined as any recognizable group of letters at the beginning or end of a word that the student can identify and pronounce correctly.) If the stem cannot be named, the student proceeds to Examine the Stem. This step involves dissecting the stem into easy-to-pronounce word parts using the Rules of Twos and Threes. The Word Identification Strategy was taught to the students by their teachers using an eight-step instructional sequence that was originally described by Deshler, Alley, Warner, and Schumaker (1981) for promoting strategy acquisition and generalization. The procedures were as follows. Step 1: Pretest and Obtain Commitment to Learn. During this step, each subject's word identification skills were measured using 400-word passages from Timed Readings (Spargo & Williston, 1980). Subjects' reading skills were measured at both ability and grade level. After the oral reading and comprehension tests were scored, the results were discussed with each student individually and a written commitment to learn the strategy was obtained from the student. Step 2: Describe the Strategy. Next, each student participated in a goal-setting discussion and specified goal dates for completing various phases of the strategy training. The strategy steps were then described in detail. In addition, the general characteristics of situations where the strategy could be used, as well as the types of benefits students could expect if they learned and applied the strategy, were described. Also described were general guidelines or cautions related to the use of the strategy, such as (a) the strategy works best on reading assignments that follow a teacher's description of the content in class, (b) the first five steps of the strategy usually will not work on vocabulary words to which the student has not been introduced, and (c) the strategy should be learned to such a level of fluency that no more than 10 seconds are required to complete the first five steps. Step 3: Model the Strategy. In this instructional step, the strategy was demonstrated in its entirety, with the teacher thinking aloud so subjects could witness all of the processes involved. A script was used to ensure appropriate teacher modeling. However, the teacher was encouraged to expand on the script if additional modeling was necessary. Once the teacher modeled the strategy, the students were then enlisted in the modeling process. Students were asked to demonstrate the strategy, using materials written slightly above the students' reading level. The teacher guided and prompted the students to think aloud, demonstrate appropriate self-instruction behaviors, ask and answer appropriate "what next" questions, and explore solutions to the word identification problems they encountered. Step 4: Verbal Rehearsal of Strategy Steps. During this step, subjects verbally rehearsed the strategy steps (including the Rules of Twos and Threes). First, each student described the general nature of the strategy and the problem-solving process in his or her own words. Second, each student described each step of the strategy and what was involved in each step of the problem-solving process. Third, after each student demonstrated an understanding of the strategy steps, a rapid-fire oral practice of the steps was led by the teacher to assist students in memorizing the steps. A criterion of 100% correct had to be reached in order to proceed to Step 5: Controlled Practice and Feedback. Also, subjects were required to pronounce correctly at least 80% of the prefixes and suffixes provided to them in a list of 56 prefixes and 54 suffixes. Students had been introduced to the list of prefixes and suffixes in their language arts classes earlier in the year, and mastery of the list was demonstrated very quickly. Step 5: Controlled Practice and Feedback. Subjects practiced the strategy while orally reading into a tape recorder passages from the Timed Readings series. Passages used during this step were written at each subject's reading ability level. During the early stages of controlled practice, assistance was provided to the student on up to five of the initial trials to insure that the strategy was being applied correctly. During these practice sessions, each student was prompted to think aloud, demonstrate self-instruction behaviors, and ask and answer "What do I do next?" and "Does this work?" types of questions. The teacher would provide assistance and feedback to students on an individual basis to insure that each student was using the strategy in a problem- solving fashion. These guided practice sessions were not considered independent practice trials and were not graphed as progress data. When subjects could independently read a passage with six or fewer oral errors (i.e., 99% correct), they began Step 6. (Note: Throughout the testing and practice sessions, the student was allowed to appropriately ask for help on up to three different words in order to learn use of all the steps of the strategy. If the student requested help on three words, these words were not included in the computation of the percentage of words correctly read.) After each practice attempt, the student was provided with corrective feedback related to how he or she did and how to correct specific errors and improve general performance. Step 6: Grade-Appropriate Practice and Feedback. During this step, subjects practiced the strategy while orally reading Timed Readings passages written at the grade level in which they were enrolled. During the early stages of grade-appropriate practice, assistance was provided to the student on up to five of the initial trials to insure that the strategy was being applied correctly to these more difficult reading materials. During these guided practice sessions, the difficulty of the reading passages was gradually increased until the student was practicing the strategy on grade level materials. These guided practice sessions were not considered independent practice trials and were not graphed as progress data. Practice was infused within the context of daily lessons and other assignments in the language arts and English classes. When subjects could independently read a passage with six or fewer oral errors (i.e., 99% correct) in the grade level passages, they were given the posttest. Specific corrective feedback was provided to the student after each practice attempt. Feedback consisted of information related to adherence to the problem-solving process as well as to overall word identification performance. Step 7: Posttest and Obtain Commitment to Generalize. The final grade level practice attempt was used as the posttest for the intervention, since the procedures for the posttest paralleled the pretest and grade-level practice procedures. Once all students had met the mastery criterion (had independently read a passage with six or fewer oral errors in the grade level passages), a written commitment was obtained from each student to generalize the Word Identification Strategy to school and home situations. Step 8: Generalization. Generalization activities were organized into three phases. The first phase, called Orientation, involved teachers leading the students in identifying settings where the Word Identification Strategy could be used and then helping students to plan ways to remember the use of the strategy in those settings. The second phase, called Activation, consisted of trial attempts and reports of strategy usage across various settings, situations, and materials. The third phase, called Maintenance, consisted of planned use of the strategy over time in classroom situations. Generalization probes of student performance were taken intermittently and only during the Maintenance phase. A generalization probe consisted of the subject orally reading two 400-word passages into a tape recorder. The first passage was selected from the Timed Readings series written at the student's grade level. The second passage consisted of an unfamiliar selection from the textbook used in the student's mainstream science class. A comprehension measure was obtained only on the Timed Readings selection. Comprehension measures were not taken from the grade level text because of the difficulties in standardizing the measures across teachers and texts. The probes were conducted 1 week, 3 weeks, and 5 weeks after completion of the strategy posttest on grade level materials. The students were informed of the schedule for the probes and expectations as soon as the Activation phase activities were completed, and then they were reminded of the probe the day before each probe was given. In general, the average amount of time spent on strategy instruction throughout the instructional sequence (Step 1 through Step 7) was approximately 20 to 25 minutes per day for a 6-week period. Instructional time for the strategy was allocated in the language arts or English classes at least 3 days each week, but was usually provided daily in the context of a classroom situation when other types of instructional activities were required.

Clarify what procedures occurred during the control/baseline condition (third, competing conditions are not considered; if you have a third, competing condition [e.g., multi-element single subject design with a third comparison condition], in addition to your control condition, identify what the competing condition is [data from this competing condition will not be used]):

During baseline, the student was introduced to and taught how to use an audio recorder and was given practice using it to reduce a technology novelty effect. When the student was at ease using the recorder, the student was given a 400-word Timed Reading’ passage and was asked to turn on the audio recorder and read aloud the passage. The student was told to turn in the passage and audiotape to the teacher. The audiotape was later scored for oral-reading errors on ability-level passages. Errors were counted according to the scoring procedures in the Word Identification Strategy manual. The following day, the student was given a ten-question multiple-choice comprehension test included in Timed Readings designed to measure comprehension of the passage that the student had read the day before. Each day of baseline, this process was repeated with 400-word Timed Reading passages written at the student’s grade level. The student was not given the opportunity to look at or review the passage before the comprehension test was administered. The teacher then scored the number of comprehension questions that were answered correctly. The oral reading and comprehension scores were then visually depicted on a graph by the student so the student could see test his or her performance. This process was repeated for each data point entered on the graph. The oral reading results collected during baseline indicated that the number of oral reading errors was higher for grade-level materials than ability level materials for all subjects. Four subjects (6, 7, 10, and 12) made six or fewer errors (99% correct oral-reading criterion) in ability-level materials. The remaining subjects' mean baseline performances ranged from 6.3 to 20.5 errors on the ability-level materials. The baseline performance of all subjects on grade-level materials ranged from 12.6 to 37.0 errors.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)

A multiple-baseline across subjects design (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968) was employed and replicated three times. Replication occurred in two ways. First, in each instance of the design, replication occurred across three students. Second, the whole design was repeated four times (3 students per design x 4= 12 students in all). A total of 12 students participated for a total of 12 replications. The design included a baseline phase, a phase of instruction and practice in ability-level materials, a phase of instruction and practice in grade-level materials, and a maintenance phase to determine strategy generalization beyond the instruction and practice phases. The maintenance phase consisted of planned use of the strategy over time in classroom situations. Generalization probes of student performance were taken intermittently and only during the Maintenance phase. A generalization probe consisted of the subject orally reading two 400-word passages into a tape recorder. The first passage was selected from the Timed Readings series written at the student's grade level. The second passage consisted of an unfamiliar selection from the textbook used in the student's mainstream science class. A comprehension measure was obtained only on the Timed Readings selection. Comprehension measures were not taken from grade-level texts because of the difficulties in standardizing the measures across teachers and texts. The maintenance probes were conducted 1 week, 3 weeks, and 5 weeks after completion of the strategy posttest on grade-level materials. The students were informed of the schedule for the probes and expectations as soon as the Activation phase activities were completed, and then they were reminded of the probe the day before each probe was given. In general, the average amount of time spent on strategy instruction throughout the instructional sequence (Step 1 through Step 7) was approximately 20 to 25 minutes per day for a 6-week period. Instructional time for the strategy was allocated in the language arts or English classes at least 3 days each week, but was usually provided daily in the context of a classroom situation when other types of instructional activities were required.

Please indicate whether (and how) the design contains at least three demonstrations of experimental control (e.g., ABAB design, multiple baseline across three or more participants).

A multiple-baseline across there subjects design (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968) was employed and replicated three times. Multiple-baseline across students graphs showing the decoding and comprehension scores of three students in each of the four multiple-baseline graphs were developed to show student performance across the four phases of the study. Thus, the results showed the functional relation of the strategy instruction to student decoding performance three times in each design (because three students participated in each design). Because the design was replicated three times, this functional relation was demonstrated three more times with nine more students. Thus, twelve students in all showed the functional relation of the instruction to the decreased level of student reading errors.

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent or non-concurrent?

Concurrent

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

• Targeted measures
  Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills, that the program was directly targeted to improve.
  • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
  • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
• Broader measures
  Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
  • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
  • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be on-task behavior in another setting.
• Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates, which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

NA