Build-A-Bear Workshop Literacy and Education

Grant Proposal of Expanding

Literacy Skills

by

SaraN. Adarnovich

A Grant Proposal Project Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Master of Science Degree

Ill

Education

Approved: 2 Semester Credits

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

May,2012

1

2

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

Menomonie, WI

Author: Adamovich, Sara N.

Title: Build-A-Bear Workshop Literacy and Education Grant Proposal of

Expanding Literacy Skills

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Education

Research Adviser: Jerrilyn Brewer, Ed.D.

Month/Year: May, 2012

Number of Pages: 32

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

Abstract

Special education teachers are in need of increased knowledge in specific teaching

methods and strategies in order to improve student literacy skills. The purpose of this grant

proposal is to gain financial support to improve teacher training and address the literacy needs of

struggling readers. Recent findings indicate that teachers graduating from teacher-training

programs are ill-prepared to teach reading, much less to students with significant delays.

Research suggests the implementation of multisensory strategies, through the use of Orton-

Gillingham methods, have the potential to improve student literacy skills. The goal of this grant

proposal is to improve the reading skills of students with significant learning disabilities through

improved teacher/tutor knowledge. The grant objectives are as follows:

3

Objective 1: Increase student reading and spelling of real, nonsense and sight word

scores.

Objective 2: Increase student word attack and comprehension summative scores.

Objective 3: Increase tutoring skills, knowledge, and confidence of teachers, parents, and

tutors.

The officers and board members of the Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin will organize

and plan the evaluation and dissemination of the project in order to meet the overall goal.

4

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin Stout

Menomonie, WI

Acknowledgment

Many people were invaluable in the writing of this thesis. My appreciation is extended to

my advisor, Jerrilyn A. Brewer, for her positive encouragement, expertise and support. To my

parents, Gene and Diane Nackers, and sisters, Dr. Cynthia Munson and Susan Nackers Ludwig, I

extend a thank you for your support and encouragement of life-long learning. An extra special

thank you to my husband Clint and our two children, Gavin and Avery who supported me with

their love, patience, and encouragement.

5

Table of Contents

.................................................................................................................................................... Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2

Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................7

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................7

Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................11

Definition of Terms............................................................................................................11

Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................15

Methodology ......................................................................................................................15

Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................16

Common approaches to reading instruction ......................................................................16

History of multisensory reading instruction ......................................................................19

Examples of multisensory reading programs .....................................................................20

Chapter III: Project Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................22

Goal: Improve reading skills of students with significant learning disabilities .................22

Objective 1: Increase student reading and spelling of real, nonsense and sight word

scores .................................................................................................................................22

Objective 2: Increase student word attack and comprehension summative scores ..........22

Objective 3: Increase tutoring skills, knowledge, and confidence of teachers, parents,

and tutors ............................................................................................................................23

Chapter IV: Project Methodology ..................................................................................................24

Project Timeline .................................................................................................................24

Evaluation Plan and Tools .................................................................................................25

Dissemination Plan ............................................................................................................26

6

Budget Narrative ................................................................................................................27

Table 1: Budget ..................................................................................................................28

References ......................................................................................................................................29

Appendix A: Cover Letter .............................................................................................................32

7

Chapter I: Introduction

Teacher training in both regular education and special education across the nation and in

the state of Wisconsin is under scrutiny and criticism. Foundational reading knowledge that is

gained through undergraduate teacher training in developmental theory and methodology is

difficult to implement without practical application and professional experience. On-the-job

training and experience is gained through specific curriculum-based trainings when new reading

series are purchased, through teacher-requested workshops, conferences or add-on certifications.

The most popular programs integrated into schools fall within a Balanced Literacy system, as

noted within the general findings and observations by the National Council on Teacher Quality

(2006), with heavy emphasis on a whole-language approach. This approach, while seemingly

practical, is at the expense of those children struggling in the literacy process.

Matthes and Denton (2002) analyzed studies of grade-level as well as supplemental

reading instruction and intervention. Their findings suggest that a reduction in the number of

students with severe reading problems could be reduced to 7% or lower compared to the current

statistics of 25-40% by simply providing high-quality classroom reading instruction in first

grade.

The aim of this Expanding Literacy proposal is to secure funding to be used to promote

teacher-training in multisensory, phonics-based reading instruction and the science of reading.

Monies received will be used to provide quality training in the areas of reading, word study, and

phonics to special education teachers who are currently teaching.

Statement of the Problem

One of the missions of special education teacher-training programs is to prepare and train

future special education teachers to teach children with learning disabilities how to read.

Unfortunately, this is not always happening. Special education teachers are entering the field

8

without the proper training, foundational knowledge, or strategies on the most effective methods

to use when teaching students with learning disabilities how to read. According to Judith R.

Birsh, (2005), “Teachers who work at prevention, intervention, or remediation require a

foundation based on scientific evidence and need to be informed about the complex nature of

instruction in reading and related skills” (p. 1). If special education teachers have not received

the proper training on multisensory techniques and strategies to teach reading, do not use

evidence/research-based methods, or best practices, they will not be effective teachers for their

students with learning disabilities. One solution to this problem is to provide training programs

and professional development opportunities to special education teachers to explore

scientifically-based, Orton Gillingham approached, multisensory reading programs and

strategies. Through the incorporation of multisensory, systematic, explicit phonetically-based

decoding and encoding instruction, special education teachers can be most effective when

teaching their students with learning disabilities how to read. The combination of listening,

saying, looking and writing with active student engagement can promote this success (Moats,

2000).

A study conducted by the National Council on Teacher Quality (2006) estimated that the

current reading failure of 20-30% of students could be reduced 2-10% if teachers were trained on

how to incorporate research-based practices in the science of reading in their classrooms. There

are key elements that characterize effective scientifically-based reading instruction: (1) early

intervention; (2) direct, explicit, sequential, systematic instruction of alphabetic principles,

phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension; (3) strategies for encoding

(spelling) and decoding (reading) words as a beginning and foundational step to fluent reading;

(5) practicing skills to automaticity; and (6) frequent assessment and instructional adjustments to

ensure progress. Students learn at variable speeds and pace when learning the fundamental and

9

essential components of the reading skills, yet the statistics from the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) (2011) indicate that 26% of 12th graders, 25% of 8th graders, and

33% of 4th graders function below basic reading levels. This national trend has been consistent

since 1994.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction published testing data from the 2010

Wisconsin Concepts and Knowledge Exam administered to third, fourth and fifth grade students.

Of the schools reporting data from Vilas and Oneida counties, the following percentage of

students performed below proficiency in the area of reading: Northland Pines School District -

third grade 11.3%, fourth grade 10.0%, fifth grade 7.5%; Three Lakes School District – third

grade 20.7%, fourth grade 6.1%, fifth grade 11.1%; Rhinelander School District – third grade

17.4%, fourth grade 20.3%, fifth grade 12.3%; Phelps School District – third grade 31.3%, fourth

grade 15.4%, fifth grade 0.0%. On average, 20.2% of area third grade students, 13% of fourth

grade students and 10% of fifth grade students in Vilas and Oneida counties are reading below

proficiency level. In comparison, 19.9% of third graders, 17.0% of fourth graders and 15.5% of

fifth graders across the state of Wisconsin performed below proficiency. These trends in scores,

while below the national average, remain a concern at both the state and local levels.

According to the latest National Assessment of Adult Literacy report (2003) as reported

on the National Center for Education Statistics website, “over 90 million (4 out of 10) U.S.

adults are living lives that are socially and economically disadvantaged due to poor reading

skills.” In Vilas and Oneida Counties, Wisconsin counties directly serviced by the Literacy Task

Force of Northern Wisconsin, 7% of each county’s adult population falls into the category of

“lacking literacy skills” (2003). These rates are consistent with the state of Wisconsin’s overall

low literacy rates. The adults affected are more likely to live and engage in unhealthy lives

10

within the lower end of the socio-economic threshold, fall into poverty, and even live short,

unfulfilling lives.

The Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin has, since its inception in 2004, provided

tutors with 70 hours of intensive literacy training in the use of scientifically, research-based

methods. Survey results received after each year of training indicate that much of the information

tutors were given at the training was new to them. The surveys also revealed the participants

were presently employing these new approaches in their teaching/tutoring, and that they viewed

the instruction they’d received as valuable to them and to their students.

The literacy needs of the communities located within Vilas and Oneida Counties in north

central Wisconsin can be met through the Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin. The

Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin directly supports children in literacy and education

through providing research-based intervention training for teachers and caregivers of students

with significant learning disabilities (dyslexia), reading delays, and provides direct tutoring of

those students.

We see the need for the support of students with disabilities and special needs –

specifically dyslexia and specific learning disabilities. The need for specific teacher preparation

and training in the field of teaching reading in evidence-based methods has been identified.

Wisconsin’s Read to Lead Development Council, a task force of government officials, educators

and advocates for reading reform, has identified reform methods that address teacher preparation

in the state. Their recommendations, as noted in Wisconsin’s Education Reform Bill (SB 461)

have been signed into law and are now known as 2011 Wisconsin Act 166 (2012). This

legislature targets undergraduate students in education seeking initial K-5 and special education

teaching licenses. The 2011 Wisconsin Act 166 does not target or support existing teachers. The

11

Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin can continue to address the needs of current teaching

staff. Current teaching staff will have the opportunity to gain the knowledge and skills necessary

to provide quality literacy instruction to their students as well as prepare them to take the

voluntary licensing exam proposed by the state of Wisconsin and modeled after the state of

Massachusetts’ licensure exam.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this grant proposal is to gain financial support to increase teacher training,

specifically in the area of special education, in scientifically-based, multisensory teaching

strategies with an understanding of the science of reading. Increasing teacher knowledge will

contribute to increased literacy and foundational knowledge for struggling readers and will fill a

void in teacher knowledge, training and instructional strategies.

Definition of Terms

Balanced Literacy. “An approach to reading instruction that strikes a compromise

between Phonics approaches and Whole Language approaches – ideally, the most effective

strategies are drawn from the two approaches and synthesized together” (Wren, 2012).

Code-Based Instruction. “Beginning reading instruction methods that emphasize

learning the correspondence between letters and sounds” (Bruning, Schraw & Norby, 2011, p.

360).

Comprehension. “Accurately understanding what is written or said” (Harris, T., &

Hodges, R., 1995, p. 39).

Constructionist View of Learning. View of learning that “focus’ on readers’ goals,

attempts to create representations that make sense, and explanations of why events and actions

occur” (Bruning, et al., 2011, p. 361).

12

Decoding. “To analyze spoken or graphic symbols of a familiar language to ascertain

their intended meaning” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 55).

Dialectical Constructionism. “A form of constructivism that places the source of

knowledge in the interactions between learners and their environments” (Bruning, et al., 2011, p.

362).

Dyslexia. “A specific learning disability that is neurological in origin and characterized

by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding

abilities” (International Dyslexia Association, 2008).

Encoding. “To change a message into symbols” or the spelling process (Harris, et al.,

1995, p. 70).

Fluency. “The freedom from word-identification problems that might hinder

comprehension in silent reading or the expression of ideas in oral reading; automaticity in

reading” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 85).

Grapho-phonemic. “The relationship between a grapheme and the phoneme(s) it

represents; letter-sound correspondence” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 101).

Guided Reading. “Reading instruction in which the teacher provides the structure and

purpose for reading and for responding to the material” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 102).

Imaginal Coding System. “A long-term memory system in dual coding theory that

processes visual information such as pictures and other images” (Bruning et al., 2011, p. 364).

Learning Disability. “A generic term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders

manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading,

writing or mathematical abilities” (Harris, et al., 1995 p. 136).

Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin. A non-profit organization and member of

Wisconsin Literacy, Inc., a state-wide coalition that supports volunteer literacy services. The

13

Task Force is dedicated to helping families and individuals in north central Wisconsin struggling

with reading and spelling. The Task Force provides tutoring, training of reading tutors,

workshops about literacy and fund-raising for training and scholarships. Aligned with the

Wisconsin Branch of the International Dyslexia Association, the Task Force uses scientifically

researched, systematic approaches to teaching reading and spelling.

Metacognition. Knowledge about cognition; knowledge used to regulate thinking and

learning” (Bruning et al., 2011, p. 366).

Metalinguistic Awareness. “A conscious awareness on the part of a language user of

language as an object in itself” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 153).

Morphology. “The study of structure and forms of words including derivation, inflection

and compounding” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 158).

Multisensory. “An instructional approach that uses a combination of several senses”

(Harris, et al., 1995, p. 159).

Orton-Gillingham. An approach to reading instruction that is based on the work of Dr.

Samuel T. Orton and Anna Gillingham. This approach, considered to be the first of its kind,

implements multisensory, visual-auditory-kinesthetic (VAK) approach when teaching students

with dyslexia to read. Main components of the program include “individualized instruction in a

multisensory strategies, alphabetic phonics, synthetic/analytic, systematic and logical, sequential,

cumulative and integrated, cognitive, fluency, and communication” (Florida Center for Reading

Research, 2012).

Phonemic Awareness. “Awareness of the sounds (phonemes) that make up spoken

words” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 185).

Phonics. “A way of teaching reading and spelling that stresses symbol-sound

relationships” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 186).

14

Semantics. “The study of meaning in language, as the analysis of the meaning of words,

phrases sentences, discourse, and whole text” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 230).

Science of Reading. The psychology of reading development to reading instruction; the

biological bases of reading to reading comprehension, including disorders of reading and

spelling (Snowling M., and Hulme, C., 2007).

Syntax. “The study of how sentences are formed and of the grammatical rules that

govern their formation” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 249).

Verbal Coding System. “A long-term memory system proposed in dual coding theory

that processes verbal information such as speech or printed words” (Bruning et al., 2011, p. 369).

Vocabulary. “Words known or used by a person or group” (Harris et al., 1995, p. 274).

Word Study. “Vocabulary-building exercises, practice in word identification, as in

phonics, structural analysis and spelling practice” (Harris, et al., 1995, p. 283).

Zone of Proximal Development. “The difference between the difficulty level of

problems children can cope with independently and the level they can accomplish with the help

of older or more expert individuals” (Bruning, et al., 2011, p. 370).

Limitations of the Study

The Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin is available to those aware of their own

need – whether it is to seek out tutoring services for their child or to increase a person’s

knowledge in multisensory, scientifically-based reading instruction and the science of reading.

While a complete set of board members exists for the Task Force, its resources are available to

those who recognize their need and seek the assistance. It is unknown how many current teachers

will choose to participate once they are made aware of the services and resources of the Task

Force.

15

Methodology

Chapter two will include a review of the literature and common reading practices, best

practices, their efficacy and the supportive brain research. Chapter three will outline project

goals and objectives of the proposed project. In Chapter four, methodology will be explained

including an action plan and timeline, evaluation tools, dissemination plan and the proposed

budget. A cover letter for the grant will be included in the appendix.

16

Chapter II: Literature Review

Numerous studies have investigated the increase in number of students with learning

disabilities and the underlying causes of the deficit. Researchers know that there are multiple

factors that contribute to a learning disability. The factors, divided into general categories

include: brain injury, errors in brain development, neurochemical imbalances and heredity.

While these factors are out of the control of educators, it is possible for students with learning

disabilities to improve their readings skills significantly when taught by teachers who have

received specialized training in reading instruction. The deciding factor on the pace and progress

a child makes can be the knowledge and skill of the special education teacher assigned to work

with children who have learning disabilities.

Common Approaches to Reading Instruction

There are a variety of approaches to reading instruction that span from a whole language

to phonics-based approaches and combinations of the two. Teaching reading through whole-

language or meaning-based methods is the most common approach found in schools today.

Integration of whole-language is found through guided and leveled reading programs. Within

these methods are the three cuing systems: (1) semantics; (2) syntax; (3) grapho-phonemic or

letter-sound cuing. Students are prompted to guess at unknown words based on picture clues,

sentence structure and lastly the letters of the word; they then make an educated guess as to what

the word might be. In this model, students are prompted to participate in a system that is not

efficient or helpful in the decoding process (Wren, 2011).

Meaning-based programs fall under the constructionist view of learning in an effort to

“encourage knowledge formation and metacognitive process for judging, organizing and

acquiring new information that is student-driven” (Bruning et al., 2011, p. 194). In a student-

17

driven constructionist classroom, students take an active role and responsibility in their own

learning, negating the need for Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development (Bruning,

et al., 2011).

On the other end of the spectrum from whole language instruction is phonics or code-

based instruction. This research-based model suggests that the first cue children should focus on

is the grapho-phonemic information. After the letters are used to decode the word, then the

student should focus on the semantic and syntactic information to determine if there is meaning.

“Semantics and syntax do not play a significant role in the identification of words, but instead

are important for the comprehension or “making sense” of text” (Bruning, et al., p. 2). Very

seldom do undergraduate/graduate level coursework, professional development, workshops or

conventions focus on the specific teaching of phonics or code-based learning. This is at the

expense of struggling readers eager to progress in the literacy process.

Phonics-based instruction, when taught explicitly, systematically and cumulatively,

resonates with Vygotsky’s dialectical constructionism. In dialectical constructionism, learners

are active in constructing their own knowledge by discovering and transforming background

information into new learning. This, combined with authentic learning that integrates social

interactions, self-regulation and metacognition, encourages the formation of knowledge and

processing information that is student-driven (Bruning et al., 2011). When students are

functioning within the zone of proximal development, the student and an adult can, “work

together on problems that the child alone could not work on successfully” (Bruning et al., p.

197). Skills are explicitly taught to a child through the process of modeling. From there, dialogue

and discussion occurs ensuring the child’s understanding of the explicit instruction with

demonstration of mastery and application of the skill.

18

Looking further into code-based instruction, phonics must be organized and systematic in

order for students to succeed. In other words, systematic phonics instruction will occur when all

the letter-sound correspondences are explicitly taught and covered sequentially and cumulatively

in a clearly defined sequence. According to Henry (2003), instruction should be structured in a

way that is simultaneous and multisensory, systematic and cumulative, with explicit and direct

instruction, diagnostic, synthetic and analytic.

If teachers, especially special education teachers, have not received the proper training on

multisensory techniques and strategies to teach reading, do not use evidence/research-based

methods, or best practices, they will not be effective teachers to their students with learning

disabilities. One solution to this problem is to provide training programs and professional

development opportunities to special education teachers. These programs should be aimed at

exploring scientifically-based, structured, multisensory reading programs and strategies such as

the Orton Gillingham method. Through the incorporation of multisensory, systematic, explicit

phonetically-based decoding and encoding instruction, special education teachers can be most

effective when teaching their students with learning disabilities how to read.

Integrating dual coding theory, or input of information through multiple senses, into a

learning process generates greater recall. When instructing students using multisensory

techniques, students are coding information not only via the verbal and imaginal coding systems,

but through other modalities (senses) as well. Given the fact that the icon, or visual sensory

registers, can be limited, with “seven to nine pieces of information processed at any given time,

information held in visual sensory memory receives only limited processing” (Bruning, et al., p.

19). Teachers must limit the amount of information that can be perceived at a given time.

Research indicates that there may be benefits to “presenting information both visually and

19

auditory. Given the limits of students’ ability to hold information in their sensory registers, we

would expect that information presented both visually and auditory would have a higher

likelihood of being perceived than information presented in only one format. It is also reasonable

to assume that stimulation of the senses of touch, taste, and smell may also enhance learning”

(Bruning, et al. p. 20).

There are many metacognitive aspects of reading. According to Marcia Henry (2003),

“the ability to monitor whether what has been decoded is correct or incorrect and the capacity to

reflect on alternative strategies for decoding unfamiliar words fit into the domain of

metaknowledge” (p. 47). When children participate in the process of metacognition, they are

better able to monitor, predict accuracy and choose appropriate strategies. Along with

metacognition, comes metalinguistic awareness. Metalinguistic awareness can be applied to the

explicit understanding and awareness of phonemic strategies. When children lack metalinguistic

awareness, reading acquisition may be hindered due to ineffective use of phonologic strategies

(Henry, 2003).

Multisensory reading instruction, according to Sally Shaywitz, Professor of Pediatrics at

Yale University School of Medicine and co-director of the Yale Center for the Study of Learning

and Attention, is a method of teaching reading to students with learning disabilities, or dyslexia.

This method can be achieved through the use of a systematic, multisensory, sequential, phonics-

based program. These programs should provide explicit instruction in phonological awareness,

sound-symbol correspondence, syllables, morphology, syntax, and semantics (Orton, 1937;

Shaywitz, 2003). The program needs to provide “techniques for linking eye, ear, voice, and hand

in symbolic learning” (Birch, 2005, p. 23). Enhanced memory and learning take place when

utilizing a multisensory approach to teaching reading.

20

History of Multisensory Reading Instruction

Dr. Samuel Orton, a child neurologist, derived an instructional approach that increased

auditory competence through the teaching of phonetic equivalents of printed letters and the

blending of those equivalents (Orton, 1937). The instructional approach designed by Orton was

developed into a curriculum by Anna Gillingham and Bessie Stillman (Ritchey and Goeke,

2006). The methodology of utilizing a systematic, sequential, multisensory and phonics-based

approach to teaching reading has been termed the Orton-Gillingham approach, or OG. Presently,

there are many instructional programs that model the OG approach that are directed at teaching

students with reading disabilities.

Examples of Multisensory Reading Programs

According to the International Dyslexic Association (IDA) comparison matrix of

multisensory language programs, there are select programs that integrate the Orton-Gillingham

approach. When implemented with fidelity, these programs have been successful in teaching

students to successfully encode (spell) and decode (read). Each evidence/scientifically-based

program, containing similar principles of design, based on OG approaches, has a strong emphasis

on the need for teacher knowledge and training. Each of the selected programs has been analyzed

for use in intervention and remediation as well as utilization of the components of phonological

awareness, vocabulary development, reading comprehension skills and strategies, beginning and

advanced decoding skills – with spelling included, reading fluency, handwriting, grammar,

written composition and strategies for learning (Henry, nd). According to the matrix, in addition

to teaching the content strands, “effective approaches are explicit, systematic, multisensory and

cumulative” (p. 3). The programs are as follows: Alphabet Phonics, Association Method,

Language!, Lexia-Herman Method, Lindamood-Bell, Project Read, Slingerland, Sonday System,

21

Sounds in Syllables, Spalding Method, Starting Over, Wilson Fundations & Wilson Reading

(Henry, nd).

According to Heidi E. Allen (2010), “readers with dyslexia lack the foundational reading

skill of phonemic awareness” (p. 21). Phonological awareness is thought to be the main deficit in

approximately 88% of those diagnosed with dyslexia (Shaywitz, 2003). Research concludes that

the most successful way to teach students with dyslexia is using a systematic, multisensory,

sequential phonics-based program with explicit instruction in phonological awareness, sound-

symbol correspondence, syllables, morphology, syntax, and semantics (Allen, 2010; Shaywitz,

2003).

The OG approach has provided the foundation upon which the previously mentioned

programs have been developed. The major, and key, component to successfully teach students

with reading disabilities to read is the component of multisensory instruction. Multisensory

instruction provides students with the tools and strategies to implement the modalities of visual,

auditory and kinesthetic leaning (Allen, 2010).

22

Chapter III: Project Goals and Objectives

Given training in research-based, Orton-Gillingham reading methods, teachers, parents

and tutors will teach/tutor students with significant learning disabilities. Multi-sensory methods

and strategies will be integrated into lessons providing students a successful means for learning

how to read (decode) and spell (encode) fluently. Participant reading scores will increase 20%

from baseline as measured via pre and post informal and formal testing. Orton-Gillingham

methods are multi-sensory, phonics or code-based, rather than fully meaning-based methods

found in most traditional classrooms. Research shows that struggling readers respond more

favorably to this method of instruction and learning than any other method. Most teacher-training

programs do not promote or train educators in this method.

Overall Project Goal: Improve Reading Skills Of Students With Significant Learning

Disabilities.

Objective 1: Increase student reading and spelling of real, nonsense and sight word

scores 20% from baseline as formatively measured by the WADE (Wilson Assessment of

Decoding and Encoding) pre- and post-assessments. Students with learning disabilities will be

administered the WADE pre-test to establish baseline skills, will receive tutoring based on

Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory methods and be WADE post-tested to gauge increases in

encoding and decoding skills. The WADE is an informal assessment, administered after an

extended instructional period used to monitor mastery and progress of internalized decoding and

spelling skills.

Objective 2: Increase student word attack and comprehension summative scores as

measured by the Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement III pre- and post-assessments.

Students with learning disabilities will be administered the standardized, norm-referenced,

23

Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement III as a pre-test to establish baseline skills, will receive

tutoring based on Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory methods and re-administered the Woodcock

Johnson Test of Achievement III as a post-test to gauge increases in word attack and

comprehension skills.

Objective 3: Increase tutoring skills, knowledge, and confidence of teachers,

parents, and tutors as measured by pre- and post-assessments using a five-point Likert

scale survey. An online survey will be administered to tutors, parents, and teachers prior to

participating in the Orton-Gillingham teaching/tutoring methods course. This survey will assess

tutoring skills, knowledge, and confidence of the program participants. Tutors, parents, and

teachers will participate in the Orton-Gillingham teacher/tutor training and will utilize their

teaching/tutoring skills under the direction of a master teacher. A post survey will measure

growth in tutoring skills, knowledge, and confidence of the adult tutors, parents, and teachers.

24

Chapter IV: Project Methodology

Teachers established in the field of education are in need of additional literacy training

and exposure to scientifically-based learning instruction for struggling readers; however, access

to coursework and training is not readily or locally available. The Literacy Task Force of

Northern Wisconsin recognizes this need and offers targeted training on the scientifically-based

Orton-Gillingham method of teaching reading to struggling readers. Improving literacy and

student achievement through the implementation of Orton-Gillingham teaching methods is the

main goal of this grant proposal. This chapter will include a timeline and evaluation plan. The

tools used for evaluation, a plan for dissemination of information, and a budget are also included.

Primary responsibility for this project will be the board members of the Literacy Task force of

Northern Wisconsin.

Project Timeline

Month Activities

March 2012 Distribute course information to tri-county schools and libraries

Provide trainer with course dates and contract

Secure training location

May 2012 Refer/recommend students to participate in training program

June 2012 Open course registration

Administer pre-survey self-assessment to teacher/tutor enrollees

Send parents of referred/recommended students program information

25

Send permission and commitment forms to participating families

July 2012 Begin tutor training program

Assess students through formative and summative (WADE, Woodcock

Johnson Test of Achievement III) pre-testing

Utilize OG methods with trained tutors working under the supervision of a

master teacher

Assess students through formative and summative (WADE, Woodcock

Johnson Test of Achievement III) post-testing

Administer post-survey self-assessment to teacher/tutor enrollees

August 2012 Compile and review progress monitoring data

Evaluation Plan and Tools

An outcomes-directed evaluation plan means collecting data to document the extent to

which objectives and activities were achieved. Three types of measures will be used to assess the

project’s success. Fidelity of implementation will be evaluated based on attendance, tutoring

observations with fidelity checklist, and survey of teacher confidence. Formative and summative

results will be monitored through the use of both pre- and post-administration of progress

monitoring WADE (informal) results along with standardized norm-referenced Woodcock

Johnson Test of Achievement III (formal) results. Tutors/teachers will complete self-assessments

through a pre- and post-survey.

The WADE was chosen for pre- and post-testing based on the comparison of skills to the

scope and sequence of the Orton-Gillingham teaching method. The Woodcock Johnson Test of

26

Achievement III was chosen for comparative purposes to students of the same age/grade. The

Fidelity Checklist is used to gauge the tutoring program’s implementation of specific steps and

skills while the survey will allow for individual thoughts, feelings and personal judgments.

Dissemination Plan

Dissemination of project activities is essential as it will increase the awareness within the

general public, both within the local and school communities, about the impact of reading

difficulties/disabilities. The public as well as school staff will receive information about the

tutoring course training and the benefits to students with language-based learning disabilities.

The Task Force website, registered with major search engines, is updated on a regular

basis to include the latest research trends in reading research with links to the Wisconsin Reading

Coalition and the ADA. Information leading up to the training and tutoring (registration and

course information) will be provided along with project information.

Local libraries and school districts will have the opportunity for Task Force member(s) to

present information on the Summer Training/Tutoring, OG methods, dyslexia support and

project results (approximately 1.5 hour presentation). No registration fee will be charged, a post

survey will be conducted on information gained from conferences/workshops.

The Task Force publishes a quarterly newsletter and will disseminate final results of the

project. The newsletter is released in both an electronic and US Postal Service mailed format.

Topics included in the newsletter are the latest outreach projects by the Task Force, dyslexia

awareness, support, tutoring resources and contact information.

Press releases will be written emphasizing relevant information on the Task Force,

summer tutor training and its target audience, scholarship information and dyslexia.

27

Budget Narrative

The items listed in the detailed budget below will give the Literacy Task Force of

Northern Wisconsin the ability to meet the goals and outcomes of our project. If awarded this

grant, the money will be used to provide school staff /parents the ability to apply for full or

partial scholarships to attend a Literacy Training workshop and to purchase the reading kits

necessary to provide tutoring to struggling readers. The skills gained in the literacy workshop

will be implemented immediately through the training process and overseen by master teachers.

The skills to tutor students will be a lifelong benefit to the teacher/tutor/parent and will reach

from the training setting, to the school setting and extended tutoring service setting. Students

participating in the Literacy Workshop will have the opportunity to apply for an additional ten-

hour tutoring scholarship to extend their instruction with their tutor. Students participating in the

workshop as tutees and receiving scholarships for extended tutoring will, as research and past

workshop results indicate, increase their decoding, word recognition, fluency and reading

comprehension skills. The workshop, limited to ten trainees, provides each participant a binder,

handouts and important training materials.

28

Table 1

Budget

Description Cost Amount Total

Course Tuition Scholarship $350 5 $1,750

Material Kits $225 5 $1,125

10-Hour Student Tutoring Scholarships $250 10 $2,500

Supplies – Copying, Binders $5 10 $50

Trainer Contract $3,000 1 $3,000

Total Cost $8,425

29

References

Allen, H. (2010). Understanding dyslexia: Defining, identifying, and teaching. Illinois Reading

Council Journal, 38(2), 20-26. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Birch, J. R. (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.

Brookes Publishing Co.

Bruning, R., Schraw, G., & Norby, M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Boston,

MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Florida Center for Reading Research. (2012). Orton-Gillingham approach. Retrieved from:

http://www.fcrr.org

Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing.

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Henry, M. (nd). Framework for informed reading and language instruction: Matrix of

multisensory structured language programs. International Dyslexic Association.

Retrieved from: www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/MSL2007finalR1.pdf

Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore,

MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.

International Dyslexia Association (2008). Just the facts…definition of dyslexia. MD:

International Dyslexia Association.

30

National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Adult Literacy. (2003). State &

county estimates of low literacy. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about

reading and what elementary teachers aren’t learning. Retrieved from

http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_exec_summ.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education. (2011). Indicator 10:

Reading Performance. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_rd2.pdf

Mathes, P.G., & Denton, C.A. (2002). The prevention and identification of reading disability.

Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 9 (3), 185-191.

Moats, L. (Ed.). (2000). Just the facts… spelling. Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia

Association.

Orton, S. (1937). Reading, writing, and speech problems in children. New York: Norton.

Ritchey, K., & Goeke, J. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading

instruction. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171-183. Retrieved from Educational

Research Complete database.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for

reading problems at any level. New York: First Vintage Books.

Snowling, M., & Hulme, C. (2007). The science of reading. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Wren, S. (2012). Reading resources. The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Retrieved from: http://www.sedl.org/reading;framework/glossary.htm

31

Wren, S. (2011). Reading and the three cueing systems. The Southwest Educational

Development Laboratory. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED458554.pdf

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Successful school guide. (nd). Database retrieved

from http://data.dpi.state.wi.us/data

Wisconsin Unicameral. (2012), 2011 Wisconsin Act 166. SB 461. Retrieved from

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/166

32

Appendix A: Cover letter

May 12, 2012

Ms. Maxine Clark, Founder Build-A-Bear Workshop and Bear Hugs Foundation 1954 Innerbelt Business Center Drive Saint Louis, MO 63114 (314) 423-8000 ext. 5489 giving@buildabear.com Re: Letter of Intent

Literacy Training & Tutoring Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin

Dear Ms. Clark:

This letter conveys our intent to submit a formal proposal in response to Build-A-Bear Workshop’s Literacy and Education initiative and commitment to supporting charitable causes that improve the lives of children, families and animals. The Literacy Task Force of Northern Wisconsin, a non-profit organization, has a seven-year history of meeting and promoting the literacy needs of children through training reading tutors and offering free tutoring to children with significant language-based learning disabilities.

You will receive the proposal through the required electronic submission process in advance of the August 31, 2012 deadline. In the meantime, feel free to contact me for further information. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. We look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

Sara Adamovich Board Member Literacy Taskforce of Northern Wisconsin 1690 Melody Ln. Eagle River, WI 54521 adamovichfamily@gmail.com (715) 614-5949