8/9/2019 fob_5a

1/32

1Techniques for

Teaching Beginning-Level Reading to Adults

Ashley Hager

7Beginning ESOL Learners’Advice to Their Teachers

MaryAnn Cunningham Florez

11The Neurobiology ofReading and Dyslexia

Sally E. Shaywitz, M.D., and

Bennett A. Shaywitz, M.D.

16Using a Multisensory

Approach to HelpStruggling Adult Learners

Gladys Geertz

20Reading for Pleasure

Sondra Cuban

24Theory to Practice,Practice to Theory

Anne Murr

28Teaching Reading toFirst-Level Adults

 Judith A. Alamprese

31Blackboard

32All About NCSALL

First-LevelLearners

WORLD  EDUCATION   NCSALLVolume 5, Issue A • August 2001

Techniques for TeachingBeginning-Level Readingto Adultsby Ashley Hager

Ihave been teaching beginning-level reading (equivalent

to grade 0–2) at the Community Learning Center inCambridge, MA, for the past eight years. The majority of students in my class have either suspected or diagnosed readingdisabilities (dyslexia). The difficulty they experience learning toread is as severe as the urgency they feel about mastering thetask. One of my students, a former Olympic athlete, had toturn down a job offer as a track coach because of his inabilityto read the workout descriptions. He describes his life as “anice cream that he is unable to lick.” continued on page 3

Focus on

BasicsI N T H I S I S S U E :

CONNECTING R ESEARCH & PRACTICE

8/9/2019 fob_5a

2/32

2AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

 F ocus on Basics is the quarterly pub-lication of the National Centerfor the Study of Adult Learning

and Literacy. It presents best practices,current research on adult learning andliteracy, and how research is used byadult basic education teachers, coun-

selors, program administrators, and poli-cymakers. Focus on Basics is dedicatedto connecting research with practice, toconnecting teachers with research andresearchers with the reality of the class-room, and by doing so, making adultbasic education research more relevantto the field.

All subscription and editorialcorrespondence should be sent to:

 Focus On BasicsWorld Education44 Farnsworth StreetBoston, MA 02210–1211e-mail address: FOB@WorldEd.org

Focus on Basics is copyrighted, but weurge readers to photocopy and circulatethe publication widely. When reprintingarticles, please credit Focus on Basicsand the National Center for the Studyof Adult Learning and Literacy.

Editor: Barbara GarnerLayout: Mary White ArrigoIllustrator: Mary White ArrigoProofreader: Celia Hartmann

Focus on Basics is published by the National Center for the Study of AdultLearning and Literacy (NCSALL).

 NCSALL is funded by the EducationalResearch and Development CentersProgram, Award Number R309B60002,as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement/

 National Institute of PostsecondaryEducation, Libraries, and LifelongLearning, U.S. Department of Education.

The contents of Focus on Basics do notnecessarily represent the positions orpolicies of NCSALL or the NationalInstitute on Postsecondary Education,Libraries, and Lifelong Learning; WorldEducation; the Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement; or the U.S.Department of Education, and you

should not assume endorsement bythe Federal Government.

Welcome!“First-level readers,” “beginners,” “new readers,” “0-4 level,” adult basic education

has struggled with what to call those learners who are really still building decoding and

comprehension skills. This inability to settle on a name may be masking a larger issue:Why are we, as a field, failing to serve these learners well?

I can think of three general reasons.The first is the system. The funding structure for many adult basic education programs

does not encourage service to beginners, because beginners often progress slowly.Discomfort with providing direct instruction, which can feel childish to teachers

who are attempting to create adult learning environments, is another stumbling block.A third is that serving first-level learners well is hard work and requires specific

training. Native English-speaking adults who have not learned to read probably have somelearning difficulties or disability. Teachers must know a lot about the craft of reading toteach someone with a learning disability, and many adult basic education teachers, whilewell intentioned, lack the formal training in reading instruction they need to reach theselearners effectively.

The teachers writing in this issue of Focus on Basics do know a lot about teachingreading. Ashley Hagar, of Cambridge, Massachusetts; Gladys Geertz, of Anchorage, Alaska;and Anne Murr of Des Moines, Iowa, all bring immense skill to their classrooms andprograms. They all have found that very structured classes, with direct instruction inspecific subskills such as phonological awareness, word analysis, and sight word recognition,among other skills, provide the best results. Their students don’t chafe under directinstruction, they welcome it: finally, they have the tools they need to join, howeverbelatedly, the reading club.

The beginning learners in MaryAnn Cunningham Florez’s English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) program had valuable feedback to share about the strengths andweaknesses of their instructors. Included in their list was the suggestion to “talk to usabout learning and the learning process.” It echoes the metacognitive strategies providedto students by Hagar, Geertz, and Murr. Florez shares her students’ complete list of 

suggestions, and her techniques for getting such input from students.Drs. Sally and Bennett Shaywitz, in their overview of the neurobiology of dyslexia,explain that an inability to segment the written word into its underlying phonologic elementsresults in readers having difficulty in decoding and identifying words. But, they remind us,the phonologic deficit is “domain-specific.” That is, other cognitive skills are intact. Thisis important information to share with first-level learners. It explains the paradox so oftenencountered of otherwise intelligent people who experience great difficulty reading.

We hope that the articles in this issue provide first level teachers with an introductionto the techniques useful for teaching first-level learners. Let us know what works for you.

* * *You’ve noticed that this issue of Focus on Basics looks different. We decided to

“freshen” our layout and design with new typeface and a few other small changes.“Blackboard” is now inside the back page, and we’ve added the section “All About

 NCSALL” to the back cover. We hope that the editorial content remains as relevant anduseful as it has always been.

Sincerely,

Barbara GarnerEditor

8/9/2019 fob_5a

3/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  3

Focuson

Basics

Little research is available on themost effective methods for teachingreading to beginning-level adults. My

continuing challenge has been todetermine how reading acquisitionresearch conducted with children canbe applied to teaching reading toadults. In this article, I describe thetechniques I have found most useful;I hope other teachers working withbeginning readers will find themhelpful.

Our ClassThis year our class includes nine

students: six men and three women.Three are from the United States,five are from the Caribbean, and oneis from Ethiopia. Their ages rangefrom late 20s to late 50s and allare employed. Their educationalexperiences range from completing

four to 12 years of school; one studenthas a high school diploma. Onestudent has documented learningdisabilities (LD). Students typicallyenter my class knowing little morethan the names of the letters and a

handful of letter sounds. They areusually only able to write their nameand, in most cases, the letters of thealphabet. However, one student hadnever held a pencil before he enteredmy class.

Our class meets two evenings aweek for three hours each evening.Because skilled reading depends onthe mastery of specific subskills, I findit helpful to teach these explicitly. Iorganize the class into blocks of timein which, with the help of two

volunteers, I directly teach eightcomponents of reading: phonologicalawareness, word analysis, sight wordrecognition, spelling, oral reading foraccuracy, oral reading for fluency,listening comprehension, andwriting. These components embody

the skills and strategiesthat successful readershave mastered, eitherconsciously orunconsciously. Mycurriculum also includes

an intensive writingcomponent.

Over the last30 years, a significantamount of researchhas compared theeffectiveness of differentapproaches to teachingbeginning reading tochildren. It consistentlyconcludes that approachesthat include a system-atically organized andexplicitly taught programof phonics result insignificantly better wordrecognition, spelling,vocabulary, and com-prehension (Chall, 1967;Curtis, 1980; Stanovich1986; Adams, 1990;Snow et al., 1998). Forthis reason, I directly

teach the structure of the Englishlanguage using a phonics-basedapproach.

I draw from a number of phonics-based reading programs, includingthe Wilson Reading System, the

Orton-Gillingham System, and theLindamood-Phoneme SequencingProgram (LiPS; see the “Blackboard”on page 31 for contact information).The Wilson Reading System is amultisensory, phonics-based programdeveloped specifically for adults.Unlike phonics-based programs forchildren, the Wilson system isorganized around the six syllabletypes, which enables even beginninglevel adults to read works withsomewhat sophisticated vocabulary

(see the box on page 4 for thesix syllable types). The Orton-Gillingham program is a phonics-based program similar to the WilsonReading System but designed fordyslexic children. Students learnabout syllables much later in theprogram. I find particularly helpfulthe Orton-Gillingham technique forlearning phonetically irregular sightwords (see page 5). The LiPS Programis useful for helping students acquirean awareness of individual sounds in

words. This ability, referred to asphonemic awareness, is a prerequisitefor reading and spelling.

PhonologicalAwareness

Phonological awareness, whichinvolves the ability to differentiateand manipulate the individual sounds,or phonemes, in words, is the strongestpredictor of future reading success forchildren (Adams, 1995). No researchexists that describes the affects of phonological awareness on readingfor adults. However, I have foundthat teaching phonological awarenessto my beginning-reading adultssignificantly improves their readingaccuracy and spelling, especially forreading and spelling words withblends.

Techniques for Teachingcontinued from page 1

Typical Lesson Planfor a Three-Hour Class

Component Time (min)

Phonological Awareness 10

Word Analysis 20

Word Recognition“Sight Words” 10

Spelling 20

BREAK 10

Oral Reading (Accuracy) 20

Oral Reading (Fluency) 35

Comprehension 25

Writing 30

continued on page 4

8/9/2019 fob_5a

4/32

Syllable Types

SYLLABLE TYPE DESCRIPTION

Closed Syllable (vc/cv) – one vowel per syllable– ends with one or more consonants– the vowel has a short soundexample: pit, bath, splash, mitten

Vowel-Consonant-e – one vowel, then a consonant, then an eSyllable (vce) – the first vowel has a long sound

– the e is silentexample: hope, mine, bedtime

Open Syllable (v/cv), (vc/v) – one vowel– ends with the vowel

– vowel has a long soundexample: me, so , flu, why

R-Controlled Syllable – one vowel, followed by an r– vowel sound is neither short or long– vowel sound is controlled by the r– /ar/ as in “car,” /or/ as in “Ford,”

/ er/, /ir/, /ur/ all sound alike as in “her,”“bird,” “church”

The Consonant-LE Syllable – has three letters: a consonant, an “l,”and an “e”

– the e is silent

– the consonant and the “l” are blendedtogether

example: little, grumble, table

The Double-Vowel Syllable – two vowels side-by-side making onesound

– usually the first vowel is long, and thesecond is silent

example: maid, may, leaf, seen, pie, goatCredit: Wilson Reading System

4AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

Three phonological tasks thatI use with my students, in order of difficulty, are auditory blending,auditory segmenting, and phonemicmanipulation. Auditory blendinginvolves asking students to blend

words that the teacher presents insegmented form. For example, I say“/s/-/p/-/l/-/a/-/sh/” and the studentsresponds with “/splash/.” Auditorysegmenting is exactly the opposite.I present the word “/sprint/” and thestudent must segment the word intoits individual sounds “/s/-/p/-/r/-/i/-/n/-/t/.” Phonemic manipulation, which isthe strongest predictor of readingacquisition, is also the most difficult.The student must recognize thatindividual phonemes may be added,

deleted, or moved around in words.The following exchange is an

example of a phonemic manipulationtask. I ask the student to repeat aword such as “bland.” Then I askthe student to say the word again,changing one of the phonemes. Forexample, “Say it again without the“/l/.” The student responds with“/band/.” While phonologicalawareness does not include thestudent’s ability to associate soundswith letter symbols, and tasks are

presented orally, the researchconcludes that the most effectiveway to promote phonemic awarenessis in conjunction with the teachingof sound-to-symbol relationships(Torgesen, 1998).

Word AnalysisWord analysis, or phonics,

involves teaching the alphabeticprinciple: learning that the graphicletter symbols in our alphabet

correspond to speech sounds, andthat these symbols and sounds canbe blended together to form realwords. Word analysis strategiesenable students to “sound out” wordsthey are unable to recognize by sight.Explicit, direct instruction in phonicshas been proven to support beginningreading and spelling growth betterthan opportunistic attention to

phonics while reading, especially forstudents with suspected readingdisabilities (Blackman et al., 1984;Chall, 1967, 1983). Beginning readersshould be encouraged to decodeunfamiliar words as opposed to

reading them by sight, because itrequires attention to every letter insequence from left to right. This helpsto fix the letter patterns in the wordin a reader’s memory. Eventually,these patterns are recognizedinstantaneously and words appearto be recognized holistically (Ehri,1992; Adams, 1990).

I use the Wilson Reading Systemto teach phonics because the sixsyllable types are introduced early on.This enables even beginning-leveladults to read words that are part of their oral vocabulary and overall

cognitive abilities. After learningthe closed syllable rule, for example,students are able to read three-syllable words such as “Wisconsin,”“fantastic,” and “Atlantic.” Readingmultisyllabic words provides mystudents, who have acquired a historyof reading failure, with an unexpectedsense of accomplishment and opens

8/9/2019 fob_5a

5/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  5

Focuson

Basics

possibilities for them. Recognizingsyllable types is important because thesyllable pattern determines the soundof the vowel and how the word mustbe pronounced.

I have found that the Wilson

Reading System Sound Tappingtechnique is a particularly effectiveway to teach decoding. In thistechnique, each sound in a word isrepresented by one tap. Students tapthe first sound with their index fingerand thumb, the second sound withtheir middle finger and thumb, thethird sound with their ring finger andthumb, etc. If the student runs out of fingers, he or she returns to the indexfinger. Digraphs — two letters thatmake one sound (/sh/, /ch/, /th/, /ck/,

/ph/) — are represented with one tap.Example: bed = 3 sounds, 3 taps;shed = 3 sounds, 3 taps; stint = 5sounds, 5 taps. This techniquehelps students to hear all the soundsin a word.

“Sight Word”Recognition

Since many of the words thatappear most frequently in print arephonetically irregular, even beginning

readers must learn to recognize somewords by sight. Students with readingdisabilities have typically reliedalmost entirely on their ability tomemorize words. In most cases,however, their strategies forremembering the way words lookin print have proved ineffective.I have experienced some successin teaching sight words using theVisual-Auditory-Kinesthetic-Tactile(V-A-K-T) method that is part of theOrton- Gillingham program. TheVAKT method, which emphasizesmemorization through visualization,involves asking the student to say thename of each letter in a word and totrace each letter with his or her fingerin the air before covering the wordand attempting to spell it on paper.The VAKT method may be used tohelp students with both the readingand spelling of phonetically irregular

words. To avoid unnecessaryfrustration, it is best to tellbeginning readers which words theyshould decode and which wordsthey must recognize by sight.

SpellingSpelling is an effective way to

reinforce both word analysis skillsand automatic word recognition.Research consistently indicatesthat fluent, skilled readers (bothchildren and adults) make use of spelling patterns when they readand, conversely, reading itself reinforces a knowledge of spellingpatterns (Adams, 1995). Spellingfor practicing word analysis skills

and spelling for promoting wordrecognition (usually of phoneticallyirregular words), however, involvedifferent tasks and call for differentteaching techniques. The VAKTmethod, described earlier, is aprocess for teaching learners howto spell phonetically irregularwords. When dictating phoneticallyregular words, include only thosewords that include letter soundsand spelling rules that have beentaught directly.

An especially effectivetechnique for the spelling of phonetically regular words is theLiPS technique. This involvesasking students to put down apoker chip for each sound theyhear. After identifying the correctnumber of sounds in the word,students locate the vowel soundand place a different-colored chipover the chip that represents thevowel sound. Only after they haveidentified the sounds and isolated

the vowel sound are students askedto select the letter symbols thatrepresent the sounds in the word.

This places a lighter burden on short-term and working memory.

For beginning-level readers whoare native speakers of English, it isimportant to include nonsense wordsas part of dictation practice. Nonsense

words require the student to use wordattack strategies as opposed to sightrecognition.

Oral ReadingOral reading builds accuracy and

fluency, both of which contribute toimproved reading comprehension. Itis also the most practical way for meto monitor a student’s progress. Itgives a student an opportunity topractice applying word attack and

word recognition skills in context.Because reading for fluency andreading for accuracy involve differentobjectives and require differentmaterials, I find it useful to teachand evaluate them as two separateactivities.

Oral reading for accuracy givesstudents an opportunity to use theword analysis skills they have beentaught directly, so I choose readingselections from controlled texts.During accuracy reading, the

emphasis is on using word analysisknowledge to decode unfamiliarwords. The goal of fluency reading,on the other hand, is to encouragestudents to read smoothly and withexpression. When asking my studentsto do fluency reading, I do notinterrupt the flow of the reading todiscuss the content of the text or toanalyze a particular spelling pattern.If the student makes a mistake, Iprovide the word. Because it isdifficult to find materials that are easy

enough for a beginning reader to readfluently, I often address fluency in thecontext of rereading material students

/sh/ /i/ /p/ /sh/ /i/ /p/ = s-h-i-p

8/9/2019 fob_5a

6/32

6AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

have first read for accuracy. TheWilson Reading System describes atechnique for promoting fluencycalled penciling that I have foundparticularly useful. I encourage thestudent to read more than one word

in a breath by scooping a series of words together with a pencil. First, Imodel how the sentence should beread. For example: “The man withthe hat is big.” Eventually, studentsare able to pencil the sentences forthemselves but, at the beginning, Iscoop words into phrases for them.

When working on oral readingfor either accuracy or fluency, I dividethe class up according to ability. Iassign my teaching volunteers towork with the higher-level groups.

Periodically, I pair stronger readers toact as student teachers with their lessskilled classmates.

Before being paired with a lessskilled reader, however, studentteachers receive explicit instructionin providing decoding clues andhandling errors. I find this activityeffective for two reasons. First, byteaching someone else, the moreskilled student teachers consolidatetheir own knowledge and becomecognizant of their own relative

progress. Second, the more-skilledreaders become a source of inspirationand support for the less-skilled readersin the class.

ComprehensionFor readers at the 0–3rd grade

level, I teach higher-levelcomprehension skills using materialsother than those the students canread themselves. In my class, criticalthinking usually takes place in the

context of a classroom debate. TopicsI have found particularly conduciveto a heated discussion include “Whydo you think it is or is not appropriateto hit your children when theymisbehave?” and “Why do you thinkthere is so much crime in thiscountry?”

Using photographs is alsoeffective in building higher-level

comprehension skills. I ask questionssuch as “What do you think thepeople in the photograph are feeling?”“How can you tell?” or “What do youthink may have happened to makethem feel that way?” Open-ended

questions encourage students to makeinferences, draw conclusions, andexpress opinions.

ConclusionProgress can be excruciatingly

slow for beginning-level adult readers.The volunteers who work in my classare struck by the lack of novelty in myclasses. Each class follows the sameroutine (see the Typical Lesson Plan)and a significant amount of class time

is spent reviewing previously taughtskills and rereading texts. Forbeginning-level readers, and especiallyfor those with reading disabilities, apredictable routine helps to alleviateanxiety. Students get upset when theclass does not follow its expectedcourse. The volunteers are alsosurprised that students do not feelinsulted or embarrassed working withthe letters of the alphabet and readingtexts that may appear babyish. On thecontrary, after years of only using a hit

or miss approach, my students areextremely relieved to discover thatreading involves patterns of letterswith predictable sounds.

One student describes his earlyexperience with reading: “When Iwas in grade school, I would listen tothe other kids read aloud and I hadno idea how they knew that thoseletters said those words. When it wasmy turn, all I could do was guess.

 Now it makes sense! It’s like I foundthe key.”

The challenge of teaching readingto beginning-level adults can be daunting.In my opinion, however, teaching atthe beginning level is also the mostrewarding. It is extremely moving towitness an adult who, after years ofstruggling with the sounds of individualletters, is able to read a letter from afamily member or a note that his or herchild brings home from school.

References Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read:

Thinking and Learning About Print.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adams, M.J. (1995). “Resolving the“great debate”.” American Educator, 19(2).

Blackman, J., Bruck, M., Herbert, M., &Seidenberg, M. (1984). “Acquisition anduse of spelling-sound correspondences inreading.” Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 38, 114-133.

Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to Read: TheGreat Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Curtis, M.E. (1980). “Development of components of reading skill.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 656-669.

Ehri, L.C. (1992). “Reconceptualizingthe development of sight word readingand its relationship to encoding.” In P.Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (eds.),Reading Acquisition (pp. 107-144).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Snow, C., & Strucker, J. (2000).“Lessons from preventing readingdifficulties in young children for adultlearning and literacy.” In J. Comings, B.Garner, & C. Smith (eds.), AnnualReview for Adult Learning and Literacy,

Vol. 1, 25-69. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass, Inc.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). “Mattheweffects in reading: Some consequencesof individual differences in acquisitionof literacy.” Reading Research Quarterly,21, 360-407.

Torgesen, J. (1998). “Catch them beforethey fall; Identification and assessmentto prevent reading failure in youngchildren.” American Educator, 32-39.

 About the Author Ashley Hager teaches a beginning- andintermediate-level reading class at theCommunity Learning Center, Cambridge,MA. She is also the Boston Region YoungAdults with Learning Disabilities (YALD)Coordinator and teaches a 16-week,graduate-level course on the theory of reading. Ms. Hager has designed basicreading and foundations of reading andwriting certification courses for theMassachusetts Department of Education.

8/9/2019 fob_5a

7/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  7

Focuson

Basics

“They [the teachers] have

a lot of ‘esfuerzo’.”

It seemed like aninnocuous comment

 from a learner about atwo-teacher team, and it

 was only one of many that I furiously noted as I talked with a focus group of adultlearners from a beginning-level class in English forspeakers of other languages(ESOL). When I opened my

 notebook a day or two later,however, I realized exactlyhow much this learner andothers were telling me. The

 word “esfuerzo” made me

stop and think. The Englishtranslation from adictionary —

Beginning ESOL Learners’Advice to Their Teachers

by MaryAnn Cunningham Florez

effort, spirit — might notseem that informative,but we were holding thesediscussions in the learners’

 native Spanish, and theimplications of that word inSpanish and the commentsit sparked provided a wealthof insights into the instruc-tional process in that class-room. The learners weretelling me what they valuedin their teachers’ practices:

 not only their heart anddedication, but also the

 focus, pace, activity, andsense of purpose in thelessons they conducted.It provided me with a

 wonderful window into whatteachers need to know anddo to support beginning-level

 English language learners,and also gave me valuable

information for planningand implementing thetraining of their teachers.

In ESOL, we often talk aboutlearner-centered instruction andthe value of including learners’perspectives and realities in ourprogram and classroom planningand implementation. Teachers andadministrators everywhere work togather learners’ input on issues fromcontent topics to teaching methods. Ibegan conducting learner focus groupsas a way of including learners’ voicesin our small program’s end-of-semesterevaluation. In what specific areas didI think learners’ comments might beapplied? I was probably expectingthem to be helpful in identifyingbarriers to participation or providingcomments that might help me as Italked with individual teachers abouttheir practices.

I was missing the potential

impact that direct comments andideas from learners could have on staffdevelopment, especially for

teachers working withbeginning-level

8/9/2019 fob_5a

8/32

8AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

learners. Until, that is, I began to seethe quality, thoughtfulness, and depthof the comments they were providing.These comments added enrichingdimensions to the approaches,techniques, and information that

are usually a part of training forteachers working with beginning-level learners.

Ours is a community-basedvolunteer program at St. Anthonyof Padua Catholic Church, FallsChurch, VA. We began this year withapproximately 140 predominantly

Central American learners assigned tofive different classes. Sixty percent of the learners enrolled were placed inthe three beginning-level classes.They attend classes two evenings aweek for two hours, working primarily

on basic language development withina life skills context. The learnersexhibit a range of literacy skills (fromnonliterate to highly literate) andeducational backgrounds in theirnative language, as is typical inbeginning-level classes (Brod, 1999;Shank & Terrill, 1997). There are 12

volunteer teachers for the program’sfive classes: three two-person teamsand six individual teachers. All of theteachers teach one night a week; oneteacher teaches both nights of herclass. Only one of the teachers has

experience teaching English to non-English speakers.The advice that follows —

representing a collection of the mostfrequently heard statements —is drawn from the comments of28 students in the beginning-levelclasses who participated in threedifferent focus groups with me. Allof the learners are native Spanishspeakers; I conducted the focus groupsin Spanish to ensure that all couldparticipate as fully as they wanted.

The Learners’Advice

Repeat, but differently. One of the most consistent suggestions wasthat teachers need to create oppor-tunities for learners to practicematerial repeatedly but in differentways and in different contexts. Forsome learners, this meant a betterbalance of opportunities to engagein speaking, listening, reading, and

writing. For others, it meant differentpractice structures: pair work,individual work, round-robin, choralresponse, etc. For still others, it meantchanging the context in which thecontent or material is used: saying,copying, and printing lists of numbersas a first step for pre- or nonliteratelearners and later practicing themagain as times, dates, and prices.

Spend more time on topics and

 go more deeply into them. Learnerswere generally very happy with thetopics and themes typically coveredin beginning-level classes: health,personal information, jobs, orshopping. They appreciated the factthat these topics involved languagethey needed to know and use in theirdaily lives. However, they suggestedthat teachers spend more time oneach topic, offering more and differentways to practice the material and

Self Assessment

I ask learners to self-assess what they have learned at the end

of each unit in our textbook. I give each learner a three-column

chart and I draw a similar one on the board. The first column

will be filled in with items we studied in the unit. Learners put

a check in one of the other two columns to indicate if they have

mastered the item or not. I use symbols (a simple drawing of

a person smiling and another of a person frowning) or words

(“I know;” “I don’t know”) to head these columns, depending

on the proficiencies of my learners and their comfort with

the process.

I ask learners to look back through the unit and think aboutwhat we have studied. We then brainstorm together and I

record the items on the chart on the board while the learners

record them on their individual charts. (I may write one or two

items in the first column as examples, to get them started.)

Depending on the learners’ language levels, I might use words,

symbolic drawings, or a combination of both to list the items

that we brainstorm. As I list items, I make sure that I point to

the page or pages in the book where they were covered, to

remind learners of the context and to make sure everyone is

clear about what we are naming. Learners then indicate

individually what they have learned and what they need to

practice more. Afterward, we debrief, either as a whole group

or in pair or small groups that then report back to the large

group, to determine the items that people had in common. On

that basis, we decide what we may need to review as a class

or as individuals.

8/9/2019 fob_5a

9/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  9

Focuson

Basics

exploring issues and situationsassociated with it. They wantedteachers to move more deliberatelythrough the language and materialsbeing presented and to be open tostudying related language and issues

identified by the learners.Don’t fall into a vocabulary rut.Many learners felt that teachers spentmore time on practicing vocabularythan on actually using it. Flash cards,matching games, labeling of pictures,copying of words, and similar vocab-ulary development exercises areuseful, but they shouldn’t constitutethe whole lesson. The learners wantto use the words in sentences, indialogues, and completing other tasks.

Do more reading and writing.

The majority of learners felt thatreading and writing are the skills mostoften neglected in their beginning-level ESOL classes. While mostacknowledged that speaking andlistening (or “understanding,” asmany learners called it) were theimmediate needs in their lives,reading and writing were the areasin which they felt they needed themost practice. They wanted teachers tomake concerted efforts to incorporatelevel-appropriate reading and writing

as regular parts of the class, as theydid with speaking and listening.

 Let us know how we are doing.

A number of learners expressed adesire for more tests and quizzes intheir classes. With further probing,however, I found that what theyreally wanted were more oppor-tunities of any type that would helpthem to check on their progress.Paper-and-pencil tests were men-tioned, perhaps because learnersare familiar with this means of assessment. More consistent, concretefeedback from the teacher was alsomentioned. Teachers may feel that,at the beginning levels, learnerswill find tests or direct feedback toointimidating or even discouraging.The challenge may be for teachers tointroduce learners to the variety of forms that assessments can take andto the concept of self-assessment.

The latter, in particular, is a valuableconcept to introduce, although itmay be difficult because learners maynot have experience with it; or ifthey do it, they may not know it asself-assessment.

Give us more than the “simple present.” As one learner put it, howcan teachers expect learners to talk orwrite about important experiences,

their homelands, or even theirfamilies when so many of these thingsare in the past and all students haveto work with is the present tense? If teachers are going to involve learnersin activities that ask them to use life

experiences as their basis, the learnerswant at least a start on the languagetools required to do so. This maymean introducing and using some past

Ideas for Eliciting Learner Feedback

What if you want to get feedback from your learners about the

learning process in your classroom, but you do not share a

native language with them?

Use picture or word prompts to stimulate role plays or brain-

storming sessions to preface a new topic. As you and the

learners do this, you will gather clues about what they already

know or have experienced and any special needs or interests

they may have in relation to the topic.

Create a Language Experience Approach (LEA) story about

studying English. Find or draw pictures in which people are

writing, listening, speaking, looking in a dictionary, talking

collaboratively, etc. After the story has been completed, ask

learners to circle the ways they like to study English, compare

with each other, and even create a consensus list of advice

that you can use to inform your lesson planning.

Take a picture of your classroom on a typical day. Ask learners

to create (draw, assemble a collage, for example) pictures of 

classes they have attended in the past. Ask them to compare

the pictures they create with the picture of your current class-

room. Write or discuss what your students like and dislike

about each.

At the end of a class period, ask learners to comment on

the various activities in which they participated. They can do

this by voting yes or no on whether a specific activity was

helpful, or by rating it. Use pictures, symbols, recognizable

words or phrases, and refer back to concrete handouts or

products of the activities to support the learners as they

tackle the task.

8/9/2019 fob_5a

10/32

10AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

tense verbs or a sentence using amodal. It does not mean, however,that beginning learners should beexpected to learn everything aboutthat past tense verb or modal and beable to reproduce it out of the context

in which it was presented. Know when to say “That’s all you need to know right now.” Thesebeginning-level learners respect whena teacher tells them that they do notneed to know all the intricateexplanations behind a grammar pointor a common, but structurally moreadvanced, phrase, such as “May Ihelp you?” In fact, they are sometimesrelieved simply to memorize whatthey need to know and proceed to thepractice that is more appropriate and

necessary for their level. The learnersdiscussed this issue primarily interms of grammar and a few simple,practical idioms. However, I think itis worth considering when planningother aspects, such as vocabulary oreven content to be covered. (Forexample, do beginning-level learnersreally need to know “veins” and“arteries” and the differences betweenthem, or can that wait for the nextlevel?) Teachers need to make clear forthemselves the knowledge they abso-

lutely need to frame their lessons andthe extent of information they actuallyneed to impart to their students.

 Watch your “teacher talk.”

Many of the learners reported thatteachers used very complicatedlanguage that distracted or confusedthem in the course of presentingmaterials and lessons. Teachersoften devote a great deal of timeto determining what content andmaterial are appropriate for thebeginning-level learner. In an idealsituation, they then spend additionaltime figuring out how to present themin an understandable way. Teachersneed to be doubly aware of thevocabulary and language structuresthat they use to present, explain,and even “fill” the time in andaround lessons.

Talk to us about learning and

the learning process. Learners

wanted their teachers to talk to themabout what learners need and whathelps them most in the classroom.They were willing to share theirstrategies for learning, their goals, andtheir difficulties in order to help the

teacher adjust instruction. They werevery sophisticated and thoughtful intheir analysis of the learning processin their classroom. Teachers may wantto look at ways in which pictures, roleplaying, and similar techniques couldbe used to gather feedback on the waysthat learners learn best, topics orthemes they want to explore, or eventhe sequence in which learners want tocover chapters or units in a textbook.

ConclusionThese comments are notnecessarily innovative ideas forworking with beginning-level learners.In fact, most are a part of goodteaching practices for students of anylevel (see Holt, 1995; Wrigley &Guth, 1990). They helped me focus,however, not only on what thelearners need but also on whatinexperienced teachers oftenoverlook, forget, or do not completelyunderstand about working with

beginning-level ESOL learners. In a“church basement” program like ours,the amount of time that you can askvolunteers to contribute beyond theirweekly teaching commitment islimited both by their schedules andby the desire not to over-tap theirgenerosity. However, you also wantto make sure that volunteers aresufficiently prepared and supportedin their teaching efforts. I think theselearner comments will help me tofocus better the training for teachersin beginning-level classes. Suchclasses constitute more than 50percent of our program and tendto attract new, less-experiencedvolunteers. They remind me toinclude aspects and strategies thatare second nature to me as anexperienced beginning-level teacher.

These learner voices werepractical and thoughtful. They

revealed the cognitive, intellectual,psychological, and social savvy andcapability that inexperienced teacherscan sometimes overlook in learnerswith beginning-level English languageor literacy proficiencies and skills

(Brod, 1999; Shank & Terrill, 1997).They will resonate strongly whenused in teachers’ preparation andtraining in our program. I had adistinct advantage in gatheringthese comments, since I spoke thestudents’ native language. It would beinteresting to see if program plannersor teachers using role plays, responsesto pictures, Language ExperienceApproach (LEA), or similar tech-niques might get the same types of responses from mixed native-language

groups. These beginning learners havea great deal of useful advice to offerto their teachers as well as to staff developers and trainers like me. Itwould be worth the effort to findways to tap that resource.

References Brod, S. (1999). What Non-readers or

Beginning Readers Need to Know:

Performance-Based ESL Adult Literacy.

Denver, CO: Spring Institute forInternational Studies.

Holt, G. (1995). Teaching Low-level Adult ESL Learners. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for ESLLiteracy Education.

Shank, C., & Terrill, L. (1997).“Multilevel literacy planning andpractice.” Focus on Basics, 1 (C), 18-21.

Wrigley, H. & Guth, G. (1990).Bringing Literacy to Life: Issues and

Options in Adult ESL Literacy. SanMateo, CA: Aguirre International.

 About the AuthorMaryAnn Cunningham Florez is thevolunteer coordinator of St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church’s Adult English asa Second Language (ESL) Program in FallsChurch, VA. She is also assistant directorand web coordinator at the NationalCenter for ESL Literacy Education inWashington, DC. She has more than10 years experience working with adultEnglish language learners.

8/9/2019 fob_5a

11/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  11

Focuson

Basics

Developmental dyslexiais characterized byan unexpected diffi-

culty in reading experiencedby children and adults

 who otherwise possess theintelligence and motivation

considered necessary foraccurate and fluent reading.It represents one of the mostcommon problems affectingchildren and adults; in theUnited States, the prevalenceof dyslexia is estimated torange from five to 17 percentof school-aged children,

 with as many as 40 percent

of the entire populationreading below grade level.Dyslexia (or specific readingdisability) is the mostcommon and most carefullystudied of the learningdisabilities, affecting 80

 percent of all individualsidentified as learning disabled.This article reviews recentadvances in the neuro-biology of dyslexia and theirimplications for teachingadults with dyslexia.

Epidemiology ofDyslexia

Like hypertension and obesity,dyslexia fits a dimensional model:

The Neurobiology ofReading and Dyslexia

by Sally E. Shaywitz, M.D., andBennett A. Shaywitz, M.D.

within the population, reading andreading disability occur along acontinuum, with reading disabilityrepresenting the lower tail of anormal distribution of reading ability.Good evidence based on samplesurveys of randomly selected pop-ulations of children now indicatethat dyslexia affects boys and girls

equally (Figure 1); the long-heldbelief that only boys suffer fromdyslexia reflected sampling biasin school-identified samples.

Dyslexia is a persistent, chroniccondition; it does not representa transient “developmental lag”(Figure 2). Over time, poor readersand good readers tend to maintaintheir relative positions along thespectrum of reading ability.

CausesDyslexia isboth familial andheritable: bothenvironmental andgenetic influencesaffect the expressionof dyslexia. Thisobservation pro-vides opportunitiesfor early identi-fication of affectedsiblings and often

for delayed buthelpful identi-fication of affectedadults. Thus 23to 65 percent of children who havea parent withdyslexia, 40 percentof siblings of dyslexics, and

27 to 49 percent of parents of dyslexics may have the disorder.Studies implicate loci on chromo-somes 6 and 15 and, more recently,on chromosome 2 in the causationof dyslexia.

The Cognitive Basisof DyslexiaThe phonologic deficithypothesis — There is now astrong consensus among investigatorsin the field that the central difficultyin dyslexia reflects a deficit withinthe language system, although othersystems and processes may alsocontribute to the difficulty. Thelanguage system is conceptualized as

a hierarchical series of components:at higher levels are neural systemsengaged in processing, for example,semantics, syntax, and discourse; atthe lowest level is the phonologicmodule dedicated to processing thedistinctive sound elements thatconstitute language. The functionalunit of the phonologic module is thephoneme, defined as the smallestdiscernible segment of speech; for

Figure 1. Prevalence of reading disability in research-identified (RI) and school-identified (SI) boys and girls.Schools identify about four times as many boys as girls,reflecting primarily externalizing behavioral characteristicsthat are more likely to bring boys to a teacher’s attention.This skewed prevalence rate reflects referral bias. Whenactual reading scores are used to identify children, thereis no significant difference in the prevalence of dyslexiabetween boys and girls (based on data in Shaywitzet al., 1990).

8/9/2019 fob_5a

12/32

12AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

example, the word “bat” consists of three phonemes: /b/ /ae/ /t/ (buh, aah,tuh). To speak a word, the speakerretrieves the word’s phonemic con-stituents from his or her internallexicon, assembles the phonemes, and

then utters the word. Conversely, toread a word, the reader must firstsegment that word into its underlyingphonologic elements. The awarenessthat all words can be decomposedinto these basic elements of language(phonemes) allows the reader todecipher the reading code. In orderto read, a child has to develop theinsight that spoken words can bepulled apart into phonemes and that

the letters in a written word representthese sounds. This so-called pho-nemic awareness is largely missing indyslexic children and adults. Resultsfrom large and well-studied pop-ulations with reading disabilityconfirm that in young school-agedchildren, as well as in adolescents, adeficit in phonology represents themost robust and specific correlateof reading disability. Such findingsform the basis for the most successfuland evidence-based interventionsdesigned to improve reading. Whilechildren and adults with a phonologicdeficit represent the vast majority of 

subjects with dyslexia, other subtypesmay account for some cases of dyslexia. Examples include dyslexiaresulting from deficits in naming-speed in addition to phonologicaldeficits, the so called double-deficit

hypothesis.

Implications of thephonologic model ofdyslexia — Reading is comprisedof two main processes: decoding andcomprehension. In dyslexia, a deficitat the level of the phonologic moduleimpairs the reader’s ability to segmentthe written word into its underlyingphonologic elements. As a result, the

reader experiencesdifficulty, first

in decoding theword and then inidentifying it. Thephonologic deficitis domain-specific;that is, it is indepen-dent of other, non-phonologic, abilities.In particular, thehigher-order cog-nitive and linguisticfunctions involvedin comprehension,

such as generalintelligence and rea-soning, vocabulary,and syntax, aregenerally intact.This pattern — adeficit in phonologic

analysis contrasted with intact higher-order cognitive abilities — offersan explanation for the paradox ofotherwise intelligent people whoexperience great difficulty in reading.

According to the model, acircumscribed deficit in a lower-orderlinguistic (phonologic) functionblocks access to higher-order processesand to the ability to draw meaningfrom text. The dyslexic reader cannotuse his or her higher-order linguisticskills to access the meaning until theprinted word has first been decodedand identified. For example, readerswho know the precise meaning of the

spoken word “apparition” will not beable to use their knowledge of themeaning of the word until they candecode and identify the printed wordon the page and will appear not toknow the word’s meaning.

The phonologic deficitin adolescence andadult life — Deficits inphonological coding continue tocharacterize dyslexic readers evenin adolescence; performance onphonological processing measurescontributes most to differentiatingdyslexic from average readers, andaverage from superior readers aswell. Children with dyslexia neitherspontaneously remit nor do they

demonstrate a lag mechanism for“catching up” in the development of reading skills. That is not to say thatmany dyslexic readers do not becomequite proficient in reading a finitedomain of words in their area of special interest, usually words thatare important for their careers. Suchindividuals, while able to decodewords in this domain, still exhibitevidence of their early readingproblems when they have to readunfamiliar words, which they do

accurately but not fluently andautomatically. In adolescents, oralreading, the rate of reading, as wellas facility with spelling may be mostuseful clinically in differentiatingaverage from poor readers.

From a clinical perspective,these data indicate that as childrenapproach adolescence, a manifestationof dyslexia may be a very slow readingrate. Children may learn to read wordsaccurately, but they will not be fluentor automatic, reflecting the lingeringeffects of a phonologic deficit.Because they are able to read wordsaccurately (albeit very slowly),dyslexic adolescents and young adultsmay mistakenly be assumed to have“outgrown” their dyslexia. These olderdyslexic students may be similar totheir unimpaired peers on untimedmeasures of word recognition, yetcontinue to suffer from the phono-

Figure 2. Trajectory of reading skills over time in

nonimpaired and dyslexic readers. Ordinate showsRasch scores (W scores) from the Woodcock-Johnsonreading test (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) and abscissashows age in years. Both dyslexic and nonimpairedreaders improve their reading scores as they get older,but the gap between the dyslexic and nonimpairedreaders remains. Thus dyslexia is a deficit and not adevelopmental lag (from Francis et al., 1996).

8/9/2019 fob_5a

13/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  13

Focuson

Basics

logic deficit that makes reading lessautomatic, more effortful, and slow.The provision of extra time istherefore an essential accom-modation; it allows them the time todecode each word and to apply their

unimpaired higher-order cognitiveand linguistic skills to thesurrounding context to get at themeaning of words that they cannotentirely or rapidly decode.

NeurobiologicalInfluences

A range of neurobiologicalinvestigations using postmortem brainspecimens and, more recently, brainmorphometry and diffusion tensormagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)suggests that there are differencesbetween dyslexic and nonimpairedreaders in the back of the brain,specifically in the temporoparieto-occipital brain regions. Functionalbrain imaging studies also show afailure of left hemisphere posteriorbrain systems to function properlyin adult dyslexic readers while theyperform reading tasks.

In principle, functional brain

imaging is quite simple. When anindividual is asked to perform adiscrete cognitive task, that taskplaces processing demands on par-ticular neural systems in the brain.To meet those demands requiresactivation of neural systems in specificbrain regions and those changes inneural activity are, in turn, reflectedby changes in cerebral blood flow.We use the term “functional imaging”for technologies that measure thosechanges in blood flow in specific brain

regions while subjects are engaged incognitive tasks.

Gender-BasedDifferences

In an early study of 19 neuro-logically normal right-handed menand 19 women, the subjects had todecide whether two pseudowords

rhymed. (For example, do [LEAT]and [JETE] rhyme?) Nonword readingis perhaps the clearest indication of decoding ability because familiaritywith the letter pattern cannot in-fluence the individual’s response. Of 

particular interest were differences inbrain activation patterns in men com-pared to women. Figure 3 illustratesthat activation during phonologicalprocessing in men was more lateralizedto the left inferior frontal gyrus,known as Broca’s area; in contrast,activation during this same task inwomen resulted in a more bilateralpattern of activationof this region.

These findingsprovide the first clear

evidence of gender-based differencesin the functionalorganization of thebrain for language.They support andextend a long-heldhypothesis thatlanguage functionsare more likely tobe highly lateralizedin males but arerepresented in both

cerebral hemispheresin females.

Studies of dyslexic readersindicate a significantdisruption in theneural systems forreading in dyslexicsubjects as they try todecode pseudowords.Thus, as shown inFigure 4 duringnonword rhyming indyslexic readers, wefound a disruptionin several criticalcomponents of aposterior systeminvolving theposterior superiortemporal gyrus(Wernicke’s area)and the angular gyrus,

and a concomitant increase inactivation in the inferior frontal gyrus.

These data indicate that dyslexicreaders demonstrate a functionaldisruption in an extensive system inthe posterior cortex encompassing

both traditional visual and languageregions as well as a portion of association cortex. The involvementof this latter region, centered aboutthe angular gyrus, is of particularinterest since this portion of association cortex is consideredpivotal in carrying out those cross-modal integrations necessary for

Figure 3. Gender-based differences in the brain duringphonological processing. Composite fMRI imagesshow the distribution of brain activation patterns inmen (left) and women (right) during a nonwordrhyming task. In men, activation is lateralized to theleft inferior frontal regions; in women the same regionis active bilaterally (data from Shaywitz et al., 1995).

Figure 4. Composite fMRI activation maps in nonim-paired and dyslexic readers engaged in phonologicalprocessing during the nonword rhyme task show thatnonimpaired readers activate a large region involving theangular gyrus (1), supramarginal gyrus, and posteriorportions of the superior temporal gyrus. In contrast,dyslexic readers demonstrate a relative underactivationin this posterior region and an increased activation in theinferior frontal gyrus (a) and middle frontal gyrus (b)bilaterally(data from Shaywitz et al., 1998).

8/9/2019 fob_5a

14/32

14AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

reading (i.e., mapping the visualpercept of the print onto the phono-logic structures of the language).

Consistent with this study of developmental dyslexia, a largeliterature on acquired inability to

read (alexia, for example, followinga stroke) describes neuroanatomicallesions most prominently centeredabout the angular gyrus. It should notbe surprising that both the acquiredand the developmental disordersaffecting reading have in common adisruption within the neural systemsserving to link the visual represen-tations of the letters to the phono-logic (language) structures theyrepresent. While reading difficultyis the primary symptom in both

acquired alexia and developmentaldyslexia, associated symptoms andfindings in the two disorders wouldbe expected to differ somewhat,reflecting the differences betweenan acquired and a developmentaldisorder. In acquired alexia, astructural lesion resulting from aninsult (e.g., stroke, tumor) disrupts acomponent of an already functioningneural system and the lesion mayextend to involve other brain regionsand systems. In developmental dyslexia,

as a result of a constitutionally basedfunctional disruption, the systemnever develops normally. Thesymptoms reflect the emanativeeffects of an early disruption to thephonologic system. In either case thedisruption is within the sameneuroanatomical system.

A Neural Modelfor Reading

These data from laboratoriesaround the world indicate that anumber of interrelated neural systemsare used in reading: at least two inposterior brain regions as well asdistinct and related systems inanterior regions (Figure 5).

In order to read, the beginningreader must break the reading code,that is, transform the visual features

(the letters) ofthe word into thelinguistic sounds (thephonemes) theyrepresent and thenaccess the meaning

of the word. As earlyas 1891, Dejerinesuggested that aportion of theposterior brain region(which includes theangular gyrus andsupramarginal gyrusin the inferior parietallobule, and theposterior aspect ofthe superior temporalgyrus) is critical for

reading.Rather than the

smoothly functioning and integratedreading systems observed in non-impaired readers, disruption of theposterior reading systems results indyslexic readers attempting to com-pensate by shifting to other, ancillary,systems (e.g., anterior sites such asthe inferior frontal gyrus and rightposterior sites). The anterior sites,which are critical in articulation,may help dyslexic readers develop an

awareness of the sound structure of the word by forming the word withtheir lips, tongue, and vocal apparatusand thus allow them to read, albeitmore slowly and less efficiently thanif the fast occipitotemporal wordidentification system were functioning.The posterior sites, for example theright occipitotemporal area, maybe used by the dyslexic reader tofacilitate visual pattern recognition,compensating for the impaired wordanalysis systems in the left posteriorregions. The shift to ancillary neuralsystems in dyslexic readers maysupport accurate, but not fluentand automatic, word reading.

Delineation of the circuitry forreading in dyslexia may now allowstrategies for specific interventionsdesigned to facilitate the function of these ancillary systems, and a methodto measure the efficacy of such

interventions in a more focused andefficient way. Such studies are nowunderway.

For dyslexic readers, these brainactivation patterns provide evidenceof an imperfectly functioning systemfor segmenting words into theirphonologic constituents; accordingly,this disruption is evident whendyslexic readers are asked to respondto increasing demands on their

phonologic analysis. These findingsnow add neurobiological support forprevious cognitive/behavioral data,pointing to the critical role of phono-logic analysis, and its impairment,in dyslexia. The pattern of relativeunderactivation in posterior brainregions contrasted with relativeoveractivation in anterior regionsmay provide a neural signature forthe phonologic difficulties char-acterizing dyslexia.

Editor’s note: Portions of this chapterappeared in (Shaywitz 1998; Shaywitz and

Shaywitz 1999; Shaywitz, Pugh et al. 2000;

Shaywitz, Shaywitz et al. In Press; Shaywitz,

Shaywitz et al. In Press; Shaywitz, Lyon et

al. In Press) with permission.

 AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by

grants from the National Instituteof Child Health and Human

Figure 5. Neural systems for reading. Convergingevidence indicates three important systems in reading,all primarily in the left hemisphere: 1) anterior system inthe left inferior frontal region; 2) dorsal parietotemporalsystem involving angular gyrus, supramarginal gyrus,and posterior portions of the superior temporal gyrus;3) ventral occipitotemporal system involving portions of the middle temporal gyrus and middle occipital gyrus.

See text for details.

8/9/2019 fob_5a

15/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  15

Focuson

Basics

Development (PO1 HD 21888 andP50 HD25802). We thank CarmelLepore for her help in preparing themanuscript.

References

Anderson, A., & Gore, J. (1997).“The physical basis of neuroimagingtechniques.” In M. Lewis and B. Peterson(eds.), Child and Adolescent PsychiatricClinics of North America (vol. 6, pp. 213-264). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.

Bruck, M. (1992). “Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awarenessdeficits.” Developmental Psychology,28(5), 874-886.

Filipek, P. (1996). “Structural variationsin measures in the developmentaldisorders.” In R. Thatcher, G. Lyon, J.

Rumsey, and N. Krasnegor (eds.),Developmental Neuroimaging: Mapping 

the Development of Brain and Behavior

(pp. 169-186). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Frackowiak, R., Friston, K., et al.(1997). Human Brain Function. NewYork: Academic Press.

Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., et al.(1996). “Developmental lag versusdeficit models of reading disability: Alongitudinal, individual growth curvesanalysis.” Journal of Educational

Psychology, 88(1), 3-17. Panel, R. o. t. N. R. (2000). Teaching

Children to Read: An Evidence-BasedAssessment of the Scientific ResearchLiterature on Reading and its Implica-tions for Reading Instruction. Bethesda,MD: National Institute of Child Healthand Human Development, NationalInstitutes of Health.

Paulesu, E., Demonet, J. F., et al. (2001).“Dyslexia — cultural diversity and bio-logical unity.” Science, 291, 2165-2167.

Pennington, B. F., and Gilger, J. W.

(1996). “How is dyslexia transmitted?”In C. H. Chase, G. D. Rosen, andG. F. Sherman (eds.), DevelopmentalDyslexia. Neural, Cognitive, and Genetic

Mechanisms (pp. 41-61). Baltimore:York Press.

Shaywitz, B., Pugh, K. R., et al. (2000).“The neurobiology of reading andreading disability (dyslexia).” In M.Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, and R.Barr (eds.), Handbook of Reading Research

(vol. III, pp. 229-249). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shaywitz, B., Shaywitz, S., et al. (1995).“Sex differences in the functionalorganization of the brain for language.”

 Nature, 373, 607-609.

Shaywitz, S. (1998). “Current concepts:Dyslexia.” The New England Journal of Medicine, 338(5), 307-312.

Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (1999).“Dyslexia”. In K. Swaiman and S.Ashwal (eds.), Pediatric Neurology:Principles & Practice (vol. 1, pp. 576-584). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., et al. (InPress). “The neurobiology of dyslexia.”Clinical Neuroscience Research.

Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B. et al. (InPress). “The neuropsychology of 

dyslexia.” In S. Segalowitz and I. Rapin(eds.), Handbook of Neuropsycholology.Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Shaywitz, S.E. (1996). “Dyslexia.”Scientific American, 275(5), 98-104.

Shaywitz, S., Fletcher, E., et al. (1999).“Persistence of dyslexia: The ConnecticutLongitudinal Study at adolescence.”Pediatrics, 104, 1351-1359.

Shaywitz, S., Lyon, E., et al. (In Press).“Dyslexia (specific reading disability).”In F. Burg, J. Ingelfinger, R. Polin, andA. Gershon (eds.), Current Pediatric

Therapy. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., et al.(1990). “Prevalence of reading disabilityin boys and girls: Results of the Con-necticut Longitudinal Study.” Journal of the American Medical Association,

264(8), 998-1002.

Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., et al.(1998). “Functional disruption in theorganization of the brain for reading indyslexia.” Proceedings of the National

 Academy of Science of the United States

of America, 95, 2636-2641.

Snowling, M. (2000). Dyslexia. Oxford,UK: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

Torgesen, J. K. (1995). Phonological Awareness: A Critical Factor in Dyslexia,

Orton Dyslexia Society.

Wagner, R., and Torgesen, J. (1987).“The nature of phonological processesand its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills.” Psychological Bulletin,101, 192-212.

Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B.(1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery — Revised (WJ-R).Allen, TX: Developmental LearningMaterials.

 About the AuthorsSally E. Shaywitz, M.D., is a Professor of Pediatrics and the Co-Director of the

 NICHD-Yale Center for the Study of Learning and Attention.

Bennett A. Shaywitz, M.D., is a Professorof Pediatrics and Neurology and the Co-Director of the NICHD-Yale Center forthe Study of Learning and Attention.

“The Review, in only its second year,

has become an important part of the

curriculum for those of us in adult basic

education trying to become literate about

literacy.” — Israel Mendoza, “Forward”to Volume 2

VOLUME ONEHardcover 384 pages 1999

ISBN 0-7879-4741-5Item #G394-G2J $34.95

VOLUME TWOHardcover 320 pages 2001

ISBN 0-7879-5062-9Item #G746-G2J $35.00

Jossey-Bass800-956-7739

www.josseybass.com

The Annual Review of

Adult Learning and

Literacy

N EW  ! 

8/9/2019 fob_5a

16/32

16AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

Ihave been a teacher forabout 25 years. WhenI taught elementary

school, it seemed that mostkids learned to read almostby osmosis. Even the

students of some trulylackadaisical teachers usually learned to read. But what about the children who didn’t? I spent manyhours working on ways tohelp these special children,sometimes finding a tech-

 nique that helped, othertimes passing a child on tothe next grade in hope thatanother teacher would findthe key. What happened tothese kids? They are theadults I work with everyday at the Anchorage

 Literacy Project (ALP) in Anchorage, AK. Because noone ever found the answer,eventually many of thembecame frustrated and

dropped out of school. Someof them graduated, but theystill could not read.

About eight years ago, I observedthe Slingerland technique beingused with children in Slingerlandclassrooms in the Anchorage schools,and with adults at ALP. TheSlingerland technique uses multi-

Using a MultisensoryApproach to Help

Struggling Adult Learnersby Gladys Geertz

sensory teaching techniques fromOrton-Gillingham that were adaptedfor the classroom by Beth Slingerland(Slingerland, 1996). Orton-Gilling-ham developed their teachingtechniques working one-on-onewith dyslexic children and thosewith specific language disabilities. A

colleague and I developed a programthat uses these techniques in classroomsettings with adult, low-level readingstudents. What differentiates ourmethod from the Slingerland methodis that we move through a lesson morequickly, teaching more concepts in aday than would be taught in anelementary school class.

Our ProgramThe ALP multisensory classes

consist mostly of students who havegone through the school system inthe United States. Some are dropouts;others are high school graduates. Theyrange in age from 18 to 75 years. Ourclasses are limited to 15 students, butsome classes have only four or five.All of our teachers are trained in theSlingerland method, and as of thiswriting, we have three instructors inthe multisensory program who teacha total of nine multisensory classes.Two are spelling classes, three are a

combination of reading and spelling,and four are reading classes at variouslevels, ranging from first to approx-imately 10th grade level. Each classmeets three days a week for an hourand a half per class. Our quarterlasts 10 weeks.

Our classes are not open entry.We continue to accept new studentsfor the first two weeks, but then we

close the classes because it is toodifficult for new students to catch up.The class atmosphere is casual, butthe instructor is in charge. We havefound that most adults relish humorand the feeling of camaraderie. Each

group tends to become close-knit, andwe foster group development.We have expanded and modified

the Slingerland techniques for usewith adults with and without languagedisabilities. The modifications areminor; for example, we do not usetracing procedures (going over thesame letter many times) as much withour students. Since our students areadults, and many of them are familiarwith the letters, we require them totrace a letter three times, instead of 

the 10 or 20 that may be required inelementary school. We also proceedmore quickly to paper and penciltasks, rather than spending a lot of time using the pocket chart or board.We also introduce three or fourletters during each class session;an elementary teacher may onlyintroduce one or two letters a day.At the beginning of our basic classes,we discuss our teaching procedureswith the students, explaining thatbecause they have missed some of the

educational experiences necessary forlearning, we are starting over.

A Success-OrientedProgram

The multisensory approach isa success-oriented program. Weonly expect students to know whatthey have been taught. We provideinstruction, guide the students througha successful learning experience, and

then reinforce this successful learningexperience. We make sure that allstudents leave the classroom feelingthat they have experienced success.

We begin with a single unit of sight, sound, or thought, and thenproceed to the complex combinationsof these units. We start with sight andsound association, following the sameroutine day after day, and adding a few

8/9/2019 fob_5a

17/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  17

Focuson

Basics

consonant letters and then, slowly,the vowels. We usually begin with theshort /i/ vowel sound, and theconsonant sounds of /n/, /t/, and /p/,using the sequence in Angling ForWords by Carolyn G. Bowen (1983).

(Teachers could conceivablyintroduce letters in any sequence,but it is practical to start with high-frequency letters and those thatcorrespond to a selected text.) Wespell and read words from theseletters, and then we move on. Thetime involved in teaching the lettersounds depends on the needs of theparticular group of students.

Once the sounds are learned,students move on to the more com-plex tasks of reading and spellingwords, putting these words intosentences, and then masteringparagraphs. With these basic skills,students are able to handle morecomplex reading and writing material.

A SampleMultisensory Lesson

How does a typical multisensorylesson unfold? People tend to learnthrough different or unique stimuli.Some of us learn better visually, someauditorily, and others kinesthetically.I have found that most people prob-ably learn best by using two ofthese modalities. The multisensorytechnique makes use of all thesemodalities and combines them into

one simultaneous procedure. Itrequires learners to see, hear, speak,and do at the same time. We followa set pattern of seven steps in everylesson. This strict adherence tostructure provides a consistent,

expectable routine that freesstudents to concentrate onlearning.

From the first day of class, we begin class with orallanguage skills, because thespoken word is much morecomfortable than the writtenword to a low-level reader.First, we, the teacher and thelearners, talk, using completesentences. We encourage eachstudent to participate. Some

oral language questions con-cern the students personally:“How long does it take you

to get to class?” “How do you getto class?” “What is your favoriterestaurant and why?” “What is yourfavorite holiday and why?” “How willthis class help you?” “If someone gaveyou a thousand dollars, how wouldyou spend it?”

In the second segment of thelesson, we introduce the sound-symbol relationship. We introduce a

letter while writing it in theair: kinesthetic movement. If the students need instructionin writing the letter, we alsodo the writing procedure. Mostearly readers print; therefore,we teach them cursive writing.The left to right directionalityof cursive makes it easier towrite neatly, helps fluency,increases speed in writing, andgives our students the skillthat most adults have: writingin cursive, which we expectour students to do also.

In the writing procedure,we write the letter on theboard, using three lines —a head line; a belt, or middle,line; and a foot line —while communicating to thestudents exactly how theletter is made and that some

letters are tall and go to the headline, some fall below the foot line,and some are crossed or dotted.We then make the letter in the air,while explaining exactly how it tomake it. Next, the students make

the letter in the air, very large, usingtheir pointers and index fingers astheir writing tools.

After making the letter in the air,each student receives a 12 X 18 inchsheet of newsprint, which has beenfolded to create lines. We write acursive letter in crayon on thisnewsprint. Now the students cantrace the letter with their fingers,“feeling” it and saying it. We tracethe letter at least three times withour fingers, three times with the blunt

end of a pencil from which the eraserhas been removed, and three timeswith the pencil point. Learners thenmove on to the next box on thepaper, tracing with no crayon letter asa guide, using their fingers, then theblunt end of the pencil, and then thepencil point. Then on to the nextbox using the same procedure. Thisis the Slingerland technique usedfor teaching writing. It involvesseeing, saying, feeling, and doingsimultaneously. We repeat it every

“We provide

instruction, guide the

students through a

successful learning

experience, and then

reinforce this successful 

learning experience.”

Typical Lesson PlanComponents

• Using oral language skills

• Learning a sound-symbol relationship,and using cards to review thesound-symbol relationship

• Decoding

• Vocabulary enrichment

• Phrase reading

• Structured reading

• Story reading using comprehension skills

8/9/2019 fob_5a

18/32

18AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

day for every lesson.After saying the name of the

letter and writing the letter in the air,we show the class a picture of a keyword beginning with that letter, suchas turtle for /t/. Next, the sound of /t/

is made as it is heard in the key wordturtle. After the instructor demon-strates the procedure, the class followsthe procedure as a group, then eachstudent does it. “Write the letter inthe air, say the keyword, say thesound of the letter.” They have feltthe letter, spoken the letter, heard thename of the letter and letter sound,and said the letter sound.

After we have introduced thesound-symbol relationship for aspecific number of letters, we review

this sound-symbol relationship bydisplaying flash cards of the letters.This is a review with emphasis onboth enabling the learners to feelsuccess and allowing the teacher toascertain whether everyone haslearned the relationship. The studentswrite the letter in the air, speak thename of the letter, hear the name of the letter and the sound of the letter,and then say the sound of the letter.Every lesson has a review of lettersusing this sound-symbol relationship.

The third lesson segmentinvolves the decoding of words. Wedecode, or sound out, a list of wordsevery day. We develop these lists byusing words that incorporate thesounds taught in the second segmentof the lesson. We do not includewords that contain sounds that wehave not taught. So, for example, if we have only taught the sounds forshort /i/, consonants /t/, /n/, /p/, thenwe can spell or decode only wordscontaining those sounds, such as tip,nip, nit, it, tin, pin. To encouragestudents to sound out words ratherthan memorize or sight read them,we often use nonsense words such as“nin,” or “ip.” The more vowel andconsonant sounds the students learn,the more words we can use. We beginwith one-syllable words, progress totwo syllables, three syllables, and soforth. We usually decode 20 to 25

words in a lesson, of which one-thirdare nonsense. To decode a word, thestudent underlines the vowels, dividesthe word into syllables, shows whateach vowel “says” by writing aboveeach vowel a diacritical mark,

pronounces the word, and thendefines it. We teach this entireprocedure, one step at a time, witheach step modeled by the teacher.

The fourth segment, after wedecode several words, is learningvocabulary. From conversing withour students, and from answering theirquestions about words, we know thatmany of them have limited vocab-ulary skills. When introducing a story,we teach the definitions of new wordsand the learners put them

into sentences. One of thereading series that we usewith low-level readers isEarly Reading Comprehensionin Varied Subject Matter

(Ervin, 1999), which hasfour levels. Written for theolder elementary schoolchild, the series seems to besuccessful with adults. Newvocabulary in this storyincludes “shrubs,” “snug,”and “den.” We also use

the Kim Marshall (1999)series for readers above thefourth grade level, whichis targeted for adults.

 Newspapers or Reader’sDigest are other sourcesof informational stories.Our students tend to findnonfiction more interestingthan fiction.

The fifth lesson segmentis phrase reading, or readingby ideas. We put five toeight phrases on a chart,read a phrase, and thestudents repeat it. Allphrases are read once withthe teacher modeling andthe students repeating. Afterthat, the students andinstructor discuss any newvocabulary, hyphenatedwords, or grammar. Then a

student approaches the chart at thefront of the classroom. We say aphrase, the student underlines thephrase with a yard stick, reads italoud, and the other students repeatthe phrase. All the phrases on the

chart are read a second time using thisprocedure. Then a different studentcomes to the chart and we posequestions formatted as “Find thephrase that . .” The student finds thephrase that answers the question,underlines it, and reads it aloud. Theother students read the phrase aloud.We do all the phrases in the sameway. A fourth student comes to thechart. That student begins at thebottom phrase, reads it, and the other

a very lazy cat 

in the shrubs 

cold and snowy 

He would moan

and eat them 

“Find the phrase that tells where” 

“Find the phrase that has a word that means the opposite of warm” 

“Find a phrase that begins with an 

article” “Find a phrase that is the beginning of a sentence” 

“Find a phrase that begins with a conjunction” 

The teacher might ask the learners to:

Procedure forPhrase Reading

The teacher puts the following on a chart:

Taken from Early Reading Comprehension, Book A, “TheLazy Cat” Paragraph 1, by J. Ervin.

8/9/2019 fob_5a

19/32

NCSALL •AUGUST 2001

  19

Focuson

Basics

students repeat it. The student atthe chart reads from the bottom tothe top of the chart, focusing on com-prehension. During this phase, webuild comprehension skills, lengtheneye-span, make functional use of word

attack skills, make predictions, andbuild cognitive skills.The sixth segment, after phrase

reading, is structured reading. Thefirst paragraph of the story is readaloud using structured reading: astudent reads a certain number of words (a phrase) specified by theteacher. The phrase may answer a

where, what, why, how, or whenquestion. We say to one student:“Read the first three words that tell

why.” The studentreads the first threewords. We askanother student to:“Read the next fourwords that tellwho.” The studentreads the next fourwords. We chooseanother student:

“Read the nexttwo words thattell where.” Thestudent reads thenext two words.This phrase readingis done throughoutthe first sentence.When the firstsentence is finished,we pick a studentto read the entiresentence using

phrasing. Theobjective is to getstudents to read byideas or thoughts,not by words.

Each sentenceis read in sequenceusing the samemethod. Eventually,the first paragraph— and only thatparagraph — isread using phrasereading designedby the teacher.

In lessonsegment seven,each student gets aturn to read orally.Each student readsaloud a differentparagraph in thestory. This enables

us to hear the learners’ decoding,expression, and fluency. We discussevery paragraph, always pressing forgood comprehension. After answeringsome specific questions about the lastone or two paragraphs, the learners

read them silently. Then the classdiscusses the last two paragraphs andsomeone reads them aloud.

ChallengesFinding appropriate reading

materials for adult students readingat a low level is extremely difficult.Several publishers print books at afourth-grade reading level and above;materials for adults reading at lowerreading levels lower are scarce.

Another major challenge is time.Every day we struggle to include allseven steps in our 90-minute class.We may modify the lesson by makingsteps shorter, decoding fewer words, orreading half the story and assigningthe rest for homework, but we do notcontinue the lesson the next day.Repetition of the seven-step sequenceprovides useful structure, freeinglearners to focus on content ratherthan methodology.

ResultsSince I have started using

this multisensory approach, I havewitnessed success. During the winterand spring 2000 instructional sessions,for example, our learners improvedtheir skills in word reading and wordattach at a statistically significantlevel as measured by the WRAT3(word reading) and the Woodcock

 Johnson-Revised (word attack) tests.But more than statistics, the successes

come from the students. They arenow willing to pick up a newspaperand they can laugh and joke abouttheir reading, because they haveexperienced some success. They tellus that the structure and continuityof the instruction as well as theinteractive teaching methods wereparticularly helpful. They havediscovered that they are not the only

Structured Reading

The procedure continues until the end of theparagraph. To conclude, a student reads the entireparagraph using good phrasing.

Taken from Early Reading Comprehension, Book A, “The Lazy Cat”Paragraph 1, by J. Ervin.

Toby was a wild cat who lived in a city

park. He was a very lazy cat. He also liked

to eat. Even when it was cold and snowy,

he knew how to get his meals withoutever leaving where he slept. He would

stay in his snug den in the shrubs.

Instructor says: Read the first five wordsthat tell who.

Student 1 reads: Toby was a wild cat.

Instructor says: Read the next two words telling what.

Student 2 reads: who lived.

Instructor says: Read the next four wordsthat tell where.

Student 3 reads: in a city park.

Instructor says: Read the complete sentence using that same phrasing.

Student 4 reads: Toby was a wild cat (pause)who lived (pause) in the

city park.

Instructor says: Read the next two wordsthat tell you what.

Students read directly from the book using the phrasesthe instructor indicates to them:

8/9/2019 fob_5a

20/32

20AUGUST 2001

• NCSALL

Focus on

Basics

people in the world with readingdifficulties and know that, with timeand diligence, they can achieve theireducational goals.

References

Bowen, C. (1983). Angling For Words. Novato, CA: Academic TherapyPublications.

Ervin, J. (1999). Early Reading Comprehension in Varied Subject Matter.

Cambridge, MA: Educators PublishingService, Inc.

Marshall, K. (1999). The Kim MarshallSeries, Reading Book 1. Cambridge, MA:Educators Publishing Service, Inc.

Slingerland, Beth H. (1996) A Multi-Sensory Approach To Language Arts for

Specific Language Disability Children

Books 1, 2, 3. Cambridge, MA:Educators Publishing Service, Inc.

 About the AuthorGladys G. Geertz has her master’s degreein Learning Disabilities and is certified asa Slingerland instructor. As multisensorycoordinator for the Anchorage LiteracyProject, she teaches four reading/writingmultisensory classes, serves as demon-stration teacher for the Star School’sAdult Literacy Program, and is a teachertrainer of multisensory techniques.

 A fter tutoring,teaching, and doingresearch in literacy

 programs, I wanted to know more about how literacy fitinto women’s lives, thinking

that this could help me understand how better toserve women learners in

 programs. I conducted alengthy qualitative study of 10 women learners for mydoctoral dissertation. I

 wanted to find out if the women learners I wasstudying read outside of the

 program, what they wantedto read about, and whattheir purposes were forreading. I focus here on myinterviews with four womenand what their experiencessuggest for curriculum andinstruction in literacy

 programs.

Gloria, Donna, Lourdes, andElizabeth were enrolled in a computer-

assisted literacy program in a semiruralarea of Hawaii. Gloria and Donnawere beginning adult basic education(ABE) students; Lourdes andElizabeth, both students of Englishfor speakers of other languages(ESOL), were at slightly higher levelsin the program. Donna was at thelowest level of literacy of the fourwomen and rarely read. She told me

Reading for PleasureLearners’ personal reading choices can provide

teachers with ideas on how to motivate and

support them

by Sondra Cuban

she really wanted to read love storiesbut felt she couldn’t. She said, “I guessmy mind’s so tired that I get frustratedand give up. I guess, like I said — toomuch stuff going [on] in my mind.”Her desire to read love stories wasfueled by the romances and comediesshe watched on TV, which she enjoyed

and which distracted her from herfamily problems.The women in the study all read

and wanted to read popular-culturematerials — commercially publishedbooks also referred to as genre andtrade books — that were not, for themost part, used in the literacy programthey attended. They also used readingfor similar ends: they read to makethemselves feel better. I interviewedthe women over the course of a yearabout their schooling and work

experiences, the ways they learnedin their families of origin, and abouttheir use of mass media: anything fromwatching television to reading books.I also observed them and interviewedstaff in the program within this period.I discovered gaps between what thewomen read and wanted to readoutside of the program and what theprogram offered.

In the literacy program, theylearned basic keyboarding skills,English grammar, phonics, and oral

pronunciation. Instruction in theprogram tended t