# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aouad, J. and Savage, R. (2009). The component structure of preliteracy skills: Further evidence for the simple view of reading. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24 (2), 183-200.

Catts, H., Adlof, S., and Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278-293.

Gough, P., Hoover, W., and Patterson, C. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi and J. Oakhill (eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 1-13). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Gough, P. and Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.

Hoover, W. and Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.

*Kamhi, A. (2007). Knowledge deficits: the true crisis in education. ASHA Leader, 12 (7), 28-29.

*These articles are short and easy to read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Simple View of Reading is a formula demonstrating the widely accepted view that reading has two basic components: word recognition (decoding) and language comprehension. Research studies show that a student's reading comprehension score can be predicted if decoding skills and language comprehension abilities are known.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy Interventions Decision Flowchart Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this special Reading Rockets video series, reading expert Linda Farrell works one-on-one with students in grades K-3 to help ensure that they master the skills they need to become proficient readers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support

Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration

Publisher Approved Professional Learning

Online Elementary Reading Academy

Adolescent Literacy Solutions

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Rise in Math

Math Coaching

Online Math Academy

Onsite Math Academy

Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support

Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration

Publisher Approved Professional Learning

Online Elementary Reading Academy

Adolescent Literacy Solutions

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Rise in Math

Math Coaching

Online Math Academy

Onsite Math Academy

Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures, 2nd Edition - Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration Publisher Approved Professional Learning Online Elementary Reading Academy Adolescent Literacy Solutions Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Rise in Math Math Coaching Online Math Academy Onsite Math Academy Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration Publisher Approved Professional Learning Online Elementary Reading Academy Adolescent Literacy Solutions Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Rise in Math Math Coaching Online Math Academy Onsite Math Academy Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Patterns of reading difficulty provide an educationally useful way to think about different kinds of reading problems, whether those problems are mainly experiential in nature (e.g., those common among English learners) or associated with disabilities (e.g., those typical of children with dyslexia).

This article reviews research on three common patterns of poor reading: specific word-reading difficulties, specific reading-comprehension difficulties, and mixed reading difficulties.

The purpose of the article is to explain how teachers can use assessments to identify individual struggling readers' patterns of reading difficulties, and how this information is valuable in differentiating classroom instruction and planning interventions.

Recently I visited the classroom of a third-grade teacher, Ms. Jackson (all names are pseudonyms). Like many teachers, Ms. Jackson had a diverse group of students, which included many children who were English learners or who had limited home experiences with academic language and literacy. Several children with disabilities also were included in her classroom, three with learning disabilities and one with high-functioning autism. Ms. Jackson had great enthusiasm and dedication for teaching her students, but she was concerned about the number of children who entered her class with problems in reading, commenting quietly to me at one point, "So many of them are needy, but in different ways."

Individual children do vary in important ways, including in their specific interests, personalities, and prior learning experiences. However, when it comes to reading problems, three common patterns of difficulties tend to recur repeatedly, and most struggling readers in Ms. Jackson's class probably fit one of these patterns. Recognizing the underlying pattern of poor reading is particularly helpful to providing effective intervention and differentiation of classroom instruction. This article reviews research on common patterns of reading difficulties and explains how understanding those patterns is useful both to classroom teachers and literacy specialists.

What are the three types of reading problems?

As displayed in Figure 1, the three common patterns (often termed profiles) of poor reading involve specific word-reading difficulties (SWRD), specific reading comprehension difficulties (SRCD), and mixed reading difficulties (MRD; Catts, Compton, Tomblin, & Bridges, 2012; Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010; Lipka, Lesaux, & Siegel, 2006; Valencia, 2011). The descriptions of common types of reading problems in this article build on continuing scientific studies as well as earlier research such as that of Valencia and Buly (2004), who outlined six types of reading difficulties, which are consolidated in these three common patterns.

Ficure 1. Common Patterns of Reading Problems

Children with SWRD have problems related specifically to reading words, not to core comprehension areas such as vocabulary or background knowledge. Those with SRCD have the opposite pattern: poor reading comprehension despite at least average word-reading skills. And those with MRD have a combination of weaknesses in word-reading skills and core comprehension areas. Knowledge of these patterns is useful for helping students with many kinds of reading problems-not only those involving certain disabilities (Aaron, Joshi, Gooden, & Bentum, 2008; Nation, Clarke, Wright, & Williams, 2006) but also more experientially based reading difficulties, such as those sometimes found among English learners or children from low-socioeconomic-status backgrounds (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2008; Kieffer, 2010; Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010).

Many studies have shown that children with difficulties in word reading benefit from explicit, systematic phonics interventions, whereas children with comprehension difficulties benefit from explicit teaching and modeling of text comprehension strategies as well as from interventions that promote vocabulary and oral language development (Aaron et al., 2008; Clarke, Snowling, Truelove, & Hulme, 2010; Ehri, 2004; Snowling & Hulme, 2012). Aaron, Joshi, Gooden, and Bentum (2008) studied the performance of elementary-age struggling readers who received differentially targeted interventions, depending on whether they had weaknesses specific to word recognition (systematic phonemic awareness and phonics intervention) or comprehension (intervention in comprehension strategies such as questioning and summarization). Relative to comparison children who received undifferentiated intervention in resource rooms, the intervention groups made significantly more progress in their weak area of reading.

Differentiating classroom instruction according to different patterns also may improve children's reading outcomes. For example, Juel and Minden-Cupp (1999-2000) observed four experienced grade 1 teachers at two schools serving primarily low-income students throughout a school year. At the end of the year, overall reading achievement was lowest in the classroom of the teacher who provided the least differentiation of instruction.

In addition, however, children who entered first grade with the lowest phonics skills did best in reading with the teacher who provided the most emphasis on explicit, systematic phonics for the first half of the school year, with more emphasis on vocabulary and discussion of text later in the year. Conversely, children who began grade 1 with strong basic reading skills did very well in reading with a teacher who provided relatively little direct phonics teaching but emphasized discussion of text from trade books and meaning-oriented writing activities from the start; presumably, these children had less need for systematic phonics teaching because they already possessed these skills. This study suggests that differentiating classroom reading instruction according to individual children's word recognition needs and comprehension needs can be beneficial.

Determining patterns of reading difficulties

The three types of difficulties mentioned in the preceding section involve underlying patterns of strengths and weaknesses in specific language and reading abilities, sometimes termed components of reading (Aaron et al., 2008; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Important components of reading include phonemic awareness, word decoding, fluent text reading, vocabulary, and listening comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). The first step in determining a struggling reader's pattern involves assessment of these abilities that underlie reading development.

Begin by Assessing Key Components of Reading

Table 1 shows the most important components of reading to consider in a diagnostic assessment of elementary-age struggling readers, with examples of possible measures to use and suggestions for interpreting them or for additional measures that may be warranted. Various measures may be used to assess each area, as long as the assessments are technically adequate (e.g., reliable and valid) and as long as they provide benchmarks, grade levels, or norm-referenced scores to determine whether children perform appropriately for their grade or age. Children who are poor comprehenders (i.e., those with SRCD or MRD) usually benefit from more in-depth assessment of specific areas of comprehension-for example, consideration of not only their vocabulary but also their performance on different types of comprehension questions such as those involving inferencing, knowledge of text structure, or background knowledge. More in-depth assessment of all component areas, including standardized testing, is warranted in certain situations, such as when children are failing to progress in interventions or a disability is suspected.

Table 1. Key Components of Reading to Assess in Struggling Readers

Component

Examples of Useful Assessments

Suggestions

Out-of-context word decoding (and spelling)

IRI graded word lists

CBMs with nonsense words

Informal spelling inventories

Include at least one assessment containing nonsense words.

If nonsense word decoding is weak, assess PA.

Spelling inventories may be useful for screening groups.

Oral text reading accuracy

IRI graded passages: child's accuracy of word reading in context

Consider whether the child applies known decoding skills when reading passages or over-relies on context.

Oral text reading fluency

IRI graded passages: child's rate of reading in context

CBMs involving oral passage reading fluency

Prosody rating scales

Consider whether fluency problems involve 1) poor decoding, 2) weak vocabulary/listening comprehension, or 3) both areas.

Oral vocabulary

Informal classroom assessments of child's oral vocabulary knowledge

Consider whether weak vocabulary accounts for weak listening/reading comprehension.

Listening comprehension (sentences/passages)

IRI graded passages: child's listening comprehension for passages read aloud by the teacher

Follow up with multiple measures or more in-depth assessment if needed.

Reading comprehension

Answering comprehension questions about passages read

Maze CBMs

Follow up with multiple measures or more in-depth assessment if needed.

An Example: Ayisha, Ben, and Calvin

Ms. Jackson wanted to determine how best to help three struggling readers in her class - Ayisha, Ben, and Calvin - who all had low scores on reading comprehension assessments at the beginning of grade 3. Ms. Jackson had fall universal screening data for these students, which used curriculum-based measures (CBMs) involving oral reading fluency and which provided information about all three children's accuracy and rate of text reading. She also had collected informal reading inventory (IRI) data for the children, which showed their performance on graded word lists, in reading graded passages, and in answering comprehension questions.

This existing assessment data provided some useful information about components of reading involving out-of-context word reading, accuracy and fluency of passage reading, and reading comprehension. Ms. Jackson also considered the children's prosody of oral reading on the IRI passages - that is, whether they read with appropriate phrasing and expression. Prosody is an important aspect of fluency because poor fluency may be based in vocabulary and language limitations as well as in decoding (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010; Valencia et al., 2010). Children might read the words in a passage with ease but still read with halting prosody because they do not understand the meaning of the text. Timed measures of oral passage reading are useful for assessing reading accuracy and rate, whereas rating scales may be more useful for assessing prosody (see, e.g., Benjamin et al., 2013; Zutell & Rasinski, 1991).

In addition to readily available assessment data, Ms. Jackson also needed further information about the children's specific decoding skills, vocabulary, and listening comprehension. She knew that some use of nonsense words is important in assessing decoding because nonsense words provide information about whether children can decode unfamiliar words, whereas they may recognize real words from memory (Siegel, 1999). When she administered this kind of decoding assessment to Ayisha, Ben, and Calvin, only Calvin did well; Ayisha and Ben both had decoding problems, mainly in relation to two-syllable words. Ms. Jackson also knew that poor decoders' phonemic awareness (PA) - such as children's ability to perform oral phoneme blending or segmentation tasks - should be considered. However, neither Ayisha nor Ben had difficulties with blending or segmenting phonemes.

Finally, Ms. Jackson recognized that vocabulary knowledge is particularly central to both listening and reading comprehension (Pearson, Hiebert, & Kamil, 2007) and that vocabulary assessments of struggling readers should be oral. If vocabulary assessments require reading, children with decoding weaknesses may perform poorly simply because they cannot read the words. When Ms. Jackson probed all three students' vocabulary and comprehension performance during classroom instruction over the next week or so, she found that Ayisha's oral vocabulary knowledge seemed excellent; Ayisha also consistently performed well in listening comprehension tasks (e.g., during teacher read-alouds).

However, Ben clearly had vocabulary weaknesses, and both he and Calvin sometimes had comprehension difficulties even during teacher read-alouds-that is, they appeared to have weaknesses in listening comprehension. Unlike Ben, Calvin had good vocabulary knowledge; his comprehension difficulties were more often tied to problems in recognizing key points of a text, understanding text structure, and summarization. Table 2 displays each child's performance on important components of reading.

Table 2. Performance of Ayisha, Ben, and Calvin on Component Assessments

As Ms. Jackson's experience shows, assessing important components of reading does not require administering an exhaustive battery of tests to every struggling reader. Classroom teachers often have some student data available from commonly collected formative assessments and district-wide universal screening and progress monitoring. They also have observational data based on their students' everyday classroom performance. When more extensive assessment is necessary for a particular child-for instance, if a child's difficulties seem especially serious or difficult to interpret-classroom teachers can consult support staff such as reading specialists, special educators, or Title I teachers. These specialists may be able to help classroom teachers by providing information about available assessments or by administering assessments. For children with disabilities, detailed assessment data about important components of reading and language may already be available in the child's individualized education plan (IEP).

Interpret Assessment Measures to Determine the Pattern of Reading Difficulty

Once teachers have information about the specific component abilities of individual struggling readers, they can interpret these data to determine the type of reading difficulties each student has. Teachers should look for patterns of specific strengths and weaknesses in important component reading and language skills. They also should consider the dynamic underlying children's problems in reading fluency as well as reading comprehension (Spear-Swerling, 2013, 2015), because each pattern may (or may not) be accompanied by difficulties in reading fluency. Moreover, slow reading may sometimes be an adaptive strategy, as when a child intentionally reads slowly better to comprehend a difficult text (e.g., Valencia & Buly, 2004). Table 3 displays the typical patterns for poor readers with SWRD, SRCD, and MRD.

Table 3. Common Patterns of Reading Problems

Pattern

Description

Strengths

Intervention Needs

Specific word reading difficulties (SWRD)

Decoding (and sometimes PA) below average

Spelling below average

Oral vocabulary and listening comprehension at least average

Fluency often below average due to decoding problems

Reading comprehension often below average due to decoding problems

Good ability to learn orally (e.g., through class discussions and teacher read-alouds)

Reading comprehension strong when children read texts they can decode

Explicit, systematic phonics intervention

PA and fluency intervention if needed

Ample opportunities to apply decoding skills in oral text reading, with teacher feedback

Specific reading comprehension difficulties (SRCD)

Decoding at least average

Reading comprehension below average

Oral vocabulary and listening comprehension may be weak

Fluency may be weak due to language limitations (not poor decoding)

Good foundational reading skills

Spelling often strong

Explicit, systematic intervention targeting specific comprehension weaknesses (e.g., vocabulary, inferencing)

Include oral vocabulary and language in intervention

Mixed reading difficulties (MRD)

Decoding below average

Reading comprehension below average, even in texts children can decode

Reading fluency often weak due to limitations in both decoding and language

Individual children usually have strengths in specific areas of language or reading (e.g., their knowledge base about specific interests)

Combination of intervention needs for first two patterns

Multicomponent interventions may be especially useful

Despite their difficulties with word decoding, children with SWRD usually do well in situations in which information is presented verbally. These students may shine during teacher read-alouds and class discussions, able to answer sophisticated comprehension questions accurately and thoughtfully, especially when text content has been presented orally. Although some children with SWRD may have considerable knowledge of sight words, the hallmark of this pattern involves difficulty decoding unfamiliar words using phonics knowledge. These children also may have difficulties with reading fluency due to inaccurate or labored decoding, and they nearly always have poor spelling.

Sight-word knowledge, ability to use context cues, and verbal strengths may enable some children with SWRD to compensate well enough to score at average levels for reading comprehension; however, compensation becomes increasingly difficult as children advance beyond the earliest grades. In relation to implementation of the Common Core State Standards currently influencing English language arts instruction in many states (Shanahan, 2013), students with SWRD can grasp challenging vocabulary and comprehension standards as well as typical readers, particularly in an oral context or with accommodations for their difficulties in reading grade-level text, but will need help meeting foundational standards from the Common Core.

Children with SRCD struggle with reading comprehension despite having at least average decoding skills. Often, their comprehension difficulties are tied to mild weaknesses in vocabulary or broad language comprehension, although generally these difficulties are not severe enough to make them eligible for speech-language services (Nation, 2005). Poor comprehenders may have weaknesses in many specific areas, including use of comprehension strategies, text structure, and background knowledge (Neuman & Celano, 2006; Rand Reading Study Group, 2002). Reading fluency may be poor because of language comprehension weaknesses-that is, a child may read slowly because he or she does not understand the text.

Children with SRCD are likely to meet foundational standards from the Common Core as well as typical readers but may have difficulties with many comprehension-related standards, such as those involving vocabulary, summarization, author's craft, or citing evidence from texts. Although they can decode grade-appropriate texts, they may need considerable teacher scaffolding in order to comprehend them (see, e.g., Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012).

Children with MRD have a combination of the problems seen in the first two patterns: weaknesses in decoding and phonological skills, but also in core comprehension areas such as vocabulary or listening comprehension. (This is why Figure 1 shows this pattern in an overlapping area between SWRD and SRCD.) Unlike readers with SWRD, those with MRD have difficulties in reading comprehension even when reading texts they can decode well, because of their core comprehension weaknesses. Reading fluency may be poor due to a combination of decoding problems and language limitations. These students often have difficulty meeting both foundational and comprehension-related standards from the Common Core.

Although students with MRD have more generalized reading problems than those with SWRD or SRCD, these students typically do have individual areas of strength, which teachers can capitalize upon in intervention. For example, a student with a combination of decoding and general vocabulary weaknesses may have a strong interest in a specific topic, such as animals or sports, about which he or she has considerable background knowledge and motivation to read.

Ms. Jackson looked at the information from the assessments of component abilities for Ayisha, Ben, and Calvin, and she also reflected on the dynamics underlying each child's reading problems. Ayisha's reading comprehension and reading fluency difficulties obviously were tied entirely to decoding. Her vocabulary was excellent; her comprehension was consistently strong during teacher read-alouds or when she was reading text she could decode; and her slow rate of reading and poor prosody clearly stemmed from labored decoding. Ayisha's pattern of poor reading involved SWRD.

Calvin had the opposite pattern: good decoding and text reading accuracy, as well as grade-appropriate fluency (both in terms of rate and prosody), but weaknesses in reading comprehension and language comprehension. His difficulties in summarization and lack of knowledge about text structure were apparent whether he was reading or listening, an indicator of a core comprehension weakness. His pattern involved SRCD.

Like Ayisha, Ben had problems in decoding, but unlike Ayisha, his difficulties in reading comprehension were not always tied to faulty decoding; they also appeared linked to vocabulary weaknesses. Furthermore, his reading fluency problems likely related to both areas, labored decoding and language comprehension difficulties. Ben's pattern of poor reading involved MRD.

Effective instruction and interventions for each pattern

Clearly, interventions for Ayisha, Ben, and Calvin need to differ in some important ways. The far-right column of Table 3 shows the intervention needs associated with each type of reading difficulty.

Children with SWRD, such as Ayisha, typically require highly explicit, systematic phonics intervention. Ayisha did not have problems in phonemic awareness, but for children with these weaknesses, PA intervention should be integrated with phonics instruction (Ehri, 2004); children can learn PA skills such as phoneme blending and segmentation in the context of decoding and spelling words from specific phonics categories. More advanced students with SWRD like Ayisha - those learning to decode two-syllable or multisyllabic words - often benefit from learning syllabication strategies and structural analysis. Struggling decoders also must apply their developing decoding skills in oral reading of text that provides a reasonable match to their word-reading skills, with teacher guidance and feedback (Cheatham & Allor, 2012; Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2005).

Children with SRCD, like Calvin, need interventions focused on the specific comprehension areas in which they are weak. Because knowledge of text structure and the ability to summarize texts were areas of difficulty for Calvin, Ms. Jackson modeled for him how to identify key points in texts and construct a summary. She also used graphic organizers to teach him about text structure. Ms. Jackson taught these skills in the context of oral activities, such as during read-alouds and classroom discussions, as well as in the context of Calvin's own reading. Many comprehension abilities can be developed through listening as well as reading, and including oral language development as part of the intervention may be particularly useful for children with SRCD (Clarke et al., 2010).

Children with MRD, like Ben, need phonics interventions and opportunities to apply decoding skills in reading text, coupled with explicit teaching targeting their specific comprehension weaknesses. Ben's difficulties in comprehension tended to involve vocabulary. For children with limitations in this area, direct teaching of target academic words and strategies for inferring word meanings from context, as well as morphological instruction focused on the meanings of root words and affixes, is often effective (Goodwin & Ahn, 2013). Vocabulary development should occur through oral activities such as teacher read-alouds as well as through students' reading. Multicomponent interventions that address multiple components of reading in an integrated way (e.g., Gelzheiser, Scanlon, Vellutino, Hallgren-Flynn, & Schatschneider, 2011) also may be especially valuable for students with MRD.

For all types of reading difficulties, the suggestions for intervention in Table 3 should be implemented as part of a more comprehensive program of English language arts instruction, with strong collaboration between classroom teachers and interventionists to ensure an effective program. For example, children with SWRD, like Ayisha, need instruction in vocabulary, language, and comprehension; however, they do not need intervention in these areas and can usually receive their vocabulary and comprehension development as part of the core general education program, as long as any necessary adaptations of instruction are made (e.g., oral presentation of grade-level material that children cannot read themselves). Likewise, children with SRCD, like Calvin, need to learn the foundational decoding and spelling skills that are part of the expectations for their grade, but they do not need intervention in these areas.

Of course, most classroom teachers have very limited time for implementing interventions with struggling readers. However, information about common types of reading difficulties can still be helpful to general educators in differentiating classroom instruction. A primary-grade teacher like Ms. Jackson could differentiate instruction through small flexible groups, with one group to meet the most frequent needs of third graders with SWRD (e.g., additional explicit phonics instruction focused on syllabication and decoding of two-syllable and multisyllabic words) and another to meet the most frequent needs of those with SRCD (e.g., additional instruction in vocabulary and background knowledge). Children with MRD might participate in both groups. This approach is unlikely to meet the needs of all struggling readers in a class, but it could still benefit many students.

Indeed, this is what Ms. Jackson did for Ayisha, Ben, and Calvin. Ayisha and Ben made very good progress with this approach. Calvin made some progress, but he ultimately needed more intensive intervention through a reading specialist, to which he responded well.

Additional information about the patterns

Early- and Late-Emerging Reading Problems

Each pattern of reading difficulties may emerge relatively early or relatively later in schooling, with early-emerging problems generally defined as reading difficulties evident by grade 3 and late-emerging problems as those first manifesting in grade 4 or later (Leach et al., 2003). Ayisha, Ben, and Calvin's problems, apparent at the beginning of grade 3, would all be considered early-emerging.

Early-emerging reading difficulties often involve problems in decoding - that is, either an SWRD or MRD pattern (Leach et al., 2003)-because learning to decode is central to children's early reading development (Ehri, 2004). Still, some decoding problems do not manifest in the earliest grades, and frequently these weaknesses involve decoding of complex or multisyllabic words rather than one-syllable words (Catts et al., 2012; Lipka et al., 2006). A child might have mild weaknesses in phonological skills that do not greatly affect her decoding of simple words but that become more problematic as she advances into grades 4 or 5 and encounters harder words.

As Calvin's example shows, reading problems involving SRCD can appear in the earliest grades. More often, however, these problems are late-emerging (Catts et al., 2012; Leach et al., 2003), related to escalating demands for reading comprehension in grades 4 and up. A student with mild weaknesses in vocabulary or background knowledge might progress normally in reading comprehension at first but have more difficulties as the expectations for comprehension increase across grades. These students do often have early language weaknesses, but the language weaknesses may not actually affect reading until the middle or upper elementary grades.

Research on late-emerging reading problems suggests that screening and intervention for both broad language weaknesses and phonological weaknesses may help prevent future reading difficulties (Scarborough, 2005). Also, these studies indicate that even the best primary-grade screening and intervention efforts cannot be expected to prevent all reading problems, so providing opportunities for reading intervention beyond the primary grades is essential.

Prevalence of Different Patterns in Specific Groups of Children

The prevalence of different types of reading difficulties depends not only on grade level but also on the school population. For instance, many studies suggest that children from certain demographic groups, such as English learners and those from low-income families, may tend to have weaknesses in vocabulary, academic language, and academic background knowledge (August & Shanahan, 2006; Barone & Xu, 2008; Neuman & Celano, 2006). Teachers at schools serving these populations, such as Ms. Jackson, can expect to encounter relatively greater numbers of children with MRD or SRCD as opposed to SWRD. Some children will experience decoding problems, but because they may often have vocabulary weaknesses too, they may tend to demonstrate a pattern of MRD rather than SWRD. If schools serving these populations provide a strong emphasis on vocabulary and academic language from the earliest grades, this may help to prevent many children's reading difficulties.

Certain patterns also tend to be associated with some disabilities. Children with high-functioning autism often have a pattern of SRCD, with poor reading comprehension despite average or even better-than-average word decoding skills and with comprehension difficulties connected to the specific cognitive-linguistic weaknesses associated with autism. Conversely, children with dyslexia typically display a pattern of SWRD (Huemer & Mann, 2010) usually associated with phonological weaknesses. Although assessment of individual poor readers' component abilities always is important, teachers' awareness of the patterns commonly associated with these disabilities can provide an initial basis for planning instruction and accommodations.

As the preceding discussion suggests, individual children's experiences (including instructional experiences), as well as their intrinsic abilities, can influence their patterns of reading difficulties. Children can have vocabulary weaknesses because of language disabilities or simply because they were not exposed to the vocabulary words; they can have decoding problems because of a learning disability such as dyslexia or because of inadequate phonics instruction. However, knowledge about causation is not necessary for information about the child's pattern of reading difficulty to be valuable in instruction; children with decoding or vocabulary weaknesses need intervention in those areas regardless of the ultimate cause of the weaknesses.

Points to remember

Information about individual poor readers' patterns of reading difficulties provides an extremely helpful starting point for teachers of reading. Children with SRCD aren't likely to profit from phonics intervention, whereas those with SWRD and MRD generally are. Successful phonics intervention should enable struggling readers with SWRD to attain grade-appropriate reading comprehension, whereas those with MRD also will require a comprehension component in their interventions. A fluency intervention that emphasizes speed and automaticity of word decoding may help children with SWRD and MRD, but it is unlikely to help a disfluent reader with SRCD, who may benefit much more from interventions focused on vocabulary and comprehension development.

Children with different patterns of reading difficulty also tend to benefit from different technology supports (Erickson, 2013) and to display different kinds of strengths that can be tapped in the classroom. And they require different types of progress-monitoring measures to gauge their progress during intervention - a measure sensitive to decoding growth for SWRD, one sensitive to growth in vocabulary and/or comprehension for SRCD, and both types of measures for MRD. Information about common patterns of reading difficulties may be only a starting point, but it is a valuable foundation for differentiating instruction and planning effective interventions in reading.

About the author

Louise Spear‐Swerling is a professor at Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, USA; e‐mail [email protected]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common Types of Reading Problems and How to Help Children Who Have Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Patterns of reading difficulty provide an educationally useful way to think about different kinds of reading problems, whether those problems are mainly experiential in nature (e.g., those common among English learners) or associated with disabilities (e.g., those typical of children with dyslexia).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reading Ready, a word reading curriculum for educators and manual for parents/caregivers, is now available. Be sure to check out the website.

Coming this fall!

Explicit and highly engaging activities to support Phonemic Awareness. Please click the pictures or buttons to access the resources.

​

​

​

​

Developed by Brooke Diviak

​

​

​

​

​

​

Activity Mat for Grapheme-Phoneme Mapping

​

​

​

​

​

For more information on explicit mapping instruction see Grace, K. (2006). Phonics and Spelling through Phoneme-Grapheme Mapping. Sopris West.

​

​

​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading Ready, a word reading curriculum for educators and manual for parents/caregivers, is now available. Be sure to check out the website. Coming this fall! Explicit and highly engaging activities to support Phonemic Awareness. Please click the pictures or buttons to access the resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, conference, huddle, and training rooms, as well as executive offices and classrooms. Founded in 2011, Zoom helps businesses and organizations bring their teams together in a frictionless environment to get more done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading Interventions Digital - Session 12 - Deep Dive Into Fluency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seriously, Syntax Matters: Critical Connections to Comprehension - Pivot Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On-Demand Webinar: Learn the role of syntax in constructing meaning from text and a framework for teaching sentence comprehension.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to the University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI, pronounced "you fly"). UFLI is an ongoing effort by UF faculty, students, and staff to improve literacy outcomes for children learning to read.

The work of UFLI focuses on two main areas: teacher development and reader development. The place where those two overlap ... that is where the work of UFLI lives. Our programs and resources are designed to help teachers become more confident and more successful in their capacity to help kids learn to read. We do this through:

Academic programs for both pre-service and practicing educators to develop the skills and knowledge necessary to be effective reading teachers

Professional learning opportunities to help classroom reading teachers, instructional coaches, and school leaders expand their knowledge, enhance their teaching practices, and build capacity in their schools

Resources for teachers, parents, and teacher educators to use in their reading instruction

Much, much more!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UF Literacy Institute | Where teacher development and reader development overlap

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI, pronounced "you fly"). UFLI is an ongoing effort by UF faculty, students, and staff to improve literacy outcomes for children learning to read. The work of UFLI focuses on two main areas: teacher development and reader development. The place where those two overlap ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For a downloadable PDF click here. Summer 2016
By Carolyn D. Cowen

IDA infographics help make complex information easy to digest, remember, and share and are made for a wide audience-those new to dyslexia and related literacy/learning issues as well as the experts. Please share our infographics as well as our Fact Sheets to raise awareness about dyslexia and to help support the policy and practice changes needed to bring effective instruction (particularly in reading) to every child with dyslexia in every classroom across the nation.
Author's Note: You may need to zoom in to read small text.
Carolyn D. Cowen, Ed.M., is the Social Media Editor/Strategist for the International Dyslexia Association's Examiner. She also serves on the Board of Trustees for the Newgrange School, Ann Robinowitz Education Center, and Laurel School and on the Board of Directors for the Research Institute for Learning and Development. Carolyn is especially interested in creative ways nonprofits and movements can "power the mission with the message." Follow her on Twitter .

More infographics!

Good News! Most Reading Difficulties Can Be Resolved or Greatly Diminished (April 2016)

How Widespread Is Dyslexia? (February 2016)
Copyright © 2016 International Dyslexia Association (IDA). We encourage sharing of Examiner articles. If portions are cited, please make appropriate reference. Articles may not be reprinted for the purpose of resale. Permission to republish this article is available from info@interdys.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Structured Literacy? - International Dyslexia Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Why of Teaching Phonics & Word Recognition (Part 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The What of Teaching Phonics & Word Recognition (Part 2) to learn about instructional routines and practices that exemplify explicit and systematic phonics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tim Odegard - Designing Instruction and Using Decision Rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seriously, Syntax Matters: Critical Connections to Comprehension - Pivot Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On-Demand Webinar: Learn the role of syntax in constructing meaning from text and a framework for teaching sentence comprehension.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The PAST can be downloaded above. Please also download and carefully read the instructions before using. Information can also be found in the manual “Equipped for Reading Success” by David A. Kilpatrick, Ph.D in chapter 11 on how to effectively use the test. Make sure to also practice using the test before using it with […]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Complimentary Beginning and Advanced Diagnostic Decoding Surveys

Our complimentary Diagnostic Decoding Surveys are an easy and efficient way to detect when students are having word-level reading difficulties, and pinpoint their specific decoding weaknesses.

Our two most popular surveys are the Beginning and Advanced Decoding Surveys:

The Beginning Decoding Survey assesses how well students are reading words they should have mastered by the end of first grade:

High frequency words

Single syllable words with short vowels, digraphs, and two-sound blends

The Advanced Decoding Survey assesses the decoding skills students should have mastered by the end of third grade:

Single syllable words with short vowels and more advanced phonics patterns (e.g. trigraphs, three-sound blends)

Single syllable words with advanced vowel patterns

Multisyllable words (real and nonsense)

The complimentary packet contains everything you'll need for initial assessment of an unlimited number of students. The packet also provides an explanation of how the survey results can be used to group students, and it offers guidance on how to plan effective and efficient instruction.
Download now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diagnostic Decoding Surveys - Beginning and Advanced

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
row][oneHalf][/oneHalf][oneHalf]Complimentary Beginning and Advanced Diagnostic Decoding SurveysOur complimentary Diagnostic Decoding Surveys are an easy and efficient way to detect when students are having word-level reading difficulties, and pinpoint their specific decoding weaknesses.Our two most popular surveys are the Beginning and Advanced Decoding Surveys:The Beginning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support

Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration

Publisher Approved Professional Learning

Online Elementary Reading Academy

Adolescent Literacy Solutions

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Rise in Math

Math Coaching

Online Math Academy

Onsite Math Academy

Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support

Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration

Publisher Approved Professional Learning

Online Elementary Reading Academy

Adolescent Literacy Solutions

Curriculum Adoption

Curriculum Implementation

Rise in Math

Math Coaching

Online Math Academy

Onsite Math Academy

Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures, 2nd Edition - Teacher Professional Learning | Literacy, Math | MTSS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration Publisher Approved Professional Learning Online Elementary Reading Academy Adolescent Literacy Solutions Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Rise in Math Math Coaching Online Math Academy Onsite Math Academy Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Literacy Coaching & Site Implementation Support Early Literacy Planning & Implementation Collaboration Publisher Approved Professional Learning Online Elementary Reading Academy Adolescent Literacy Solutions Curriculum Adoption Curriculum Implementation Rise in Math Math Coaching Online Math Academy Onsite Math Academy Teaching Reading Sourcebook 3rd Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Acadience® is a proprietary name referring to the work of Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski, and Acadience Learning Inc. (ALI). The intent of ALI is to make the current Acadience assessment tools and materials downloadable from this website available to schools, school districts, and multi-district agencies for the limited purposes, and on the terms, described in this Educational Use Agreement. Such use, however, is not intended to and does not place the Acadience assessment materials in the public domain.

Photocopy masters of the Acadience assessment materials are available at a host website designated by ALI solely for the purposes described in this Educational Use Agreement. Schools, school districts, and multi-district agencies may themselves make unlimited photocopies of the Acadience assessment materials for internal educational use, subject to the terms of this Educational Use Agreement. No outside printing services or other vendors may make photocopies of the Acadience assessment materials. No Acadience assessment materials may be sold or licensed without the express written consent of ALI. ALI has licensed Voyager Sopris Learning ® to sell the print version of the Acadience assessment materials and to distribute the Acadience Learning Online progressive web application that incorporates the Acadience assessment materials ( www.voyagersopris.com).

As a part of ALI's program to provide the photocopy masters and permission to photocopy for free as described above, ALI requires all users to register on the host website designated by ALI, to evidence their assent to the terms of this Educational Use Agreement, so that we may document usage as we pursue additional research and development funding, and so that we may notify users when new and improved materials are available. Users should not use a prior version of Acadience assessment materials when a new and improved version of the Acadience assessment materials are available.

This Educational Use Agreement also requires that users copy and use the Acadience assessment materials without modification (including, without limitation, without removing logos or acknowledgments for contributions to the Acadience assessment materials), except as agreed to in advance and in writing by ALI in its sole discretion. Any uses of the Acadience assessment materials that are inconsistent with the provisions of this Educational Use Agreement are strictly prohibited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Acadience Learning Materials | Acadience Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Acadience® is a proprietary name referring to the work of Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski, and Acadience Learning Inc. (ALI). The intent of ALI is to make the current Acadience assessment tools and materials downloadable from this website available to schools, school districts, and multi-district agencies for the limited purposes, and on the terms, described in this Educational Use Agreement.

# data[].attributes.body
Used with permission from Judi Dodson

# data[].attributes.headline
4 Quadrants Reading Difficulty (Tiffany Hogan)

# data[].attributes.subject
4 Quadrants Reading Difficulty (Tiffany Hogan)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defining Guide Video Series: Dr. Tiffany Hogan Explains the Quadrant Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Swerling - Identifying Common Profiles of Reading Difficulties and their Implications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Edwin Ellis and Theresa Farmer describe the situation eloquently in the introduction to their clarifying strategy to teach vocabulary. To quote:

When you think of vocabulary, there is a good chance that you think of long lists of words from social studies or science textbooks, spelling word lists, or even the humongous lists of terms to study for college entrance exams. Zillions of flash cards also may come to mind. No doubt you share the common childhood experience of having to "go look up the words in a dictionary, write the definition, and then write a sentence using the term" - but how much of that vocabulary do you remember now?

In other words, many of the traditional techniques teachers and students use to learn vocabulary does not work because most students, not just those with learning problems, rarely remember the meanings of new terms beyond the test. This raises a very disconcerting question: If students don't remember the definitions of new terms after the test, why bother requiring them to memorize those definitions in the first place since it seems to be a waste of time?

Given a list of words to learn, many students will complete the assignments given, but will not have the time to actually learn what the words mean. "Vocabulary enrichment" becomes yet another set of compartmentalized pieces of information that a student is "exposed to," tries to spit back on a test, and forgets.

Developing vocabulary as part of knowledge structure requires much more energy and focus than memorizing terms. Many students will have habits of passivity that will need to be broken. Others will be convinced that these aren't words people normally use, even if in fact they've heard them many times before - but didn't remember because there was no meaning attached to the word.

Keep in mind, also, that there is more to developing vocabulary and language comprehension than learning new words. Some other skills to consider at the single word and phrase level are:

figures of speech,

confusing words such as "indifferent,"

words with multiple meanings, and

"signal" words such as but, however, and while.

Guidelines

1. Have structure and organization behind the words you present
Rather than randomly selected words "at their grade level," present words in related groups. Examples: Present words about feelings, and make a poster with the students, with different words to describe being "afraid" or "happy." Students can discuss the degrees of emotion (is terrified more than nervous or anxious, ecstatic better than pleased), and the differences between the words (how is snicker different from guffaw, terrified different from horrified?). Another option is to study word parts: have the students learn that ject means throw, and then tackle projectile, reject, and trajectory.

An advantage to grouping words this way is that it lends itself to individualized instruction. Students can all be tackling words from the big ject list - but one student may be learning subjective and abject while another learns project and projectile. (As with any strategy that differentiates between students, you will need to deal with the "why is he doing something different" issues and determining how and how much to differentiate - but with these activities the differences between students are not as obvious.)

2. Incorporate multisensory learning from the beginning
Many students gain a lot if an illustration or demonstration is presented first. Later, when the word is used or its meaning discussed, they have an image to associate it with, and are more likely to learn from the discussion as well as from the visual presentations.

3. Model the activities first
Demonstrate these activities with vivid, familiar words first. Once you've modeled an activity with a word, do it with student input next, and finally, have the students do it on their own - perhaps in groups before working individually.

4. Most work with vocabulary should be done with the meanings available
If the activity involves expressing the ideas in a different form than the definition, then the student has to think about the meaning and interpret it. If the student doesn't use the right meaning, they're worse than wasting they're time; they're learning the wrong things. In addition, students may commit a simplified meaning to memory, but if they have a more developed definition they will be able to think about that and use it.

5. Keep an ongoing list prominently posted
If the words are visible and accessible to students, they are more likely to see them, think about them, and use them. It's up to you to remember to take the lists down when you give tests or quizzes, unless you are using word banks already. (Don't rely on a list on the board as a word bank, however; some students have significantly more trouble reading or writing from a distance than from the paper they are working on.) If you've got different students learning different words, put them all up there, but be sure each student knows which words s/he is responsible for knowing.

6. Go beyond the definitions of the words
Include the connotations of the words and the ways they are most likely to be used. Don't limit this exploration to the "discussion" of words. When students are drawing or acting out words, encourage them to incorporate the connotations or the more subtle aspects of the meanings of the words.

Activities

1. Illustrate the words
Show pictures or video clips that demonstrate the meaning of a word. Have students draw and label something illustrating the meaning of the word. This is not limited to concrete nouns - a grim expression, a contemplative person, or absurd conduct can also be drawn. The labels explain how the word and drawing fit. Drawing skills are not important; stick figures with accurate labels can succinctly express an idea as well as finely crafted caricatures. The infamous "flashcards" can be made more meaningful with illustrations, as well. Be sure, though, that the student doesn't replace an abstract idea with a concrete example of it. This can be done by showing different ways that the idea is expressed and having the students discover what makes them valid illustrations - for instance, could news be grim? How?

2. Play "Quick Draw"
This doesn't have to be competitive, but it can be. See how quickly students can convey the essence of a words meaning on the board - without words. This works especially well with words describing visual concepts, like many geography terms. Again, make sure students don't oversimplify things - if you play this game repeatedly, make sure the students are using different ways to draw the words.

3. Play "vocabulary charades"
Have students draw a word from a hat and act it out.

4. Give credit for finding the word used in the real world
Provide extra credit if a student hears or sees a vocabulary word anywhere outside of the vocabulary exercises. To get the points, the student has to write down the word, what it means, and where s/he heard it. Sometimes the students will purposely use the words so someone can say they heard it - which just means they are incorporating it into their oral vocabularies.

5. Use the words yourself
That prominently posted list can be your cue to slip words into other classwork or discussions. Students may not even need the incentive of extra credit to start listening for them.

6. Have students answer questions that use the words
For example: "What are three ways you could tell a person had just received grim news?" "What are three things an impertinent person might say?" "What are three things that would disconcert you?" Doing this while the student has the meaning available gives the opportunity to process the meaning instead of guessing at an answer.

7. Have students generate examples and non-examples for words
This can be done with visual or kinesthetic illustrations as well as verbal descriptions. Have students explain whether something is a good example of a word or not, and why they think so. For most groups, this activity should be practiced with familiar, concrete words first. It can be used to lay a solid foundation for "comparing and contrasting" and defending ideas in essays, especially if you encourage the students to use precise language and good sentences.

When you ask students to generate examples, if someone comes up with a "wrong" answer, it can be used as "a good non-example" to help clarify the meaning of a word. Remind students that learning is not about proving what you already know, but about asking questions to change what you don't know into what you do know.

8. Use "fill in the blank" exercises before you expect the students to use the words in sentences themselves
This is also a good way to test students, or to make the transition between working with the definitions available and recalling what the words mean on their own. Have a word bank with five vocabulary words and five sentences with blanks, and have the students decide which word goes in which blank. Your challenge will be constructing sentences which only match with one word, so small groups of words are better. These exercises are also opportunities for you to give a wider scope to a word, and discuss how that word fits into a sentence that the students might not have considered.

9. Compose with the words
Only after a student has heard and read a word used correctly many times should s/he be expected to compose something original with the word. This can be a fun class activity, though, once a sizable list has accumulated. Students can take turns picking words from the list to add a sentence to an ongoing story - students will get a chance to hear the words they weren't sure of used by other students, and the sentences can be revised if the words are not used correctly. Eventually, students may enjoy composing absurd tales using the words.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vocabulary is a weak area for many students, but much "vocabulary instruction" ends up being handwriting practice.