Early intervention in 1st grade for children with reading disabilities

Abstract

It is important for success in learning, and life in general, to gain an early grasp of reading. There is a connection between reading skills and social and economic success later in life. Being an active participant in the life and culture of a nation requires sound reading skills and is the foundation of a person’s life. Every effort must be made to improve the position of children who are at a disadvantage in reading, to use the most effective methods and to intervene as soon as possible (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið [Ministry of Education and Culture], 2013; Lane, Pullen, Hudson & Konold, 2009). Early intervention is a specialized approach that seeks to answer the question of what is best for the individual and why. It is also considered important to initiate intervention as early as possible, or as soon as suspicion arises about difficulties (Steinunn Torfadóttir, 2011b; Tryggvi Sigurðsson, 2004, 2008). Stanovich (1986) presented a theory of Matthew effects in reading, which means that the rich will become richer and poor poorer. When children are successful in reading, they read more than children who are not. They are constantly expanding their knowledge and reading skills, and the gap between those who do well in learning to read and those who do not widens as the school progresses.

This is a study of the effects of early interventions in teaching children how to read. Leið til læsis [Road to Literacy] is a support system designed to assist teachers in the first grades in elementary school to (a) identify children at risk of developing reading disabilities, and (b) organize interventions and assess their effects. The support system consists of a manual, a screening test, and follow-up tests in reading and visual vocabulary.

The study format was a non-equivalent control group design. The study involved screening for potential reading disabilities in first grade children in one elementary school and providing them with appropriate interventions in phonological awareness, letter knowledge and language development. The intervention periods were three, and the effect of the intervention was assessed by follow-up tests in reading and visual vocabulary.

It was hypothesized that through effective and powerful intervention at the beginning of the 1st grade, possible reading difficulties in children at risk may be reduced or prevented. Answers were sought to the following research questions: What are the effects of early interventions, using Leið til læsis, on literacy among children at risk of developing reading disabilities? By using targeted instructions in phonological awareness, letter knowledge and language development, can the odds of these children falling behind their peers be reduced?

When reading skills were evaluated, differences in group performance over the period were not statistically significant. The hypothesis that group performance changes over the period is, therefore, rejected. Changes in student performance in both groups, between these three measurement points, were, however, statistically significant; both groups improved between measurements and the intervention group managed to keep up with the control group.

When visual vocabulary was evaluated, differences in group performance over the period were statistically significant. However, the hypothesis that group performance changes over the period is rejected. Changes in student performance in both groups, between these three measurement points, were statistically significant; both groups improved between measurements and the intervention group managed to keep up with the control group.

The results of the study indicate that the effect of early intervention with Leið til læsis is positive. All children in the intervention group showed progress. Stanovich’s theory of Matthew effects was taken into consideration, where children with reading disabilities are presumed to fall behind the others, and the gap between the two groups is presumed to expand over time. According to the results of the study, the gap between the groups did not increase and the intervention group managed to keep up with the progress of the control group.