After-School Programming and Intrinsic Motivation: Teaching At-Risk Students to Read [1st ed. 2019] 978-3-030-22844-6, 978-3-030-22845-3

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xviii
Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways to Stop Reading Failure? Does Intrinsic Motivation Contribute to Mental Wellness in the Classroom? (Elaine Clanton Harpine)....Pages 1-20
Is Oral Reading Important in Correcting Reading Failure? (William D. Harpine)....Pages 21-28
Is Group-Centered Better than Classroom Instruction for Teaching Reading? The Need for a Group-Centered Approach. Testing Two Group Methods (Elaine Clanton Harpine, Adam Pazda)....Pages 29-47
How Do You Build a Group Program Based on the Principles of Intrinsic Motivation? Developing an After-School Program to Meet the Needs of all Students: Eight Years of Development (Elaine Clanton Harpine)....Pages 49-98
Selecting the Best Evaluation Tool: Which is Better? Why? The 2009–2010 Group Report (William D. Harpine, Christopher D. Bell, Sarah Stevens)....Pages 99-106
How Many Students Work Best in an After-School Program? Are Small Groups Better than Large After-School Programs? What Ages? The 2010–2011 Group Report (Bridget Coleman, Thomas Reid, William D. Harpine)....Pages 107-116
Which Reading Levels Work Best Together? Can we Include Students with Special Needs? The 2011–2013 Group Report (Shana Ingram)....Pages 117-127
Do Inner City and Rural Students Mix in a Reading Program? What Are the Challenges? The 2013–2015 Group Report (Anna Thompson, Keri Weed)....Pages 129-134
Testing the Format? Does Group-Centered Prevention Work? A Very Successful Year. The 2015–2016 Group Report (Shana Ingram)....Pages 135-139
Why Does Group-Centered Prevention Work When Other After-School Programs Fail? What Is the Role of Intrinsic Motivation? Retesting and Another Success Story. The 2016–2017 Group Report (Thomas Reid, Elaine Clanton Harpine)....Pages 141-144
Creating a Sustainable Ongoing After-School Program. The Story of New Leadership (Collytte Cederstrom, Adam Pazda)....Pages 145-148
Where Do We Go from Here? Comments from the Research Team: How Can You Apply What We Learned to Your Own After-School Reading Program? (Elaine Clanton Harpine, Keri Weed, Sarah Stevens, William D. Harpine, Bridget Coleman, Thomas Reid et al.)....Pages 149-167
Back Matter ....Pages 169-172

Citation preview

Elaine Clanton Harpine Editor

After-School Programming and Intrinsic Motivation Teaching At-Risk Students to Read

After-School Programming and Intrinsic Motivation

Elaine Clanton Harpine Editor

After-School Programming and Intrinsic Motivation Teaching At-Risk Students to Read

Editor Elaine Clanton Harpine University of South Carolina Aiken Aiken, SC, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-22844-6    ISBN 978-3-030-22845-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22845-3 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To my loving husband, Bill, for your never-­ failing devotion, my dear friend and editor, Judy Jones, for encouraging me to write this book, and to every child who learned to read at the Reading Orienteering Club.

Preface

Before starting first grade, a kindergarten student missed every word on the sight word list from kindergarten and would not even attempt to read an oral passage from the pre-primer (below kindergarten) test. When tested at the midpoint in first grade, the student had completely given up and wouldn’t even try to read the words on the assessment sheet. The student was convinced that he would never be able to learn to read and said so. At the end of first grade, the student could only read four words from the pre-primer list. His oral passage score remained the same at the end of first grade as his score from kindergarten. The student could not read one single word from the story, even though the child had been receiving one-on-one, pullout tutoring at school after the midpoint testing period in the classroom. The summer after first grade, the student was placed in my Camp Sharigan 1-week reading program. After only 1 week of instruction at Camp Sharigan, the student read the pre-­primer story and moved up two levels in sight words as well as in reading oral passages. Yes, the method that we use to teach children to read can make the difference between the student’s success and failure in learning to read. The student in our opening example demonstrated that group-centered methods are successful but that this student and others would also need more than a 1-week group-centered intervention. This student needed a year-long after-school group-centered program. Years later, the Reading Orienteering Club was the result. This book is based on 18 years of research with at-risk students and follows the 8-year development of the Reading Orienteering Club after-school program, showing how to develop, test, change, and adapt an after-school program to fit the needs of the children who attend. The book includes case study examples and data reports for each year. The advantage of this book is that it presents the theory, the application, and the program evaluation steps that faculty developing field experiences, service-learning projects, and clinics need to establish their own program. Many books just present theory or give generalized examples. This book is written specifically for professors who want to create a laboratory, service learning, or field experience for their students and for practitioners who work with after-school programs and want to create a more successful program. Easy-to-read language ensures that vii

viii

Preface

volunteers as well as professionals and students can read and understand every programming detail. Since many of the program helpers were university students, this book also shows how service learning can be used in the college classroom to teach students theoretical textbook principles and to give college students hands-on service-­learning opportunities to help a community meet its needs. Undergraduate and graduate students alike can benefit when they work in a service-learning situation that creates a learning laboratory that gives them personal experience working with an at-risk population. I have also used this program with high school students as workstation helpers. It is especially appropriate for students who may be thinking about a career in psychology or education. In psychology, undergraduate university students are often not permitted to work in human clinical settings, but a prevention group, such as the Reading Orienteering Club, provides a safe learning environment in which high school and undergraduate as well as graduate students may work and train. The same is true in education. Most high school or university students are not allowed to teach until the final year of their training. With a program like the Reading Orienteering Club, high school students and undergraduates can experience real-­world teaching in a classroom-like setting and learn to work with at-risk students with special needs. The Reading Orienteering Club becomes a community-based learning laboratory for children seeking to improve their reading skills as well as a learning laboratory for university students who come to work and teach the children. Both educational and counseling techniques are practiced at the Reading Orienteering Club. All chapters are written by people who worked in the Reading Orienteering Club after-school program, so the authors present first-person accounts as well as statistical evaluations of the reading program’s effectiveness with each group of children. The Camp Sharigan Project was an 8-year developmental project between the community and the university. Different people worked on the team throughout the 8 years, but each person was essential to the success of the project. Different team members analyzed and reported data from different years, reported in different chapters. From the very first day, it was a team project. As the chapter titles specify, we explored different questions each year, but our central goal was to bring children up to their age level in reading. Each year began with the week-long Camp Sharigan reading clinic followed by the 8-month Reading Orienteering Club. Chapter 1 presents the theory and explains how group-centered prevention works and why the approach has been so successful. This chapter also offers a brief overview of reading education, explaining why so many students fail to learn to read in school. Chapter 1 proves the need for a change in how we teach children to read. Chapter 1 also explains why reading failure is a mental health issue as well as an educational problem. Chapter 2 explains the role of oral reading and how it helps children improve in comprehension and fluency. Children find oral reading performances, particularly puppet plays, to be intrinsically motivating. Chapter 2 explains simple methods for teaching oral reading skills. Chapter 3 presents the research that precedes the development of the Reading Orienteering Club program and describes why a year-long afterschool program was needed. Chapter 4 reviews the ­development of the Reading Orienteering Club program over the 8-year period. This chapter explains how intrinsic motivation, 12 teaching strategies, and 6 counseling interventions comprise the

Preface

ix

group-centered method, also describing the development and application of vowel clustering. This program development chapter highlights the changes that were made in the Reading Orienteering Club program design over the 8 years of development. This chapter also explains why each change was implemented, giving insights and data references to show why the changes were made. This detailed design chapter’s purpose is to help those who use this book to adapt these interventions and strategies to their own programs. This chapter explains the step-by-step yearly process of developing and evaluating the Reading Orienteering Club program as well as why and how changes were made in the program design in relationship to the research data. Chapter 5 begins the yearly data reports and examines different testing and assessment methods used with the Reading Orienteering Club program. Chapter 6 examines data illustrating whether small or large groups work better with the Reading Orienteering Club program format. This chapter also examines which age groups work best together. Chapter 7 looks at test data from a 2-year study that focused on including special needs students into the Reading Orienteering Club. This chapter discusses student needs that the Reading Orienteering Club program is most effective with. This chapter gives several case study examples. Chapter 8 is another 2-year study comparing the needs of children from poor socioeconomic housing projects with students from rural outlying areas. This chapter looks at the challenging needs of both of these community groups and shows how the Reading Orienteering Club was able to adapt to the needs of each group. With the Reading Orienteering Club’s design and development complete, Chapter 9 provides a test of the after-school group-centered format. This chapter highlights a highly successful year; the data explains how the Reading Orienteering Club was able to help students move up four grade levels in reading in 1 year. Chapter 10 is a retest of the Reading Orienteering Club and again shows students moving up four grade levels in reading in 1 year. Chapter 11 describes a change in leadership (from faculty to university student-run program) and illustrates how such a community-based program can become sustainable. Chapter 12 contains first-­person accounts from the research team and an explanation on how local community afterschool programs can use the group-centered theory, Reading Orienteering Club data, and program design presented in this book for their own local community programming needs. Chapter 12 also explains how a university professor and/or community leader can set up this type of reading program, staffed and operated by either students or volunteers. This book shows university service-learning project leaders and practitioners how to conduct program evaluation and make the necessary adjustments to a program based on the statistical findings of the evaluation. Like my other books, this book uses examples from the Reading Orienteering Club as my other books have done. The Reading Orienteering Club has been very successful and is a model that any school or community after-school program can implement. This book is the next step following my book After-School Prevention Programs for At-Risk Students: Promoting Engagement and Academic Success which gives step-by-step directions for designing an after-school program. Aiken, SC, USA

Elaine Clanton Harpine

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my appreciation to my husband, Bill, for his love and support throughout the entire project and for his patience and helpful comments on the text. I also want to thank Judy Jones, my editor and friend, for her support and help in the development of this book series on group-centered prevention programs. I would like to thank my grandson, Tyler, who visited at the reading clinic and said that “Grandma has the best books.” A big thank you to Laura Kate, Frankie, and Timothy: you were fantastic workers. A very special thank you goes to all of the children, youth, university students, community volunteers, parents, teachers, and university faculty whom I have had the pleasure of working with while developing the Reading Orienteering Club. A very special thank you to my many wonderful friends at St. John’s United Methodist Church in Aiken, South Carolina. We could not have helped so many children without your help and support. Thank you to the United Methodist Women for your many and continued years of financial support. Thank you to the staff at St. John’s: Harry Sampson, Rev. Dr. George Howle, and Rev. Dr. Tim McClendon. Thank you to the church volunteers from St. John’s who sign up each month to volunteer and make it possible for the program to continue, especially Donna Caprell Kraft and Lee Hedlund who give more than just 1 day a month. Thank you also to all of my student interns; you were wonderful. Thank you to every single person who made the 8-year development of the Reading Orienteering Club such a great success. Also, thanks to the new interns and community volunteers who are keeping the Reading Orienteering Club program going in Aiken. Always remember, we can teach children to read, and if you teach children to read, you can change the world. Elaine Clanton Harpine

xi

Contents

1 Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways to Stop Reading Failure? Does Intrinsic Motivation Contribute to Mental Wellness in the Classroom?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Elaine Clanton Harpine 2 Is Oral Reading Important in Correcting Reading Failure? ��������������   21 William D. Harpine 3 Is Group-Centered Better than Classroom Instruction for Teaching Reading? The Need for a Group-Centered Approach. Testing Two Group Methods������������������������������������������������   29 Elaine Clanton Harpine and Adam Pazda 4 How Do You Build a Group Program Based on the Principles of Intrinsic Motivation? Developing an After-School Program to Meet the Needs of all Students: Eight Years of Development����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   49 Elaine Clanton Harpine 5 Selecting the Best Evaluation Tool: Which is Better? Why? The 2009–2010 Group Report����������������������������������������������������������������   99 William D. Harpine, Christopher D. Bell, and Sarah Stevens 6 How Many Students Work Best in an After-School Program? Are Small Groups Better than Large After-School Programs? What Ages? The 2010–2011 Group Report ������������������������������������������  107 Bridget Coleman, Thomas Reid, and William D. Harpine 7 Which Reading Levels Work Best Together? Can we Include Students with Special Needs? The 2011–2013 Group Report��������������  117 Shana Ingram

xiii

xiv

Contents

8 Do Inner City and Rural Students Mix in a Reading Program? What Are the Challenges? The 2013–2015 Group Report ������������������  129 Anna Thompson and Keri Weed 9 Testing the Format? Does Group-Centered Prevention Work? A Very Successful Year. The 2015–2016 Group Report������������������������  135 Shana Ingram 10 Why Does Group-Centered Prevention Work When Other After-School Programs Fail? What Is the Role of Intrinsic Motivation? Retesting and Another Success Story. The 2016–2017 Group Report����������������������������������������������������������������  141 Thomas Reid and Elaine Clanton Harpine 11 Creating a Sustainable Ongoing After-­School Program. The Story of New Leadership ����������������������������������������������������������������  145 Collytte Cederstrom and Adam Pazda 12 Where Do We Go from Here? Comments from the Research Team: How Can You Apply What We Learned to Your Own After-School Reading Program?������������������������������������������������������������  149 Elaine Clanton Harpine, Keri Weed, Sarah Stevens, William D. Harpine, Bridget Coleman, Thomas Reid, Shana Ingram, Anna Thompson, Collytte Cederstrom, and Kayla Hamilton Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  169

Contributors

Christopher D. Bell, PhD  Augusta State University, Augusta, GA, USA Collytte Cederstrom, BA  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Elaine Clanton Harpine, PhD  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Bridget Coleman, PhD  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Kayla Hamilton  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA William D. Harpine, PhD  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Shana Ingram, MA  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Adam Pazda, PhD  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Thomas Reid, PhD  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Sarah Stevens, PhD  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Anna Thompson, MA  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA Keri Weed, PhD  University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA

xv

About the Editor

Elaine  Clanton  Harpine, PhD  is a motivational psychologist specializing in group-centered motivational program design. She has 47 years’ experience designing and conducting motivational prevention programs for children and youth. Dr. Clanton Harpine earned her doctorate in Educational Psychology, Counseling from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Clanton Harpine has published 17 nonfiction books, including Teaching At-Risk Students to Read: The Camp Sharigan Method (2016); Group-Centered Prevention in Mental Health: Theory, Training, and Practice (2015); After-School Prevention Programs for At-Risk Students: Promoting Engagement and Academic Success (2013); Prevention Groups (2013); Group-Centered Prevention Programs for At-Risk Students (2011); and Group Interventions in Schools: Promoting Mental Health for At-Risk Children and Youth (2008). Also, her book No Experience Necessary! which received an Award of Excellence in 1995 was selected as one of the top five children’s books in its class. Other published children’s writings include a two-volume series entitled Come Follow Me, in 2001, a three-volume family series completed in 2003, and a youth book in 1989 along with numerous articles for teenagers on peer pressure, coping with failure, alcohol abuse, parents, and suicide and more recently, articles on using group-centered interventions in the schools. Other published writings include a series on Erasing Failure in the Classroom and a series of ready-to-use group-centered program packets: Vol. 1, the Camp Sharigan program (third ed., 2016); Vol. 2, Vowel Clustering (2010); and Vol. 3, the Reading Orienteering Club (2017). Dr. Clanton Harpine has been interviewed on local early morning TV and radio concerning her workshop “Communication for Married Couples” and has been interviewed on local university radio concerning her work with inner-city children. Her research for the past 17 years has focused on using group-centered interventions with at-risk readers. Dr. Clanton Harpine designed the motivational reading program called Camp Sharigan, which she has used extensively in her work and research. She also designed the Reading Orienteering Club after-school prevention program and 4-Step Method for teaching at-risk children to read. Her research with xvii

xviii

About the Editor

these programs has been published in psychological journals and reported through presentations at the American Psychological Association’s annual conventions. In recent years, Dr. Clanton Harpine has taught Group Therapy and Counseling, Lifespan Development, and Human Growth and Development at the University of South Carolina Aiken and is continuing her research with group-centered prevention. She is the past editor for the “Prevention Corner” column which appears quarterly in The Group Psychologist. She was selected for inclusion in Who’s Who of American Women, 2006–2017, for her work with children in inner-city neighborhoods and at-risk communities. See her blog about teaching children to read: www.groupcentered.com; Follow her on Twitter at https://twitter.com/groupcentered

Chapter 1

Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways to Stop Reading Failure? Does Intrinsic Motivation Contribute to Mental Wellness in the Classroom? Elaine Clanton Harpine

The student had a behavior file more than 6 inches thick, had just been expelled from riding the school bus because of rude behavior, and was placed in the corner of the classroom and given coloring book pages and crayons each day at school. The student was told, “If you do not start a fight, you may sit here and color.” The student was in middle school but could not read at even the beginning kindergarten level, not even simple one syllable words. Three-and-a-half years after enrolling in my reading program, the student was reading, and the student’s behavior completely changed. School administrators asked, “What made you finally stop fighting?” The student answered, “She taught me to read.” Reading failure is a major problem in our society. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 70% of American prison inmates cannot read above the fourth grade level (National Center for Adult Literacy [NCAL], 2007). The National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2016) cites penal institution records to show that inmates who learn to read in prison show only a 16% probability of returning to prison while inmates who do not learn to read while in prison are 70% more likely to be reincarcerated. In the juvenile court system, 85% of adolescents and youth seen by the courts are classified as “functionally illiterate” and unable to read (National Center for Adult Literacy [NCAL], 2007). Two-thirds of students who cannot read at grade level by the end of fourth grade show a high probability of failure because 78% never catch up to their grade level (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2016). Michael Brunner (1993) of the Department of Justice said, “The link between academic failure and delinquency, violence, and crime is welded to reading failure.” Reading failure is not limited to those in prison. Among the general population, 21% of adults read below the fifth-grade level (National Center for Adult Literacy E. Clanton Harpine (*) University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 E. Clanton Harpine (ed.), After-School Programming and Intrinsic Motivation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22845-3_1

1

2

E. Clanton Harpine

[NCAL], 2007). In school, 63% of fourth graders cannot read at grade level, 64% of eighth graders read below grade level, and 63% of twelfth graders continue to read below grade level (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2017). In a 2016 NCES study, 40% of high school graduating seniors could not read at grade level as they walked across the stage and received their diploma. Reading failure is a growing problem that is getting worse instead of better.

Does Reading Failure Cause Academic Failure? Numerous research studies have demonstrated that there is a strong connection between reading failure and overall academic failure (Feliciano, 2001; Hoglund & Leadbeater, 2004; Snowden, 2005). Many researchers consider academic failure to be one of the major causes of adolescent anger and violence (Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010). Preventing academic failure is one of the principle tools used for reducing angry or violent behavior (Coll & Marks, 2012). Oral reading skills, fluency, weak decoding and encoding skills (phonemic and phonological awareness), and low comprehension are strong predictors of violent and aggressive behavior, hyperactivity, and antisocial actions (Toppelberg, Munir, & Nieto-Castañon, 2006). Reading failure has also been linked with dropping out of school before graduation and lifelong employment problems (Bryant, Schulenberg, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 2003; Cooper et al., 2006). To prevent academic failure, we must stop reading failure (Lyon, 1997). In 1998, G. Reid Lyon from the National Institute of Child Health and Child Development told Congress that correcting reading failure is essential, arguing that, if we correct reading failure in the first grade, then 90 to 95% of children improve and learn to read at grade level. He went on to explain that 75% of children who read below grade level at the end of third grade never overcome their reading problems (Lyon, 1998). Reading failure is a nationwide problem that we cannot continue to ignore, especially since we have the proven ability to stop reading failure. Poverty does not cause reading failure. Hair, Hanson, Wolfe, and Pollak (2015) state from their neuroimaging research that “…children from low-income households exhibit atypical structural development in several critical areas of the brain, including total gray matter and the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, and hippocampus” (p. 827). The frontal lobe of the brain is associated with memory, attention, emotional control, and overall general learning. The temporal lobe is vital for memory, long-term comprehension, word recognition, linking letters of the alphabet to phonemes, and relating meaning to words (Hair et al., 2015). Hair et al. (2015) concludes that low-socioeconomic status or poverty can have a direct influence on a child’s reading ability (Hair et al., 2015), but Meyler, Keller, Cherkassky, Gabrieli, and Just (2008) discovered through their neuroimaging studies that even struggling students from low-socioeconomic neighborhoods can succeed when an effective teaching method is used. Neuroimaging research has clearly demonstrated that at-­ risk readers from even low-socioeconomic households can be taught to read (Jednoróg et  al., 2012; Keller & Just, 2009). Teaching method is the key.

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

3

The gap between races is growing. The gap between the highest scoring students and the lowest scoring students is growing, especially among racial groups: 46% of white students scored proficient or able to read at or above grade level and 49% of Asian students scored proficient in reading, while only 17% of African-­American students and 25% of Hispanic students scored proficient (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2016). The reading gap is also affecting mental health. Approximately 75% of Hispanic children referred for psychiatric services have reading problems (Toppelberg et al., 2006).

Why Is Reading Failure a Mental Health Problem? Reading failure is more than merely an educational problem. Reading failure is a mental health concern. Reading failure is a school-based risk factor for mental health problems (Boyes, Leitao, Claessen, & Badc, 2016; Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014; Kuppen, Huss, Fosker, Fegan, & Goswami, 2011). Learning to read is essential for academic success, mental health, and well-being across the life span (Foorman, Breier, & Fletcher, 2003; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001; Robinson et al., 2017). The negative emotions or negative classroom events that surround reading failure increase the chances of mental illness (Berking, Orth, Wupperman, Meier, & Caspar, 2008). Estimate is that approximately 1 out of every 5 school children has a diagnosable mental health disorder (US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). Children who suffer from mental illness are at a higher risk for discipline problems, bullying, delinquency, substance abuse, and failure in school (Catalano et  al., 2003; Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001; Nastasi, Moore, & Varjas, 2004; Orfield & Lee, 2005). Reading failure causes classroom stress. Half of all health problems have a mental health component. Classroom stress from reading failure is one of the major contributors to mental illness with children and adolescents (Jaureguizar, Garaigordobil, & Bernaras, 2018; Maugban, Rowe, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2003). Reading failure is particularly damaging to a young child’s early development and perception of control (Chessman, McGuire, Shankweiler, & Coyne, 2009; Herman, Lambert, Reinke, & Ialongo, 2008; Oakhill & Cain, 2012; Pugh et  al., 2001). Children and adolescents internalize reading failure in the classroom. This sense of failure disrupts cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes (Sideridis, Simos, Mousaki, Stamovlasis, & Georgiau, 2018). The inability to regulate these feelings of failure can lead to dramatic behavior changes, anger, and even violence. This lack of control can also lead to withdrawal, insecurity, and dramatic mood changes (Sideridis et al., 2018). Failure contributes to stress that can trigger depression (Boyes et al., 2016; Galuschka, Ise, Krick, & Schulte-Korne, 2014). Students diagnosed with reading failure are 20% more likely to have anxiety disorders, 14.5% more likely to have depressive disorders, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is four times more prevalent among students who are at-risk for

4

E. Clanton Harpine

reading failure (Galuschka et al., 2014). Half of the children diagnosed with ADHD have a reading disorder, one-fourth of all children diagnosed with conduct disorder have reading problems, and 80% of children diagnosed with a learning disability have reading failure (NCLD, 2014). Reading failure in the classroom is not simply an educational problem; it is a mental health problem that can and often does follow students throughout their lives. Reading failure is a risk factor for depression and anxiety. Academic failure, particularly reading failure, can lead to early symptoms of depression and anxiety (Herman et al., 2008). Neurobiology research has shown that “excessive stress” disrupts neurodevelopment and has profound life-long effects on brain structure and mental functioning (Anda et al., 2007). The student’s inability to learn to read like other students in the classroom causes frustration. Frustration leads to agitation, anger, withdrawal, or in some cases social isolation (Morgan, Farkas, & Wu, 2012). Self-esteem, although it can be positive in the classroom (Boyes et al., 2016), is not enough for students who are failing (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003), especially students failing in reading. Students failing in reading need skills to correct their reading failure: positive words, no matter how well-intended, cannot teach a student to read (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Salmela-Aro, Moeller, Schneider, Spicer, & Lavonen, 2016). Reading failure and a student’s inability to meet classroom demands can be devastating. Research even shows that poor readers are more likely to contemplate or even attempt suicide because of their inability to learn to read (Daniel & Goldston, 2009). Therefore, both educators and mental health practitioners must begin to treat reading failure. We cannot continue to ignore the connection between reading failure and mental health, or to pretend that reading failure is a problem to be solved purely through education. Education alone is not enough.

 hy Are So Many Children Not Learning to Read W in the Classroom? In 2017, the Nation’s Report Card showed that only 37% of fourth grade students, 36% of eighth graders, and 37% of twelfth graders scored proficient or above in reading (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018). Be careful in reading these statistics because many believe that they say only 37% cannot read; that is not what the statistics show. To be labeled proficient, the student must be able to read at or above grade level. Therefore, only 37% of fourth graders across the nation were able to read at a fourth-grade level. That is less than half. Eighth grade statistics were even worse—only 36% could read at the eighth-grade level and only 37% could read at grade level by the time they reached twelfth grade. The National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] (2016) also stated that because of low reading scores 40% of high school graduating seniors in 2015 were not ready to go on to college.

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

5

Why are so many students failing to learn to read? Our reliance upon whole language teaching methods is one of the main reasons so many students are failing reading in school. As Dr. Pressley, Graham, and Harris (2006) explained, “At best, much of whole-language thinking…is obsolete, and at worst, much of it never was well informed about children and their intellectual development” (p. 23). Yet even this year as I sit writing this book, most public schools refuse to stop using whole language. Reading failure is not a new problem. As far back as 1929  in the Journal of Educational Psychology, whole language or whole word was declared a failure. Samuel T. Orton’s research stated that “Whole Word,” as it was then labeled, was a “faulty teaching method” that prevented children from learning to read and that such reading failure could cause serious emotional and mental health problems (Orton, 1929). Dr. Orton was ignored. Jeanne Sternlicht Chall, Harvard researcher and author of Learning to Read: The Great Debate, stated very clearly in 1967, after visiting hundreds of classrooms and examining numerous textbooks, that knowledge of letter sounds and decoding skills helped children learn to read better than “look say” word recognition (Chall, 1967). Again, no one listened. The Great Debate continued. Barbara Foorman (1995), one of the leading researchers in reading, stated in her article on “The Great Debate” that whole language simply does not work. She then went on to present study after study demonstrating why whole language has failed. Still, whole language prevailed. In 1997, Congress requested that the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the Department of Education create the National Reading Panel to choose the best method for teaching students to read. The panel reviewed 100,000 studies and clearly stated that phonemic awareness was a better method for teaching students to read than whole language. After the National Reading Panel’s report was published, many educators started talking about “balanced reading” or what is now referred to as “balanced literacy.” Louisa Moates (2007) states very clearly that “balanced literacy” is just a disguise or another name for whole language. The schools’ emphasis is still on whole language, which as Moates states, prevents many children from learning to read. In 2015, scientists conducted neuroimaging studies comparing whole language and phonemic awareness teaching methods and found phonemic awareness to be much better than whole language (Yoncheva, Wise, & McCandliss, 2015). Yet after all of this research and proof that whole language does not work, the predominant method still being used in public schools today is whole language, whole word, “look say,” or “balanced literacy.” Many schools claim that they have changed and disguise their whole language preference by saying that they use a “balanced literacy” method. “Balanced literacy” is just another word for whole language with phonics tacked on. As some whole language advocates state, “the term whole language may not be used however the philosophy is alive and well in each state system” (Cambourne & Turbill, 2007 p. 25). Whole language causes reading failure. Neuroimaging research clearly shows that at-risk students can be taught to read, even students who have previously failed in the classroom (Keller & Just, 2009). It is not the students. In most cases, it is not the teachers. The problem (and the reason) that we are failing to teach children to read is the method that we are using to teach reading (Foorman et al., 2003; Lyon,

6

E. Clanton Harpine

2002; Rayner et  al., 2001). Will adding phonics onto whole language (“blended literacy”) correct the staggering number of students who are failing in reading nationwide? No, whole language will never be effective. It is simply wrong and has been proven to be wrong since 1929. Phonemic awareness is better than whole language. The battle over which teaching method is better—whole language, traditional phonics rules, or phonemic awareness—has been raging for over 20 years. Neuroimaging research has shown conclusively with irrefutable evidence that students do learn and better remember what they learn through phonemic decoding instruction rather than whole language “look-say” teaching techniques. As Yoncheva et al. (2015) demonstrated in a direct neuroimaging comparison between phonemic awareness and whole language, the brain responds better to phonemic awareness (teaching letter sounds) than memorization or “look-say” techniques. Yoncheva went on to say that it is much better to teach a child to sound out “c-a-t” than to teach a child to memorize the word “cat.” Neuroimaging research has provided visual proof that phonemic awareness (teaching that letters represent sounds) is better than whole language (look-say, Reading Recovery, or even blended literacy methods). As Meyler et al. (2008) demonstrate through their neuroimaging research, intensive training in phonemes, that is letter sounds, changes the “brain and the way it functions” so that poor readers make measurable gains in their reading ability. Teaching letter sounds (phonemes) enables students who failed under “whole language” teaching techniques to learn to read successfully (Keller & Just, 2009). Blended methods do not work. None of the various whole language teaching techniques (not even blended literacy) teach phonemic awareness or phoneme-­focused phonological decoding skills. To teach phonemic awareness means that you are teaching students to break words down into letter sounds (decoding). Then, the student learns to put those letter sounds back together and pronounce or read the word (encoding). Phonemic awareness is a two-step process that does not involve memorizing word lists or rules; it is not the same as teaching phonics. As the neuroimaging studies demonstrated, whole language teaching methods do not help students change the white matter of the brain but phonemic awareness skills can (Keller & Just, 2009). Phonemic awareness and decoding skills training are essential if at-­risk students are to learn to read (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2007). Being able to watch children’s brains as they learn to read offers a whole new wealth of knowledge to the reading wars. Yes, phonics is better than whole language. Unfortunately, even at best, phonics education will still leave most struggling, at-risk students in the failing category (Kilpatrick, 2016). Why? Phonics does not teach letter–sound relationships in the same way that the brain processes letter–sound associations. Phonics focuses on the letter; the brain focuses on sounds. As Dr. Sally Shaywitz, M. D. (Shaywitz, 2003) explains, “Children do not learn to read by memorizing a word list. Most children, especially those who struggle in reading, do not learn to read by memorizing phonics rules” (p.  78). We will look more directly at a comparison between phonics and phonemic awareness in chapter 4. For now, we will summarize by stating that (1) neuroimaging research shows that every form of “whole l­ anguage”

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

7

is a failure and needs to be removed from any and all school classrooms and (2) phonemic awareness and phonics are not the same. They are much different.

Why Is Phonemic Awareness So Important? Phonemic awareness means being able to hear, recognize, create, and use letter sounds or phonemes (Shaywitz, 2003). In 2000, after reviewing over 100,000 studies, the National Reading Panel (NRP) concluded that neither whole language nor traditional phonics rules teach phonemic awareness (understanding or use of letter sounds). As Shaywitz (2003) states, children learning to read must be competent in decoding words into letter sounds and then encoding those sounds back into pronounceable words. Phonemic awareness teaches letter sounds. Rewiring the brain. Based on their neuroimaging research, Keller and Just (2009) state that it is possible to “rewire a brain’s white matter” through a minimum of 100  hours of intensive phonological decoding training. They explained that they could see the “brain wiring changes” as change was occurring (Keller & Just, 2009). These changes correlated directly with improved reading scores by the at-risk students in the study. Gianaros, Marsland, Sheu, Erickson, and Verstynen (2012) supported these concepts by stating that growth and development in the white matter translates to positive academic achievement. Lyon and Chhabra (2004) contend that if we are to prevent reading failure, then schools and educators must begin to act upon scientific and neurological evidence rather than clinging to old disproved “whole language” theories.

 ow Can Prevention Programs Reduce Mental Health H Concerns? Prevention programs which correct reading failure reduce the risk of depression and other health-risk behaviors (Fleming, Harachi, Cortes, Abbott, & Catalano, 2004; Kellam, Rebok, Mayer, Ialongo, & Kalodner, 1994). If reading failure is reversed before it becomes a major source of stress, students are more likely to succeed academically and socially (Greenberg et al., 2003). Improvement in reading skills helps to bring about improvement in mental health (Maugban et al., 2003). Teaching students to read is one of the best ways to prevent academic failure and provide supportive mental health services to children, teens, and the community (Boyes et al., 2016; Kern et al., 2017; Salmela-Aro et al., 2016). Early intervention through prevention programs is showing positive results. Prevention programs that reduce reading failure, especially early elementary programs, help to reduce the risk of academic failure, violence, and mental health dis-

8

E. Clanton Harpine

orders (Curby, Rudasill, Edwards, & Pérez-Edgar, 2011). Longitudinal research shows a reduction in violence, underage drinking, teen pregnancy, unruly behavior, and academic failure (Berking et al., 2008). Groups can correct reading failure. The National Reading Panel (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of over 100,000 studies, finding that small groups were more effective than one-on-one tutoring or classroom instruction for teaching children to read. Groups are also a highly effective means of counseling with children (Kulic, Horne, & Dagley, 2004). Reading groups can also stigmatize children; therefore, we cannot simply place children in a group and think that a mere reading group will take care of reading failure. Reading groups have been used for years and have failed (NRP 2000). If we are to correct reading failure and undo the damage caused by failure in the classroom, we will need more than a mere reading group. A successful reading failure prevention program must teach students to read effectively and erase failure’s psychological stigmatizing effects. Groups have proven to be more effective than one-on-one-tutoring in reading. Why did the National Reading Panel find that groups were more effective than oneon-one tutoring (NRP, 2000)? Such doesn’t seem possible, but it is true because groups provide a real-world classroom type setting for children and teens that one-­ on-­one tutoring cannot match. If the problem originated in the classroom, the solution can often best be learned in a structured group classroom type setting. Groups encourage students to try and develop new ways to learn. They also facilitate  interaction and cohesion (Finn, Gerber, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2005). Groups allow failing students to work on the classroom problems from peer pressure, teasing, bullying, academic failure, and the need for acceptance (Horne, Stoddard, & Bell, 2007). Group prevention can boost mental and psychological well-being. Structured group experiences help students heal from the pain and perception of being a failure. Working with other struggling students in a structured prevention group in a supportive, cohesive atmosphere encourages academic success (Brigman & Webb, 2007). Students are intrinsically motivated while participating in an effective group program. Groups have a therapeutic healing power (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Negative classroom experiences, such as reading failure, can lead to academic failure, depression, and anxiety problems that may follow a student throughout their life span (Rodriguez, Bingham Mira, Paez, & Myers, 2007; Salmela-Aro et al., 2016). Once a student fails in the classroom, that perception and classroom experience can become a life-long sentence of failure (Coll & Marks, 2012; Rodriguez et al., 2007; Torgesen et al., 2001). However, if we can turn failure around and create a positive prevention group experience, then the prevention group can become a protective influence (Gloria, Castellanos, & Orozco, 2005). Reading is essential for mental health and overall success in life; therefore, we must create positive prevention groups that can prevent reading failure and the mental health problems reading failure causes (Maugban et al., 2003). Reading prevention group programs that correct reading failure can provide a learning experience that can meet the mental health needs of at-risk students, but the prevention group must treat both the educational and counseling needs of the students (Boyes et al., 2016; Salmela-Aro et al., 2016).

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

9

Prevention groups create a safe learning environment. A group atmosphere can be effective with at-risk students because groups create a nonviolent, safe, accepting atmosphere in which to learn. Reading skills learned in a group prevention program are also easier for at-risk students to transfer back to the classroom; however, simply placing students in a circle of chairs or a traditional reading group is not the answer; neither is merely enrolling students in an after-school program. Although afterschool programs can be effective, their value depends on the teaching methods that the prevention group or after-school program uses.

 hat Should the Role of After-School Programs W be in Correcting Reading Failure? According to a survey conducted by the Afterschool Alliance in 2014, 10.2 million children are enrolled in after-school programs; unfortunately, another 11.3 million children go home alone after school unsupervised. The Afterschool Alliance (2014) states that there is a strong need and desire by parents for more after-school programing. After-school programs can provide positive academic, emotional, and developmental benefits (Lynch et al., 2016). Regrettably, not all after-school programs produce positive results (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Yohalem & Wilson-­ Ahlstrom, 2010). Mere participation in an after-school program does not lead to academic improvement (Roth, Malone, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010). The quality of the program and how the program is implemented are the keys to success for after-­ school programing (Cross, Gottfredson, Wilson, Rorie, & Connell, 2010). Durlak, Weissberg, and Pachan (2010) call for increased research on effective ways to improve after-school programming and insist that future research should look at how after-school programs affect student outcomes.

 ow Does Group-Centered Prevention Differ H from an Ordinary Classroom? This book looks at how introducing 12 different teaching methods and 6 different counseling interventions into a group-centered after-school reading retraining program that stressed intrinsic motivation changed student outcomes in reading, spelling, and comprehension in one community. This book combines the perspectives of a university research team’s efforts to link theory, research, and practice. This book also demonstrates how a group-centered after-school program can expand the outreach of community education and mental health services. Group-centered after-school programs provide a perfect counseling atmosphere. Group-centered prevention is much more than just an educational technique. In keeping with the demand for a new approach for teaching reading (Lyon,

10

E. Clanton Harpine

2002), group-centered prevention goes beyond mere classroom instruction. Group-­ centered after-school prevention programs combine learning interventions with counseling or therapeutic interventions (Clanton Harpine, 2015). Baskin, Slaten, Sorenson, Gover-Russell, and Merson (2010) demonstrated in their research that learning and therapy alike are enhanced when combined in the same program. The group-centered approach’s ultimate goal is to enable students, regardless of their socioeconomic or ethnic background, to return to the classroom and succeed (Clanton Harpine, 2008). Why would a group-centered teaching approach be a better method for teaching phonemic awareness and reading? Group-centered teaching is a multifaceted teaching method. It not only teaches phonemic and phonological awareness (recognizing and using letter sounds) through a method called vowel clustering, but oral reading, spelling, comprehension, writing, and social skills for the classroom (Clanton Harpine, 2013a). All students need to learn how to speak, read, write, and work with the English language (Coll & Marks, 2012; Gándara & Contreras, 2010). Jones, Greenberg, and Crowley (2015) concluded from their 20-year longitudinal study that students must have social and emotional skill development if they are to succeed in the classroom. Many groups or after-school programs do not incorporate educational skill-building alongside social skill-building. The group-centered approach includes both learning and counseling in the same program. This includes both cognitive and noncognitive skills. Cognitive skills are labeled as educational skill-building—learning to read (Foorman, Herrera, Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, 2015). Noncognitive skills include behavior, emotional control, self-­ regulation, attention or focusing on a task, and social skills that enable a child to interact more successfully with others in the classroom (Jones et al., 2015). These noncognitive skills must be structured into the group program; they do not happen automatically (Jones et al., 2015). You cannot simply teach reading in the morning and social skills in the afternoon. Reading and social skills must be taught at the same time. Reading instruction is more effective when combined with counseling or therapeutic interventions (Adelman & Taylor, 2006; Brigman & Webb, 2007; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Huang et al., 2005). Baskin et al. (2010) and associates state that we need a program that combines both educational instruction and therapeutic counseling in the same program. Therapeutic intervention is not enough. We must correct reading failure if we want to successfully correct aggressive behavior and academic failure. A group-centered after-school program can provide this new teaching and counseling method. Group-centered after-school programs include therapeutic interventions. Group-centered creative art interventions can help at-risk children change unwanted, disruptive classroom behaviors and foster psychological development and well-­ being as well as academic success. Creative art interventions have a healing, therapeutic quality (Malchiodi, 2011). When combined with the therapeutic structure of group process, group-centered creative art interventions can be used to help children relax, focus, and learn new group behaviors (Lusebrink, 2010). Creative art therapy has a long-standing history as a therapeutic intervention (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Group-centered interventions integrate counseling with learning, making full use of

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

11

cohesive interaction and group process, stress intrinsic (internal) motivation rather than extrinsic (rewards or prizes), and seek to develop self-efficacy (belief that the student can accomplish a task—learn to read) rather than self-esteem (feeling good about oneself). Research has shown that even psychotherapy is more effective when combined with academic learning (Baskin et al., 2010). A group-centered prevention approach provides the framework for building community-based after-school programs that can bring about change. Group-centered after-school programs include intrinsic motivation. School climate and the learning atmosphere in a classroom have been determined through research to be an important variable for academic success (Maxwell, Reynolds, Lee, Subasic, & Bromhead, 2017). Research shows that intrinsic motivation is one of the key elements in creating a learning environment conducive to academic achievement (Taylor et  al., 2014). Intrinsically motivating activities challenge students, offer something new, and help students build self-efficacy through skill-building. The more involved a student becomes in the learning process, the more likely the student is to see improvement in academic learning, achievement scores, and personal satisfaction (Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Reeve & Lee, 2014). Improved engagement also leads to higher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Engagement refers to the student’s “active involvement” in the learning process—not merely sitting back and listening. Engagement is hands-on learning that enhances attention, the effort put forth in learning something new, and the persistence demonstrated in completing a task. Meta-analysis and field studies have shown intrinsic motivation to be the most important motivation that leads to academic success (Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Taylor et al., 2014). Intrinsic motivation is best defined as the desire “to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacity to explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). Unfortunately, extrinsic motivation, the most commonly used form of motivation in school classrooms, can totally kill intrinsic desire and motivation (Deci, Koestner, Ryan, & Cameron, 2001). A meta-analysis of 128 studies examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. As predicted, engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-­ contingent rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation …. Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999, p. 627).

Neuroimaging research shows the same effects; extrinsic rewards completely destroy intrinsic motivation in educational settings (Di Domenico & Ryan, 2017; Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma, & Matsumoto, 2010). This is why group-centered prevention programs use only intrinsic motivation—no rewards, no prizes, no incentives. Intrinsic motivation helps students achieve their full potential (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Ryan & Di Domenico, 2016). Neuroimaging research is also showing that intrinsic motivation enhances learning, academic performance, and psychological well-being (Di Domenico & Ryan, 2017). In the Reading Orienteering Club, hands­on learning and creative art therapy techniques are used to enhance intrinsic motivation and thereby improve academic learning.

12

E. Clanton Harpine

The Reading Orienteering Club is a group-centered after-school prevention program. The Reading Orienteering Club (Clanton Harpine, 2013b) is more than just a way to teach children how to read. The Reading Orienteering Club is an after-­ school reading program and a therapeutic counseling program combined. If you want to correct the mental harms and damages caused by reading failure, you must therapeutically alleviate the pain and insecurity caused by reading failure. In a 2018 study, Davidai and Gilovich state that 76% of their responders said that their biggest regret in life was not fulfilling their “ideal self.” The researchers defined ideal self in the study as self-identification of the qualities that you want to have in life (Davidai & Gilovich, 2018). When children and teens evaluate their life, their self-­ concept, and their place among their peers, failing to live up to their “ideal self” becomes a major psychological problem that can last throughout the life span. A group-centered after-school program, such as the Reading Orienteering Club, can help students accomplish one aspect of their ideal self by teaching students to read at age level and to return to the classroom and be successful among their peers. A group-centered teaching approach is more than just a group of children or a reading circle. The group-centered approach is a structured teaching plan that incorporates the multilayered advantages of using group process, educational skill-building (phonemic awareness skills and reading), and therapeutic counseling interventions. Group-centered teaching methods emphasize interactive group process and cohesion, combine counseling and learning in the same program, and teach new skills through hands-on interactive interventions (no worksheets). The Reading Orienteering Club also provides a safe learning environment where everyone is accepted, focuses on the causes of reading failure (lack of phonemic awareness), incorporates intrinsic motivation (internal) rather than extrinsic (prizes, stickers, awards, pizza parties), and rebuilds self-efficacy (belief that a student can learn to read). We were working with students who lived in a state and community that showed very poor reading scores. The average reading scores for fourth grade in South Carolina for 2017 were lower than the national average; indeed, in that year scores were even lower than they were in 2015. South Carolina students rated on the Nation’s Report Card at 29% proficient for fourth grade in 2017. The national average on the Nation’s Report Card was 37% proficient. That means that 37% of the fourth graders who took the test were able to score at the fourth-grade reading level or above. In South Carolina, only 29% of the fourth graders who took the test were able to score at the fourth-grade reading level. Both percentages are shamefully low. Reading failure is a major nationwide problem. In the local community where we were working, the local public schools were below the state average and they had not shown a significant change in reading scores between 2008 and 2015. For fourth grade readers in the lower tenth or 25th percentile brackets, the scores were even lower. Students in our program showed significant improvement, even though students in the surrounding community and state were not (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018).

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

13

Conclusion Reading failure multiplies across the life span. Once a child begins to struggle, reading failure seeps into every aspect of a child’s life. Poor readers struggle to write, often have illegible handwriting, do not like to read, cannot read their social studies or science texts, struggle with story problems in math, and almost never volunteer to read out loud in class. If reading failure is the first step that leads to academic failure, then correcting reading failure early can correct many school-based mental health problems (Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Group-centered interventions provide a safe group environment for learning, focus on the root causes of the problem (lack of phonemic awareness, comprehension, fluency, handwriting, and spelling), stress group interaction (no lectures), combine learning and counseling in the same program, use intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivators, and rebuild self-efficacy (the child’s belief that they can learn and succeed). The group-centered approach provides a systematic structure for teaching phonemic awareness and a teaching method that engages all students from the beginning to the end of the program (Clanton Harpine, 2015). Group-centered interventions encompass new ways of teaching through hands­on exploratory activities. Group-centered learning techniques can encourage children to want to learn by using intrinsic motivators (learning for the sake of learning) rather than extrinsic (bribes and awards), emphasizing creativity, and by strengthening a student’s self-determination, commitment, perseverance, and control of their actions and behavior (Kvarme et  al., 2010; Linley & Proctor, 2013). Group programs provide skills that are easier to transfer back to the classroom (Pai, Sears, & Maeda, 2015). This becomes important in school because at-risk students need to be accepted by their peers, to display academic accomplishment, and to develop a positive self-identity in the environment of the school classroom. Positive group interventions strengthen the feeling of belonging, the sense of trust, and a level of acceptance that makes change possible (Marmarosh, Dunton, & Amendola, 2014). Creativity is important. For the classroom, creativity can mean being open and accepting to a new approach to learning (Theeboom, Beersma, & Van Vianen, 2015). All group-centered interventions include purposeful interaction, equal participation and acceptance, intrinsic (internal) rather than extrinsic motivators (candy, prizes, stickers, or pizza parties), and lead to improved self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) or the belief that the student can actually improve. The group-centered approach focuses on the root cause of reading failure and offers the best solution for teaching students how to read and be successful in the classroom. Group-centered after-school programs provide the best platform with which to accomplish both academic and psychological success with students. After-school prevention programs that focus on reteaching reading skills using research-based interventions, particularly phonemic awareness (letter sounds), rather than traditional classroom methods can be effective in correcting reading failure (Clanton Harpine, 2013a; Foorman et  al., 2016). An after-school reading program can correct problems that typical classroom instruction cannot. We have

14

E. Clanton Harpine

the research and the data to prove that group-centered after-school prevention methods work. Yet simply enrolling a student in an after-school program does not guarantee success. Many after-school programs are total failures. Therefore, we need to know how to create a successful after-school program. This book follows the development and success of one university–community collaborative after-school project designed to correct reading failure. Through our Reading Orienteering Club program, some students moved up four grade levels in reading in 1 year. Group-centered after-school programs can be the answer to correcting reading failure. After-school programs work where classroom teaching methods fail because group-centered after-school programs combine learning and counseling in the same program. By combining learning (reading) and counseling in one group-centered after-­ school program, as our program does, an after-school reading clinic becomes a hands-on learning center as well as a therapeutic counseling program. If we can incorporate group counseling interventions into our after-school programming, we will be able to help many children and teens who presently go without mental health support. Although some students will always be able to learn to read and write proficiently using traditional classroom instruction methods, over half of the students across the nation are not learning to read proficiently under the traditional methods being used in the classroom (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2017). Such a high level of failure demonstrates a definite need to change how we teach students to read (de Graaf, Bosman, Hasselman, & Verhoeven, 2009; Galuschka et al., 2014). Research demonstrates that using a group prevention approach with children has been successful academically while improving mental well-being and the ability to learn (Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Pierson, 2001). Therefore, the studies in this book measure the effectiveness of a program that uses group-centered prevention techniques with first through third grade at-risk students in an after-­ school reading project to help at-risk students learn to read at their appropriate age level.

References Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2006). Mental health in schools and public health. Public Health Report, 121, 294–298. Afterschool Alliance. (2014). America after 3PM: Afterschool programs in demand. Washington, DC: Afterschool Alliance. Anda, R.  F., Brown, D.  W., Felitti, V.  J., Bremner, J.  D., Dube, S.  R., & Giles, W.  H. (2007). Adverse childhood experiences and prescribed psychotropic medications in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.005 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

15

Baskin, T.  W., Slaten, C.  D., Sorenson, C., Gover-Russell, J., & Merson, D.  N. (2010). Does youth psychotherapy improve academically related outcomes? A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019652 Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44. Berking, M., Orth, U., Wupperman, P., Meier, L.  L., & Caspar, F. (2008). Prospective effects of emotion-regulation skills on emotional adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013589 Boyes, M. E., Leitao, S., Claessen, M., & Badc, N. A. (2016). Why are reading difficulties associated with mental health problems? Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 22, 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1531 Brigman, G., & Webb, L. (2007). Student success skills: Impacting achievement through large and small group work. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 283–292. Brooks-Gunn, J.  (2003). Do you believe in magic? What we can expect from early childhood intervention programs. Social Policy Report: Giving Child and Youth Development Knowledge Away, 17, 3–14. Brunner, M. (1993). Retarding America: The imprisonment of potential. Portland, Oregon: Halcyon House. Bryant, A., Schulenberg, J., O’Malley, P., Bachman, J., & Johnston, L. (2003). How academic achievement, attitudes, and behaviors relate to the course of substance use during adolescence: A 6-year, multinational longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 361–397. Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13. Cambourne, B.  L., & Turbill, J.  B. (2007). Looking back to look forward: Understanding the present by revisiting the past: An Australian perspective. International Journal of Progressive Education, 3, 8–29. Catalano, R. F., Mazza, J. J., Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 143–164. Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw Hill. Chessman, E. A., McGuire, J. M., Shankweiler, D., & Coyne, M. (2009). First-year teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and its instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 32, 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409339685 Clanton Harpine, E. (2008). Group interventions in schools: Promoting mental health for at-risk children and youth. New York: Springer. Clanton Harpine, E. (2013a). After-school prevention programs for at-risk students: Promoting engagement and academic success. New York: Springer. Clanton Harpine, E. (2013b). Erasing failure in the classroom, vol. 3: The Reading Orienteering Club, using vowel clustering in an after-school program. North Augusta, SC: Group-Centered Learning. Clanton Harpine, E. (2015). Group-centered prevention in mental health: Theory, training, and practice. New York: Springer. Coll, C. G., & Marks, A. K. (2012). The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a developmental risk. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1–6. Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

16

E. Clanton Harpine

Cross, A. B., Gottfredson, D. C., Wilson, D. M., Rorie, M., & Connell, N. (2010). Implementation quality and positive experiences in after-school programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9295-z Curby, T. W., Rudasill, K. M., Edwards, T., & Pérez-Edgar, K. (2011). The role of classroom quality in ameliorating the academic and social risk associated with difficult temperament. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023042 Daniel, S. S., & Goldston, D. B. (2009). Interventions for suicidal youth: A review of the literature and developmental considerations. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 39, 252–268. https:// doi.org/10.1521/suli.2009.39.3.252 Davidai, S., & Gilovich, T. (2018). How should we think about American's perceptions of socio-­ economic mobility? Judgment and Decision Making, 13, 297–304. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668. Deci, E.  L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.  M., & Cameron, J.  (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again: Comment/reply. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–51. de Graaf, S., Bosman, A. M. T., Hasselman, F., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Systematic phonics instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088843.0903001308 Di Domenico, S. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation; a new frontier in self-determination research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00145 Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6 Feliciano, C. (2001). The benefits of biculturalism: Exposure to immigrant culture and dropping out of school among Asian and Latino youths. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 865–879. Finn, J.  D., Gerber, S.  B., & Boyd-Zaharias, J.  (2005). Small classes in the early grades, academic achievement, and graduating from high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 214–223. Fleming, C.  B., Harachi, T.  W., Cortes, R.  C., Abbott, R.  D., & Catalano, R.  F. (2004). Level and change in reading scores and attention problems during elementary school as predictors of problem behavior in middle school. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 130–144. Foorman, B.  R. (1995). Research on ‘the great Debate’: Code-oriented versus whole language approaches to reading instruction. School Psychology Review, 24, 376–392. Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 203–212. Foorman, B. R., Breier, J. I., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Interventions aimed at improving reading success: An evidence-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24, 613–639. Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., Petscher, Y., Mitchell, A., & Truckenmiller, A. (2015). The structure of oral language and reading and their relationship to comprehension in kindergarten through grade 2. Reading and Writing, 28, 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9544-5 Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C.  A., Dimino, J., et  al. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016–4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Froiland, J.  M., & Worrell, F.  C. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 321–336. https://doi. org/10.1002/pits.21901

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

17

Galuschka, K., Ise, E., Krick, K., & Schulte-Korne, G. (2014). Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities. PLoS One, 9(2), e89900. Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2010). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gianaros, P.  J., Marsland, A.  L., Sheu, L.  K., Erickson, K.  I., & Verstynen, T.  D. (2012). Inflammatory pathways link socioeconomic inequalities to white matter architecture. Cerebral Cortex, 23, 2058–2071. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs191 Gloria, A. M., Castellanos, J., & Orozco, V. (2005). Perceived educational barriers, cultural fit, coping responses, and psychological Well-being of Latina undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 161–183. Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention and Treatment, 4, Article 0001a. Retrieved May 9, 2005, from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume 4/pre0040001a.html Greenberg, M., Weissberg, R.  P., O'Brien, M.  U., Zins, J.  E., Fredricks, L., Resnick, H., et  al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466 Hair, N.  L., Hanson, J.  L., Wolfe, B.  L., & Pollak, S.  D. (2015). Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediactrics, 169, 822–829. https://doi. org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475 Herman, K. C., Lambert, S. F., Reinke, W. M., & Ialongo, N. S. (2008). Low academic competence in first grade as a risk factor for depressive cognitions and symptoms in middle school. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 400–410. Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2004). The effects of family, school, and classroom ecologies on changes in children's social competence and emotional and behavioral problems in first grade. Developmental Psychology, 40, 533–544. Horne, A. M., Stoddard, J. L., & Bell, C. D. (2007). Group approaches to reducing aggression and bullying in school. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 262–271. https://doi. org/10.1037/1089-2699.11.4.262 Huang, L., Stroul, B., Friedman, R., Mrazek, P., Friesen, B., Pires, S., et al. (2005). Transforming mental health care for children and their families. American Psychologist, 60, 615–627. Jaureguizar, J., Garaigordobil, M., & Bernaras, E. (2018). Self-concept, social skills, and resilience as moderators of the relationship between stress and childhood depression. School Mental Health, 10, 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310 Jednoróg, K., Altarelli, I., Monzalvo, K., Fluss, J., Dubois, J., Billard, C., et al. (2012). The influence of socioeconomic status on children’s brain structure. PLoS One, 7, e42486. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042486 Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence in future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 2283–2290. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630 Keller, T. A., & Just, M. A. (2009). Altering cortical connectivity: Remediation-induced changes in the white matter of poor readers. Neuron, 64, 624–631. Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., Ialongo, N., & Kalodner, C. R. (1994). Depressive symptoms over first grade and their response to a developmental epidemiological based preventive trial aimed at improving achievement. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 463–481. Kern, L., Mathur, S. R., Albrecht, S. F., Poland, S., Rozalski, M., & Russell, J. S. (2017). The need for school-based mental health services and recommendations for implementation. School Mental Health, 9, 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9216-5 Kilpatrick, D. A. (2016). Equipped for reading success: A comprehensive, step-by-step program for developing phonemic awareness and fluent word recognition. Syracuse, NY: Casey & Kirsch Publishers. Kulic, K. R., Horne, A. M., & Dagley, J. C. (2004). A comprehensive review of prevention groups for children and adolescents. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 139–151.

18

E. Clanton Harpine

Kuppen, S., Huss, M., Fosker, T., Fegan, N., & Goswami, U. (2011). Basic auditory processing skills and phonological awareness in low IQ readers and typically developing controls. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 211–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/108884311003706291 Kvarme, L. G., Helseth, S., Sorum, R., Luth-Hansen, V., Haugland, S., & Natvig, G. K. (2010). The effect of a solution-focused approach to improve self-efficacy to improve self-efficacy in socially withdrawn school children: A non-randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 1389–1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.05.001 Linley, P. A., & Proctor, C. (2013). Surveying the landscape of positive psychology for children and adolescents. In C. Proctor & P. A. Linley (Eds.), Research applications and interventions for children and adolescents: A positive psychology perspective (pp. 1–9). New York: Springer. Lynch, A. D., Ferris, K. A., Burkhard, B., Wang, J., Hershberg, R. M., & Lerner, R. M. (2016). Character development within youth development programs: Exploring multiple dimensions of activity involvement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57, 73–86. https://doi. org/10.1002/ajcp.12035 Lyon, G. R. (July 10, 1997). Hearing on literacy: Why kids can’t read. Testimony before the committee on education and the workforce. U.S. house of representatives. Retrieved November 27, 2006, From. http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/pdf/lyon_testimonies.pdf Lyon, G. R. (April 28, 1998). Overview of reading and literacy initiatives. Testimony before the committee on labor and human resources, senate Dirksen building. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/pdf/lyon_testimonies.pdf Lyon, G. R. (2002). Reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction educational and public health issues. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 3–6. Lyon, G. R., & Chhabra, V. (2004). What research says about reading. Educational Leadership, 61, 12–17. Lusebrink, V. B. (2010). Assessment and therapeutic application of the expressive therapies continuum. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 24, 166–170. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08322473.2015.1100581 Malchiodi, C. A. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of art therapy. New York: Guilford Press. Marmarosh, C. L., Dunton, E. C., & Amendola, C. (2014). Groups fostering a culture of change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Maugban, R. R., Rowe, R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2003). Reading problems and depressed mood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 219–229. Maxwell, S., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2017). The impact of school climate and school identification on academic achievement: Multilevel modeling with student and teacher data. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2069. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02069 Meyler, A., Keller, T.  A., Cherkassky, V.  L., Gabrieli, J.  D., & Just, M.  A. (2008). Modifying the brain activation of poor readers during sentence comprehension with extended remedial instruction: A longitudinal study of neuroplasticity. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2580–2592. Moates, L. (2007). Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction” isn’t. Washington DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Morgan, P.  L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2012). Do poor readers feel angry, sad, and unpopular? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 360–381. Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., & Matsumoto, K. (2010). Neural basis of the undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 20911–20916. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1013305107 Nastasi, B.  K., Moore, R.  B., & Varjas, K.  M. (2004). School-based mental health services: Creating comprehensive and culturally specific programs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. National Center for Adult Literacy [NCAL]. (2007). The condition of education 2007 (NCES 2007– 064). National Center for education statistics, National Institute of Literacy. Washington, D C: U.S. Department of Education.

1  Why Is an After-School Group-Centered Reading Program One of the Best Ways…

19

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016–144). Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017–144). Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2018). The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018–144). Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH publication no. 00–4754). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91–121. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10888438.2010.529219 Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. In The civil right project at Harvard University. Cambridge, MA. Orton, S. T. (1929). The “sight reading” method of teaching reading, as a source of reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072112 Pai, H., Sears, D.  A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on transfer: A meta-­analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10648-014-9260-8 Prilleltensky, I., Nelson, G., & Pierson, L. (2001). The role of power and control in children’s lives: An ecological analysis of pathways toward wellness, resilience and problems. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 143–158. Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X66035 Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Lee, J. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., et al. (2001). Neuroimaging studies of reading development and reading disability. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 16, 240–249. Rayner, K., Foorman, B.  R., Perfetti, C.  A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.  S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-10006.00004 Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 527–540. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0034934 Robinson, L.  R., Holbrook, J.  R., Bitsko, R.  H., Hartwig, S.  A., Kaminski, J.  W., Ghandour, R. M., et al. (2017). Differences in health care, family, and community factors associated with mental, behavioral, and developmental disorders among children aged 2–8 years in rural and urban areas—United States, 2011–2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 66(SS-8), 1–11. Rodriguez, N., Bingham Mira, C., Paez, N. D., & Myers, H. F. (2007). Exploring the complexities of familism and acculturation: Central constructs for people of Mexican origin. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 61–77. Roth, J. L., Malone, L. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Does the amount of participation in afterschool programs relate to developmental outcomes? A review of the literature. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9303-3 Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing—The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and Well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation development and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

20

E. Clanton Harpine

Ryan, R. M., & Di Domenico, S. I. (2016). Distinct motivations and their differentiated mechanisms: Reflections on the emerging neuroscience of human motivation. In S. Kim, J. Reeve, & M. Bong (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Recent developments in neuroscience research on human motivation (pp. 349–369). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Salmela-Aro, K., Moeller, J., Schneider, B., Spicer, J., & Lavonen, J. (2016). Integrating the light and dark sides of student engagement using person-oriented and situation-specific approaches. Learning and Instruction, 43, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.001 Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf. Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2007). Special topic: What neuroscience really tells us about reading instruction: A response to Judy Willis. Educational Leadership: Improving Instruction for Students with Learning Needs, 64(5), 74–76. Sideridis, G. D., Simos, P., Mousaki, A., Stamovlasis, D., & Georgiau, G. K. (2018). Can the relationship between rapid automatized naming and word reading be explained by a catastrophe? Empirical evidence from students with and without reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775112 Snowden, L. R. (2005). Racial, cultural and ethnic disparities in health and mental health: Toward theory and research at community levels. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 1–8. Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., et al. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 342–358. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002 Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2015). The differential effects of solution-­ focused and problem-focused coaching questions on the affect, attentional control, and cognitive flexibility of undergraduate students. The Journal of Positive Psychology. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/17439760.2015.1117126 Toppelberg, C. O., Munir, K., & Nieto-Castañon, A. (2006). Spanish-English bilingual children with psychopathology: Language deficits and academic language proficiency. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11, 156–163. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400104 Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why intensive interactions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 432–444. Yalom, I.  D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York: Basic Books. Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 350–357. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10464-010-9311-3 Yoncheva, Y. N., Wise, J., & McCandliss, B. (2015). Hemispheric specialization for visual words is shaped by attention to sublexical units during initial learning. Brain and Language, 145–146, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.04.001

Chapter 2

Is Oral Reading Important in Correcting Reading Failure? William D. Harpine

She entered the program as a third grader reading below kindergarten level. She was very sweet, never a behavior problem, and excited to learn to read. Whole language had failed with her. She could not memorize any of the sight words. Phonics had been tried. She could not remember the phonics rules, or the letter sounds as phonics explained them. She came to us completely confused and despondent. She was convinced that she would never be able to learn to read. She was convinced that there was something wrong with her brain. She even asked, “Do you think I’ll be able to read a little bit.” We assured her that she would be able to read anything and everything she wanted to read and read she did. By the end of the first year, she moved up two grade levels in reading. She wrote a simple three-sentence story. She practiced it over and over because she wanted it to be perfect. Then she stood proudly during the make-believe TV show and read her story out loud to the parents who gathered at the session’s close. This student was so excited about learning to read that she begged her parents to let her come back the next year. During her second year in the program, she moved up to her age level in reading. She was back on track. Several years later, when the student was in middle school, she contacted me and asked if she could come for more help. She said, “You taught me to read; can you teach me to spell?” She said that reading was not her problem; we retested her to make sure. She was reading above her age level, scoring 100% in comprehension, but struggling in spelling. Although the Reading Orienteering Club is primarily a remedial reading program, we told her to come. On some days she worked as a volunteer, helping younger children at the workstations (which helped her review letter sounds—review is important). On other days, she worked specifically at the vowel center with multisyllable and compound words. We used letter tiles plus the 4 steps to help her improve her spelling skills. She often volunteered to read during the puppet play or to help write the TV script for the day. She was always eager to read out loud and had become a very good oral reader. We remembered the terrified, W. D. Harpine (*) University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 E. Clanton Harpine (ed.), After-School Programming and Intrinsic Motivation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22845-3_2

21

22

W. D. Harpine

shy little third grader who had first reluctantly arrived at the Reading Orienteering Club so many years before. Yes, oral reading is an important skill that all children need to learn.

What Is Oral Reading Fluency? Children need to learn how to read orally (Hasbrouck, 2018). Oral reading practice can help a student become fluent, and, to become fluent, a student must practice. A fluent oral reader can read clearly, audibly, and expressively, pausing meaningfully without hesitating at awkward moments. Shaywitz (2003) explains that: “Fluency— reading a word accurately, quickly, smoothly, and with good expression—is acquired by practice, by reading a word over and over again. This is consistent with what we know about neural circuits that are reinforced and strengthened by repetition” (p. 105). Shaywitz (2003) explains further that “Fluency does not describe the state in which a reader is able to decode all words instantly; rather, we become fluent word by word” (p. 105). This is important, since oral reading forces the reader to look at every word and every sound. In the Reading Orienteering Club, we teach oral reading by helping the students practice, teaching them basic vocal methods, and encouraging them to speak accurately and with feeling. Several distinct skills comprise oral reading fluency. Reading speed is not fluency (Kuhn, 2004; Walker, Mokhtari, & Sargent, 2006). There is no good reason to think that speed is even fluency’s main component. Studies that measure fluency by having students read timed reading passages will always miss the picture (e.g. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001, Kim, Wagner, & Foster, 2011). Instead, students need to read smoothly, accurately, and expressively. Expressive reading matters more than speed (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006; Mathson, Allington, & Solic, 2006; Morra & Tracey, 2006; Rasinski, 2004, 2005; Yildirim, Yildiz, Ates, & Cetinkaya, 2009). Listen to the actors in your favorite TV show: many of them speak slowly, with many pauses, but they are expressive. President Ronald Reagan gave his best speeches quite slowly. An oral reader wants to understand the material being read and convey that understanding to the listener nonverbally, employing what communication scholars call paralanguage. Paralanguage includes volume, pitch, voice quality, pauses, emphasis, and variety (Moore, Hickson III, & Stacks, 2010; Sprague & Stuart, 1996; Young & Travis, 2008). Researchers use the term prosody for “variations in loudness, duration, pitch, and pausing” (Benjamin & Schwanenflugel, 2010, p.  388; see also Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006; Wright, 2011). A skilled oral reader interprets the text and helps the listener understand what it means (Scrivner & Robinette, 1980). Children do not get enough oral reading experience and instruction. Surprisingly, middle-class parents do not always encourage children to read aloud (Sénéchal et al., 1998). Although many teachers ask students to read orally, they do not always instruct students how to read aloud. Many teachers read to their students, but they do not always read with dynamic expression (Rasinski, 2005). Thus, children may

2  Is Oral Reading Important in Correcting Reading Failure?

23

fail to develop fluency simply because no one has taught them, much less helped them practice.

Why Is Oral Reading Important? In centuries past, silent reading was rare and most reading was aloud, but in recent decades schools have neglected oral reading (Allington, 1983; Amodio, 2004; Carruthers, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000). When we read something aloud, we often focus more intently on every word and every sound. Indeed, Jan Hasbrouck (2018) argues that struggling readers should emphasize oral reading more than silent reading (see also Cleland & Pickering, 2006). Likewise, the National Reading Panel (2000) recommends that instructors should give students a chance to read out loud while giving them guidance and feedback. All the same, sadly, too often, people do not understand that oral reading makes a difference (Rasinski, 2004). How Does Oral Reading Help Students Learn? Students need to read orally with power and effect. Teachers might call on children to read in school, and children know that their reading skills and deficiencies are on full display when they read aloud. They can feel embarrassed if they lack skills. When we read aloud, we notice every word. Evidence suggests a link between effective oral reading and reading comprehension (Applegate, Applegate, & Modla, 2009; Yildirim et al., 2009). To learn to read, students must decode or break words down into letter sounds. When we ask children to read out loud, we can tell which words they can read and which words they still find tricky. When students read silently, they make life easier for their teachers, but it is harder to know whether they understand every word and every sentence that they are reading. How Can Oral Reading Improve a Student’s Confidence in Class? Anyone who listens to children reading orally can tell that they often seem nervous and insecure. Many persons avoid communication situations because they lack communication skills (Glaser, 1981; Richmond & McCroskey, 1998). Thus, a student can feel confident when playing sports but not when speaking, or when conversing but not when reading aloud. Improving students’ oral reading skills could help make them more willing to read orally while reducing classroom stigmatization (Greene et al., 2009).

What Are Basic Expressive Reading Skills? First, students must learn to project their voices. If people cannot hear you, they cannot understand you. Minimal volume is not enough, for some listeners may have undetected hearing impairments and the reader must, at the very least, speak loudly enough so the listener suffering from a head cold, an allergic episode, or an ear infection still has a chance to understand. Also, it is tiring to listen to a quiet reader. Noisy rooms full of active children also make it harder for listeners to hear.

24

W. D. Harpine

Most children can speak quite loudly on the playground or when they argue with siblings. Yelling is to be discouraged, but speakers must be heard easily. Here are basic techniques: 1. Breathe deeply from the abdomen. Most people breathe from the chest, pressing on their shoulders and ribs. This interferes with breath control and produces thin, reedy speech. Children who have taken singing or wind instrument lessons probably know how to breathe correctly; others must be taught. When you breathe the right way, your shoulders do not move. 2. Sit or, better, stand up straight with the head erect. The air column runs through much of the body; we interfere with air flow if we curve part of that column. 3. Physical relaxation improves vocal projection. The vocal mechanism works much better when it is not tense. Beginning oral readers will, of course, be anxious, but they can still learn to lower their shoulders gently, open their mouths, and speak with less effort. 4. Students should not yell but should instead learn to project. I tell students to push their voices to the back of the room. Second, children must learn to speak with variety. No one wants to sound like Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Here are ways to vary one’s voice: 1. Vary the volume, sometimes louder, and sometimes a bit softer. Although the volume must never be too quiet to hear easily, brief quieter passages often catch listeners’ attention. So, of course, do brief loud passages. 2. Vary pitch. Natural speech is sometimes higher and sometimes lower in pitch. Speaking at only one pitch level bores listeners. Lower pitches often make a speaker sound more serious. Here is a little trick: close your eyes, relax, and hum. Chances are, you will hum at a much lower pitch than your usual speech. That lower pitch, which is where your voice wants to be, creates the best projection. Although people often are tempted to use high pitch for emphasis, lower pitch can convey power and confidence. 3. Vary the rate of speech. This is one of the reasons that reading speed differs from fluency. Many children (and most adults) read aloud much too fast. This is hard to understand and prevents proper expression. A good reader will pause sometimes and will slow down or speed up briefly to emphasize key words. For more information, see Love and Frazier (1999) and DeVito (2017).

How Can We Teach Beginning Oral Reading Skills? How Should We Select Oral Reading Texts? While working with the children in the Reading Orienteering Club, our first task was to find suitable texts for the children to read. The children did better oral reading with texts that were short and not too challenging. Also, if we want children to read expressively, the text needs to interest them. Not all children read at the same content and vocabulary level (Benjamin & Schwanenflugel, 2010). Struggling readers cannot read difficult texts orally with

2  Is Oral Reading Important in Correcting Reading Failure?

25

confidence and skill; instead, they need to work their way up. Morra and Tracey (2006) found it useful for a student to read the same text repeatedly to improve fluency, while struggling students might read shorter texts (Morra & Tracey, 2006; Sukhram & Ellen Monda, 2017). As the children’s skills develop, they should read more and more challenging material aloud. In the Reading Orienteering Club, students could often choose which material they wished to read. Sometimes we let them choose from age-level appropriate books arranged on a table. Other times, the Director or a volunteer wrote texts related to the week’s session, still offering them choices between at least two texts. Most often, however, the students wrote their own texts. At various workstations, the students wrote short news reports and personal impressions about the session’s topic. An adult or teenager helped them correct the spelling, usage, and grammar. The student recopied the edited text onto a new sheet of paper, which let the student review the corrections. The student then practiced at the oral reading workstation. Reading their own texts helped the students develop pride in their work while ensuring that they understood what they were reading. We gave children the chance to rehearse several times, but we rarely required them to do so. Since they wanted to put on a good performance, they often asked to practice extra. The students took turns: a student would practice, the next student would practice, and then the first student could practice again. How Can We Teach Oral Reading to Students? Students in the Reading Orienteering Club received simple oral reading instructions. First, they were asked to review the text and to mark two words that should be spoken loudly and two that should be spoken more softly. Somber, reflective, or thoughtful words might be spoken quietly. Action words and words describing conflict might be spoken more loudly. They could also mark passages that should be read faster and passages that should be slower. The students marked the text to help them remember to emphasize these words while reading orally. As their skills developed, they could emphasize more words and phrases. Then, the students stood one at a time, introduced themselves, and read the text. They were told to keep their heads high and chins up, to breathe abdominally (which the instructor modeled), and to project their voices (see Crannell, 1990; Love & Frazier, 1999). To explain projection, the students were told, “don’t yell, but breathe deeply and push the words to the back of the room.” While giving these instructions, the instructor modeled vocal projection. The students often chuckled; they seemed a little startled to hear how much volume the voice can produce without yelling (see Lee & Gura, 1987; Sessions & Holland, 1975). We also told them to read slowly. The more proficient readers sometimes read much too fast, which could make their presentations ineffective or even incomprehensible. Also, when they read too fast, they tended to decode the sounds without communicating the meaning—like a weather announcer smiling while rattling off a tornado warning. Every week or two brought a new oral reading project. This gave students immediate goals to work toward, instead of asking them to work patiently toward a ­long-­term goal. The students gave their group presentations to parents and siblings when they arrived at the end of the session.

26

W. D. Harpine

Conclusion Academic and nonacademic settings alike require us to read aloud. People might read policy statements during business meetings. Courtroom and other legal appearances can require anyone to read text to others. In one murder trial, a teenage witness was called on to read aloud a letter that carried her signature. Unfortunately, she had trouble doing so (Tienabeso & Gutman, 2013). People often read aloud at weddings, funerals, and award ceremonies (e.g., Powell, 2013). Reading aloud is an important skill. Speech comes before reading and writing, and learning to read aloud is a worthwhile skill. By reading aloud, students express a text’s meaning, improve their pronunciation, and show not only that they can read the words, but know what they mean. Reading education too often slights or even ignores oral reading. People need to read aloud both in school and in life outside the classroom. Although students sometimes read aloud in class, they rarely receive instruction on how to read effectively. By learning to convey meaning aloud, students can practice phonemic interpretation and expression. Oral reading fluency means that the student can read prosodically and meaningfully. Acknowledgement 1. William D. Harpine earned his Ph.D. in speech communication from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is Distinguished Professor of Communication Emeritus at the University of South Carolina Aiken.

References Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Rereading Teacher, 36, 556– 561. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/ Amodio, M. C. (2004). Writing the oral tradition. Notre dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Applegate, M. D., Applegate, A. J., & Modla, V. B. (2009). “She's my best reader; she just can't comprehend”: Studying the relationship between fluency and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 62, 512–521. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.6.5 Benjamin, R. G., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2010). Text complexity and oral reading prosody in young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.2 Carruthers, M. (1990). The book of memory: A study of memory in medieval culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jml.2005.10.003 Crannell, K. C. (1990). Voice and articulation (2nd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company. DeVito, J. A. (2017). Essential elements of public speaking (6th ed.). New York: Pearson. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3 Glaser, S.  R. (1981). Oral communication apprehension and avoidance: The current status of treatment research. Communication Education, 80, 321–341. https://doi. org/10.1080/03634528109378489

2  Is Oral Reading Important in Correcting Reading Failure?

27

Greene, J. O., Rucker, M. P., Zauss, E. S., & Harris, A. A. (2009). Communication anxiety and the acquisition of message-production skill. Communication Education, 47(4), 337. https://doi. org/10.1080/03634529809379140 Hasbrouck J. (2018). For students who are not fluent, silent reading is not the best use of classroom time. LD Online. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from http://www.ldonline.org/article/27202/ Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.7.3 Kuhn, M. (2004). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58, 338–344. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.4.3 Kim, Y. S., Wagner, R. K., & Foster, E. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(4), 338–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.493964 Lee, C. I., & Gura, T. (1987). Oral interpretation (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Love, R., & Frazier, D. (1999). Set your voice free. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Mathson, D.  V., Allington, R.  L., & Solic, K.  L. (2006). Hijacking fluency and instructionally informative assessments. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 106–119). New York: Guilford Press. Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P.  J. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 839. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.839 Moore, N.-J., Hickson III, M., & Stacks, D. W. (2010). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications. New York: Oxford University Press. Morra, J., & Tracey, D. H. (2006). The impact of multiple fluency interventions on a single subject. Reading Horizons Journal, 47, 175–199. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Clearinghouse. Powell, A. (2013, June 29). Declaration of Independence to be read aloud. Gadsden Times. Retrieved from gadsdentimes.com Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61, 46–51. Retrieved from ehis.ebscohost.com Rasinski, T. (2005). The role of the teacher in effective fluency instruction. New England Reading Association Journal, 41, 9–12. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com Richmond, V. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Communication apprehension, avoidance, and effectiveness (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Scrivner, L. M., & Robinette, D. (1980). A guide to oral interpretation: Solo and group performance. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing. Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J-A., M. Thomas, E. M. & E. Daley, K. E. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 96-116. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.1.5 Sessions, V. D., & Holland, J. B. (1975). Your role in oral interpretation. Boston: Holbrook Press. Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Sprague, J., & Stuart, D. (1996). The speaker’s handbook (4th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Sukhram, D., & Ellen Monda, A. L. (2017). The effects of oral repeated reading with and without corrective feedback on middle school struggling readers. British Journal of Special Education, 44(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12162 Tienabeso, S., & Gutman, M. (2013, 27 June). Georges Zimmerman witness can’t read letter she “wrote” about shooting. Retrieved from ABCNews.com. Walker, B. J., Mokhtari, K., & Sargent, S. T. (2006). Reading fluency: More than fast and accurate reading. In C. B. Rasinski & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 86–105). New York: Guilford Press.

28

W. D. Harpine

Wright, J.  A. (2011). The impact of oral fluency and silent fluency on the comprehension of fourth graders (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University). Retrieved from http://etd. lsu.edu/docs Yildirim, K., Yildiz, M., Ates, S., & Cetinkaya, C. (2009). Effect of prosodic reading on listening comprehension. World Applied Sciences Journal, 7, 744–747. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0142716400009462 Young, M. S., & Travis, H. P. (2008). Communicating nonverbally: A practical guide to presenting yourself more effectively. Long grove: Waveland press.

Chapter 3

Is Group-Centered Better than Classroom Instruction for Teaching Reading? The Need for a Group-Centered Approach. Testing Two Group Methods Elaine Clanton Harpine and Adam Pazda

Before starting first grade, a kindergarten student missed every word on the kindergarten sight word list and would not even try to read an oral passage from the pre-­ primer (below kindergarten) test. When tested at the midpoint in first grade, the student had completely given up and would not even try to read the words on the assessment sheet. The student was convinced that he would never be able to learn to read and said so. At the end of first grade, the student could only read four words from the pre-primer list. At the end of first grade his oral passage score remained the same as his score from kindergarten. He could not read one single word from the story, even though the school had provided one-on-one, pull-out tutoring after the midpoint testing period in the classroom. The summer after first grade, the student joined my Camp Sharigan one-week reading program. After only one week in Camp Sharigan, the student read the pre-primer story and moved up two levels in sight words as well as in reading oral passages. Standardized testing in public schools creates stress for teachers and students because one single day’s performance on a test receives so much emphasis. Standardized tests have also been accused of causing teachers and schools to teach to the tests. Although standardized testing provides a measure of accountability while enabling nationwide statistical comparisons, it also causes schools to divert classroom instruction time toward getting ready for standardized end-of-the-year exams. These test-prep sessions often focus on remedial retraining in reading and comprehension. This chapter looks at two approaches for preparing students for standardized exams. As Greene and Melton (2007) explain, successful test takers must first be successful readers. To prepare struggling students for standardized tests, schools must provide remedial retraining in reading. This raises the question: is there a better method to teach reading and comprehension to help students prepare for standardized tests? E. Clanton Harpine (*) · A. Pazda University of South Carolina Aiken, Aiken, SC, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 E. Clanton Harpine (ed.), After-School Programming and Intrinsic Motivation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22845-3_3

29

30

E. Clanton Harpine and A. Pazda

None of the various whole language teaching techniques (not even blended methods) teach phonemic awareness (letter sounds) or phoneme focused phonological decoding skills. Phonemic awareness and decoding skills training are essential if at-risk students are to learn to read (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2007). This study’s goal was to measure the effectiveness of a program that uses group-­ centered prevention techniques with first through third grade at-risk students in an after-school reading and comprehension test-prep project to help at-risk students prepare for standardized testing.

Group-Centered Intervention Camp Sharigan (Clanton Harpine, 2016b), the group-centered intervention chosen for this study, offers a positive environment where children learn without fear of failure, grades, or judgment. The program uses a portable reading clinic featuring ten workstations arranged around the theme of a make-believe reading camp. This approach is group-centered because the program emphasizes members working together as a group to help and support one another, as Fuhriman and Burlingame (1994) explained. Since research demonstrated that self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and intrinsic (internal) motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) were two principles essential for success, the Camp Sharigan program was selected because it emphasized: (1) rebuilding self-efficacy by teaching the skills necessary to help students become successful, and (2) by renewing children’s self-­determination to learn by emphasizing intrinsic motivation. Deci and Ryan’s (2016) research also stressed the importance of intrinsic motivation for successfully helping students prepare for standardized tests. Therefore, we needed a program that used intrinsic motivation. We also wanted a program that would address the four problem areas that Lyon (1997) highlighted: phonemic awareness, comprehension, intrinsic motivation, and a new classroom teaching approach. The emphasis with Camp Sharigan is on reversing reading failure by teaching phonemic awareness through a method called vowel clustering (Clanton Harpine, 2016b) and by using six different teaching methods rather than just a single teaching approach (Clanton Harpine, 2016a). Camp Sharigan, a group-centered prevention style program, emphasized teaching phonemic and phonological awareness, reading oral passages, writing stories, spelling, word meanings, reading fluency, and comprehension in a fun hands-on atmosphere (Clanton Harpine, 2011).

Camp Sharigan Combines Learning and Counseling Research shows that the way a child learns or the teaching method used is just as important as what the child is learning or the content of the lesson (Chronis-Tuscano et  al., 2015). To read at grade level, children must have “word knowledge,”

3  Is Group-Centered Better than Classroom Instruction for Teaching Reading?…

31

decoding and encoding skills, and a positive learning environment (Foorman, Herrera, Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, 2015; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014; Sanchez, Magnan, & Ecalle, 2012). Research also demonstrates that classroom instruction is more effective when combined with social skills and other counseling interventions (Adelman & Taylor, 2006; Baskin, Slaten, Sorenson, Glover-Russell, & Merson, 2010; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Brigman & Webb, 2007; Huang et al., 2005; Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley, 2015.) Recent research has also provided evidence that merely adding social and emotional learning to existing classroom methods does not work (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2014). Both cognitive and noncognitive skills must be taught at the same time within the lesson (Jones et al., 2015). Camp Sharigan emphasizes the combination of learning and counseling. This combined approach is emphasized from the very beginning by using action stories. Each day, the children listen to a story and act out the motions or sounds to fit the story when cued by keywords. For example, Sharigan the Snake, the camp mascot, spends the week looking for new friends. No one likes snakes, so, naturally the point of the story is that there is something to like about everyone, even Sharigan. In the opening story, the children make snake noises, and motions for flowers and swimming fish as they are mentioned in the story. The children then go off to work as noncompetitive team members (competition is never allowed at Camp Sharigan), helping each other as they work at the workstations. At the tent on the first day, each child writes an ending to a second story about Sharigan and his search for new friends. The theme for the first day is friendship. Each workstation incorporates that theme, encouraging the children to work together cooperatively and see if they too can make a new friend. The group-centered approach, which combines learning and counseling, encourages children to work together cooperatively at different workstations while they practice reading vowel clustered stories at the Rainbow Bridge, practice decoding and encoding with new vowel sounds at Sharigan’s Snake Pit, and practice using lower case alphabet letters at the Friendship Tree. The Camp Sharigan program combines both reading instruction and counseling interventions to help children learn, so it fits our criteria for a program that emphasized both cognitive and noncognitive interventions (Clanton Harpine, 2015).

Teaches Phonemic and Phonological Awareness Camp Sharigan uses vowel clustering to teach both phonemic and phonological awareness. Vowel clustering teaches children to break words down into sounds and then put those sounds back together as a word. Learning to decode letter sounds from written words correlates with reading success (Ouellette & Beers, 2010). Decoding skills are needed for reading and comprehension alike (Foorman et al., 2015).

32

E. Clanton Harpine and A. Pazda

Camp Sharigan encourages children not to guess or memorize. Children learn to identify the various letter sounds, combinations of sounds, to sound out words, and to build new words using letter sounds—phonemic and phonological skills. With the Camp Sharigan program, children use vowel-clustered reading lists and stories to practice decoding and encoding. Camp Sharigan stresses using the lowercase alphabet because reading mostly involves using lowercase letters. Camp Sharigan also emphasizes learning vowel sounds as a cluster. For example, the children learn all the sounds for the letter a before going on to a new vowel sound. Letter a alone uses seven different sounds, with 22 different ways to make those sounds. On the first day, Camp Sharigan has students reading words using the vowel sounds for letter a at the Lake Read workstation, encoding and decoding words using all seven letter a sounds at Sharigan’s Snake Pit, practicing vowel clustered sight word lists for letter a at the Campfire, spelling letter a words at Mount Reading, reading vowel clustered stories featuring letter a at the Rainbow Bridge, and playing phonological word games at the Friendship Tree workstation. Each day the program studies a different vowel sound so that by the end of the week all of the vowels have been taught.

Implements Individual Rotation Between Workstations Camp Sharigan encourages group cohesion by teaching the children to work in noncompetitive teams. Group cohesiveness, interpersonal learning, and catharsis are the most significant group factors for bringing about change in a group (classroom) setting (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). The Camp Sharigan program uses 10 workstations with individualized rotation, children move independently and not as a group. Individualized rotation within a group setting allows for personalized instruction, one-on-one tutoring when needed, and the benefits of working together as a group. In contrast, most group programs rotate as a designated or defined group; this stifles students who work faster and need more challenge and frustrates struggling students who need more time and assistance with the learning process. By using workstations, the Camp Sharigan program incorporates purposeful movement and station-to-station individualized instruction by allowing students to rotate at their own pace rather than as a group. Research demonstrates that movement and being physically active in a structured group setting improves the quality of learning and level of engagement (Chandler & Tricot, 2015; Moreau, 2015; Toumpaniari, Loyens, Mavilidi, & Paas, 2015). Physical movement within the group structure also helps students focus on the assigned task (Hillman et al., 2014). An example is when students are creating a pop-up storybook. They work on this project each day adding pop-up furniture, a fancy lift-flap cover, and their own creative handwritten story. Even struggling students add the basic components and write their own story, but students are encouraged to add special touches to their book. Students who work at a faster pace may write a longer story or add more elaborate decoration to their house and furniture. The children are intrinsically

3  Is Group-Centered Better than Classroom Instruction for Teaching Reading?…

33

encouraged to strive to accomplish more as they work side-by-side with others in a group setting, but the level of accomplishment is neither rewarded nor downgraded. The program instills an intrinsic (internal) desire to finish the project. Each child reads their story on the last day and shows others their completed book. Each book is different, just as each child is different and has different skills, but the pop-up structure of the book makes each book special. Even the most-struggling student beams with pride.

Stresses Intrinsic Motivation To succeed at school, children must be able to read, but children will not learn to read if they do not want to read (Rayner et al., 2001). Children feel motivated to learn when they feel capable of accomplishing the task assigned or have self-­efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Deci and Ryan (2012) define this level of efficacy as self-­ determined learning. Self-determination is the freedom to choose to read rather than being required to read (Deci, Ryan, & Williams, 1995). Most reading programs and especially test-prep programs use food, prizes, awards, or other extrinsic methods to encourage children to learn. Students may be told, “if you work hard you can earn a pizza party for the last day.” Research shows that prizes and rewards, such as pizza parties, sparkly pencils, or candy may actually reduce a student’s intrinsic desire to learn (Thorkildsen, 2002). If students are reading to receive a reward, then students typically read only when given a reward, or read easier books to receive their reward faster (Fawson & Moore, 1999). Prizes and rewards do not help students develop an intrinsic desire to learn (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Marinak & Gambrell, 2008). Research has shown that prizes and other extrinsic rewards teach students to read only when they receive a prize (Thorkildsen, 2002). Students being motivated by extrinsic rewards are not self-motivated to continue reading on their own unless they are offered another prize (Benware & Deci, 1984; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001). When students focus on answering questions or reading a story just to earn a prize, they have lost the joy of discovering and learning new information or even solving a problem (Condry & Chambers, 1978; Deci & Ryan, 2012). When students are motivated to read without the promise of rewards or fear of punishment, self-­ determination and effective learning are the outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2016). Therefore, a successful reading program or even a successful test-prep program built on the foundation of improving reading and comprehension scores must use intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic rewards. One of the goals of the Camp Sharigan reading program is to encourage children to read for the pleasure of reading or the desire to acquire knowledge. Each child selects a chapter book (at their designated reading level) at the Stop sign workstation and reads a few pages each day. Each child is then given the book to take home at the end of the Camp Sharigan program.

34

E. Clanton Harpine and A. Pazda

Emphasizes Hands-On Learning Techniques Researchers have called for a teaching method that uses step-by-step instructions and active hands-on interventions to enhance engagement and comprehension (Jensen et al., 2007; Trout, Lienemann, Reid, & Epstein, 2007). The Camp Sharigan program creates a hands-on learning center. Hands-on methods build upon the intrinsic desire to learn. Hands-on techniques teach commitment, perseverance, and self-control (Kvarme et  al., 2010; Linley & Proctor, 2013). The Camp Sharigan program introduces a new way for teaching children to read and prepare for standardized tests. The hands-on activities, such as making a paper frog puppet and being a reader in a puppet play, emphasize learning for the fun of learning (intrinsic motivation), practicing fluency by practicing the puppet play, and following step-­ by-­step directions to make the frog puppet. Following step-by-step directions to make a specific project is one of the best ways to teach comprehension because a child must actually read and follow the directions (DuPaul & Weyandt, 2006). Repeatedly practicing oral reading is also considered to be a very good way to teach reading fluency; timing students has been proven not to work and is considered by many to be one of the worst methods for teaching reading fluency (Shaywitz, 2003). Reading faster does not necessarily mean the student is reading fluently. Shaywitz (2003) defines reading fluency as accurate, comprehensible oral reading. To be a fluent reader, the student must understand letter sound patterns (phonemes), knowledge of or meanings of words being read, a working acquaintance with grammatical sentence structure and punctuation signs, and an understanding of root words, prefixes, and suffixes (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Recent research demonstrates that comprehension of word meanings not only comes from the context of a sentence but also from life experiences (Rodd et al., 2016). Reading comprehension begins with decoding skills (Foorman et al., 2015). If a child cannot read or pronounce a word, they are not going to be able to comprehend what the story is about. Rodd et  al. (2016) state that 80% of words in the English language have more than one dictionary meaning; therefore, to improve reading comprehension, teaching strategies must increase children’s experiences in understanding multiple word definitions (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2004). With the Camp Sharigan program, each workstation uses a 4-step process to teach how to pronounce a word correctly, spell the word, use a dictionary to look up the definition(s), and then use the word correctly in a sentence. The hands-on process of working with words and looking up definitions in the dictionary helps children to improve comprehension (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). If the child does not understand the meaning of a word, simply teaching previewing or self-monitoring strategies will not help (Foorman et al., 2015). For example, when children encounter words they do not know, at Camp Sharigan, they capture the word and use the 4-steps to pronounce, define, spell, and demonstrate how to use the word correctly in a sentence or story. Then, they apply this word knowledge by writing stories or writing endings to stories that they read as they travel around to the different workstations. They write a simple poem to go on the back of a fluttering paper butterfly;

3  Is Group-Centered Better than Classroom Instruction for Teaching Reading?…

35

they write a simple short story to tuck inside a Noisy the Car project, and they write complete-the-statement sentences for their I Am Special booklet and puppet. Reading, writing, spelling, sentence construction, vocabulary, understanding word meanings, and comprehension are all incorporated into these hands-on teaching interventions.

I ncorporates Reading, Writing, Spelling, and Comprehension in One Program Effective reading is more than just reading words on a page. Research demonstrates a definite cognitive connection between reading and writing (Kim, Al Otaiba, Sidler, & Gruelich, 2013). Some researchers have gone as far as to say that poor reading skills produce poor writing skills; therefore, the two subjects must be studied at the same time (Sumner, Connelly, and Barnett, 2013). Handwriting (learning to shape letters correctly), spelling, and sentence construction are all included when teaching writing skills (Langan, 2013). Research also establishes a clear connection between spelling and reading (Conrad, 2008), and vocabulary and comprehension (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2004). The National Reading Panel (2000) stated that both vocabulary and comprehension skills are essential for reading achievement. Therefore, we need a teaching method that will incorporate each of these essential skills. The Camp Sharigan program uses six different teaching methods: (1) teaching phonemic and phonological awareness through vowel clustering, (2) workstations in a structured cohesive group with individual rotation, (3) hands-on teaching methods, (4) a 4-step system for motivational progression and to differentiate learning needs, (5) fluency through oral reading, and (6) need-based ability groupings that emphasize need-based progression through creative art therapy (Clanton Harpine, 2016a). Camp Sharigan emphasizes having students work at their own individual ability level rather than at a classroom level. This is accomplished by using progressive steps, Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3. Every student starts at Step 1, regardless of age or ability. This ensures that struggling students are not stigmatized for reading failure or reading problems. Each student progresses at their own rate. Step 3 is challenging enough for even advanced students. The step system is used throughout the Camp Sharigan program, but is especially relevant at the steppingstones before the Rainbow Bridge where students start at Step 1 and work their way up through vowel clustered stories. A student who is only able to complete Step 1 can still cross the bridge. All children are encouraged to work up to their ability. This is where creative art therapy techniques help pull the six teaching methods together. Creative art therapy is a technique that has been used for many years with children (Lusebrink, 2010; Malchiodi, 2011). Creative art therapy is a teaching tool that intertwines reading and counseling interventions together in the Camp Sharigan program. For example, on the fourth

36

E. Clanton Harpine and A. Pazda

day, the children listen to a story entitled, In the Summer It Rains Oranges. In the story, everything is orange—the people, the cars, the houses, the food, even the toothpaste. It is a silly story designed to get children excited about writing their own story for their pop-up book. Lake Read has story-starting suggestions and examples for how the children can create their own town based on a color: Blueville or such. The Camp Library has step-by-step directions for completing and assembling the pop-up book. Tracing and cutting pattern pieces to make the book helps to strengthen fine motor skills. Creative art therapy encourages students to work hard, challenge themselves, and persevere until the project is completed. Teaching completion skills is very important for the classroom. Creative art therapy projects can also help children overcome anxiety, fear, and the dread of failure. Children who refuse to read out loud in class above a whisper; lineup to eagerly read in a puppet play. All of the puppets, books, stories, and other creative art projects used in Camp Sharigan emphasize learning to read and improving comprehension. Children participating in test-prep programs need a structured format. Hands-on learning, positive group atmosphere, and step-by-step procedures for learning new skills provide a structured format (Pierce, Bolt, & Vandell, 2010). By blending learning and counseling in the same program, the Camp Sharigan program can offer a more comprehensive and constructive learning approach.

Hypotheses Our hypotheses relate to academic improvement in reading, spelling, and sight word recognition. Because of the effects group-centered prevention has had on at-risk readers in previous research (Clanton Harpine & Reid, 2009), we hypothesized that children participating in Camp Sharigan would show more improvement on each of these variables immediately after the reading clinic, relative to children in the control group. Furthermore, we hypothesized that improvements in all three categories would be sustained during a six-week follow up assessment.

Method Participants The subjects for the study came from a suburban public school in a town with a population of 28,835. Of 37 children, 70% were male and 30% female. All subjects were first- through third-grade students assigned to the program because they had been labeled as at-risk of failing due to their inability to read at grade level. The school assigned children to the reading program. Children in the reading clinic were

3  Is Group-Centered Better than Classroom Instruction for Teaching Reading?…

37

those with the lowest reading scores, deemed the most at risk of failing. These students had been identified by the school as at-risk in test-prep sessions because they were deemed to be incapable of passing the standardized test regardless of the preparation or practice received. Those in the nontreatment group had higher reading scores. While random assignment would have been preferred, as Rappaport and Seidman (2000) emphasize, needs of school children must sometime dictate research methodology in real-world settings (see McCall & Green, 2004). There were 11 first grade participants, 15 second grade students, and 11 third grade participants; 46% of the participants were African-American, 49% white, 3% Turkish (one student), and 3% Chinese. The researchers obtained written permission to conduct the reading clinic at the school and from parents of all children involved in the study before meeting with the children. All university research protocols were completed. Researchers administered pre-test and post-test interviews with each child and conducted a six-week follow-up with participants in the treatment group. Twenty children were in the treatment group and participated in the Camp Sharigan program, while 17 children in the nontreatment group participated in the traditional group practice sessions conducted by the school and received only pre- and post-test assessments.

Procedure All treatment group participants attended a week-long, after-school reading clinic (Camp Sharigan) that used group-centered hands-on interventions to teach remedial reading and comprehension skills. The reading clinic met for 2 hours every day after school for five sessions. Nontreatment participants attended the regularly scheduled test-prep practice session that focused on traditional direct instruction and taking practice tests.

Program Design Camp Sharigan was set up in a school gymnasium. Community volunteers, ranging from fourth graders through seniors in the community, staffed the program and served as one-on-one and small group tutors. Painted cloth wall hangings, an air mattress, a tent, a paper camp fire, and a make-believe fishing pond created a summer camp atmosphere. The camp included a make-believe poison ivy patch, Mount Reading, a fishing pole and magnet at Lake Read, a tent full of “buzzing” construction-­paper mosquitoes, and Sharigan’s Snake Pit where children practiced encoding and decoding phonemes each day. Each session began with a story, and then the children followed treasure hunt maps around the gymnasium to each of the ten workstations. There were stories to read and write, words to spell, word games to emphasize vowel clustered decoding,

38

E. Clanton Harpine and A. Pazda

puppet plays, and a pop-up house storybook that required children to read and follow directions. To complete the pop-up house, each student had to write a story using correct grammatical sentence structure and spelling. Children used reading stepping stones, crossed make-believe bridges, practiced phoneme sounds, wrote their own stories, made alphabet snakes, and used puppet skits to improve reading fluency. Children moved around the room working at their own pace. Volunteers stationed at each learning center provided one-on-one reading assistance. A positive atmosphere encouraged the children as they worked at each learning station gathering new words to learn. Instead of “words missed,” spelling tests at Mount Reading became a way to “capture” or gather new words to add to the paper poison ivy vine. During the week, children watched the paper poison ivy vine grow and stretch around the room.

Instruments The Howard Street Tutoring Manual (Morris, 2005) assessment procedures for word recognition, oral reading, comprehension, and spelling were administered to all participants. The same investigator administered all assessments. Howard Street assessment procedures are graded for use with at-risk readers (students who have received instruction in the classroom but who have fallen behind fellow classmates and their expected grade level) in grades 1–3. All tests were age-appropriate by grade level (Morris, 2005). Children received a list of words appropriate for their grade level; assessment scores reflected the number missed in the pre- and post-test for the same group of words (Morris, 2005). The test was not timed, and unprompted self-corrections were not counted as words missed. Oral reading of graded passages indicates how well the child reads words in context. Being able to read a list of sight words is not the same as being able to read the words in a story (Morris, 2005). The Howard Street scoring system for reporting children’s 100-word grade-level appropriate oral reading samples and stories assessed reading levels (Morris, 2005). Substitutions, omissions, and insertions were all counted as words missed. Self-corrections were not counted as words missed. Words unknown to the child or sounded out with the help of the examiner were counted as words missed. The untimed test did not consider reading rhythm or cadence. Phonemic awareness is a key component for children’s development as emerging readers (Foorman et al., 2015; Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2007). The scoring for spelling words was the number missed from grade-level appropriate spelling lists (Morris, 2005). Assessment tabulated the number missed in the pre- and post-­ test for the same group of words. We returned 6 weeks after the reading clinic to retest, using the same Howard Street assessment tests. Words on the assessments were not targeted during the case study intervention. The pre, post, and follow-up assessment tests used the same procedure. Tests of the validity and reliability of the

3  Is Group-Centered Better than Classroom Instruction for Teaching Reading?…

39

Howard Street assessment procedures report a predictive validity of .70 and an internal reliability of .85 (Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2000; Perney, Morris, & Carter, 1997).

Statistical Analysis The school mandated that the lowest-performing students be assigned to the reading clinic, prohibiting us from randomly assigning the subjects to the treatment and control groups. However, this is probably a conservative setup for testing the efficacy of the treatment regimen. Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 summarize key characteristics of the two groups. While the groups compare favorably in the number of boys and girls in each group (see Table 3.2), the groups varied drastically when looking at race. Table 3.3 focuses on the racial makeup of the study groups. The treatment group is primarily African-American (70%), while the control group is primarily Caucasian (76%). It is important to keep in mind that this may be a function of the assignment process, which placed the children according to their performance. We tested differences between groups on spelling, reading, and sight word recognition before administering the Camp Sharigan intervention. Students in the control group performed significantly better than the experimental group for spelling and reading, but no difference was observed for sight word recognition. This indiTable 3.1  Race and gender composition of study group Group Clinic Control

Afr. Am. M F 12 2 3 0

Cauc M 3 7

Turk M 1 0

F 2 6

F 0 0

Chin M 0 0

Table 3.2  Gender composition of study group Group Clinic Control Sums

Gender M 16 10 26

Sums 20 17 37

F 4 7 11

Table 3.3  Race composition of study group Group Clinic Control

Afr. Am. 14 3

Race Cauc 5 13

Turk 1 0

Chin 0 1

F 0 1

40

E. Clanton Harpine and A. Pazda

cates that students selected to receive the intervention were indeed low performers for two-thirds of our outcome measures. Next, we examined the change in students’ spelling, reading, and word recognition as a function of condition. We conducted separate mixed-model ANOVAs for each dependent variable with time as a within-subjects factor (pre-test vs. post-test) and condition as a between-subjects factor (experimental vs. control). For spelling, the interaction between time and condition was significant, F(1, 35) = 22.42, p