Will Teaching 95 Percent Multisyllable Types Program Increase Fluency and Accuracy? by: AnnaLee Haws A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah January 26, 2024 Approved ______________________________________ Penée W. Stewart Ph. D. _______________________________________ Jadelyn Abbott Ed. D. Sara Gailey Sara Gailey (May 21, 2024 13:27 MDT) _______________________________________ Sara Gailey, Ph.D. 2 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Acknowledgments I would like to thank my family for all their love and support throughout the process of completing my master’s project. I would especially like to thank my mom, MaryJean Bell, for the many conversations we had regarding my paper, and the endless encouragement she gave me to continue working on it until it was complete. 3 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Abstract This study examined whether explicitly teaching a supplemental reading program called 95 Percent Multisyllable Routine in addition to the core reading curriculum McGraw Hill Wonders will increase reading words per minute and accuracy in third grade. Students’ word per minute rate and accuracy were measured using the Acadience Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Reading Test. An ORF pretest was given at the beginning of the year, a test was given in the middle of the year, and a post-test was given at the end of the year. This study was implemented in two third grade classes. Both classes were taught from McGraw Hill’s Wonders curriculum. The treatment class had their word building work from Wonders replaced by the Multisyllable Routine from 95 Percent Group while the other class was taught just from the Wonders curriculum. The conclusion was that the 95 Percent Multisyllable Routine helped the struggling readers read more words, and more words accurately. Keywords: [Science of Reading, fluency, accuracy, rate] 4 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Table of Contents Problem Statement......…………………………………………...………………………………..7 Literature Review……………………………………………………...…………………………..8 Students Struggle to Read……………………………………….………………………...9 Science of Reading Instruction…………………………………..………………………10 Fluency Development……………………………………………………………………14 Wonders Core Curriculum……………………………………..………………………...16 95% Group Multisyllable Routine…………………………………..…………………...17 Using Assessment Data to Drive Instruction…………………………..………………...18 Conclusion………………………………………………………………..……………...20 Purpose……………………………………………………………………………..…………….21 Method………………………………………………………………………………..………….22 Participants……………………………………………………………………..………...22 Instruments……………………………………………………………………………….22 Procedure…………………………………………………………………………..…….22 Results………………………………………….…………………………………………..…….23 Question 1: Comparison of Final Acadience Scores for Treatment and Control Group……………………………………………………………..……........23 Question 2: Comparison of Acadience Scores Over Time for Treatment and Control Group ……………………………………………………………………….24 Question 3: Comparison of Acadience Scores by Ability Level for Treatment and Control Group…………..…………………………………………………...25 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..27 Limitations…..…………………………………………………………………………...30 5 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Recommendations and Future Research………………...……………………………….31 References……………….………………………………………...…………………………......32 Appendices…………………………………………………………..…………………………...38 Appendix A: IRB Approval from Weber State University……………………………...38 Appendix B: District Approval Letter……………………………………………...…....39 6 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of Words Per Minute Scores Over Time for Treatment and Control Group………….……………………………..…………………………………………..23 Table 2: Comparison of Percent Accurate Scores Over Time for Treatment and Control Group…………………………………………………………………………………….24 Table 3: Comparison of Average Word Per Minute Scores by Ability Level for Treatment and Control Group……..……………………...….…………………………………….…….25 Table 4: Comparison of Percent Accurate Scores by Ability Level for Treatment and Control Group……………….………...………………………………………………………….26 7 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Problem Statement The United States has a critical reading problem. According to the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 64 % of fourth grade students are not reading at a proficient level. This means that the mastery of skills that are required for a solid academic performance for this grade level are not being met. There are various reasons students are not proficient in reading at specific grade levels. One reason is that children are not having experiences with reading at a young age, before they enter public school (Dickinson & Porch, 2011). Another reason is some students may have a learning disability that makes learning to read difficult (Malouf et al., 2014; Moats & Tolman, 2019a). There also may be a lack of appropriate professional development for teachers in applying the latest Science of Reading research. Teachers need to be properly trained for Tier 1 reading instruction (Postholm, 2012). This study is going to examine whether a routine for Tier 1 instruction based on Science of Reading research will make a difference in reading proficiency. 8 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Literature Review The Science of Reading (SoR) is an approach to teaching reading that is based on years of research. The Reading League (2022) which is a well-respected group of reading researchers says: The Science of Reading is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing. This research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The Science of Reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and therefore improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties (p.1). SoR research includes strategies of directly teaching the five essential pillars of reading which are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). SoR includes research on word recognition and language comprehension as represented in the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Moats & Tolman, 2019a). Word and language comprehension are further broken down in Scarborough’s Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001). Teaching reading using SoR aligned curriculum is important because it takes how the brain works into consideration (Moats & Tolman, 2019a). Developers of the McGraw-Hill Wonders reading program (August, D. et al., 2014) used SoR research to build their reading program, but there is so much to teach, and some parts of the program are stronger than others, therefore, teachers have to pick and choose what they teach 9 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types (Cabell, et al., 2021). Some teachers even choose to supplement the weaker parts with other programs that have been proven to work better. SoR supplemental materials and resources, such as the Multisyllable Routine from 95 Percent Group, can be used to fill in the gap of reading instruction for some learners (95 Percent Group, 2014). Students Struggle to Read Students enter school with many different language experiences. What preschoolers learn before they enter school is strongly related to how easily they learn to read in kindergarten, first grade, and beyond (Lonigan et al., 2011). Some students have little or no exposure to print and background knowledge required to learn to read. Some students have not been read to by their parents or caregivers, therefore, they have little knowledge of print concepts and what letters look like, sound like, or are named. Students need opportunities to express themselves orally to help develop phonological awareness. Families and caregivers need to talk, listen, and read to young children to help them learn the skills they will need for reading (Kilpatrick, 2015). When caregivers sing rhymes and play word games with children, they are helping children recognize the sounds in words which is phonemic awareness (Kilpatrick, 2015; The Reading League, 2020). Even after giving students a head start on their education, students can still struggle (Lonigan et al., 2011). Another reason students struggle to be proficient readers is dyslexia. Some struggling readers have a specific developmental disorder called dyslexia. which affects the ability to read and write. Dyslexia can be divided into two different categories. The first group is a phonological deficit, which means there is a core problem in the phonological processing system of oral language, the second group is a processing speed/orthographic processing deficit, affecting the fluency of printed words (Lyon et al., 2003). These problems happen when readers have difficulties in understanding the alphabetic principle which is the concept that graphemes, or letters, are used to represent individual phonemes or sounds in words. 10 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types They also happen when phonemic awareness, which is when students can recognize each individual sound a letter makes in a word and can consciously manipulate those sounds orally, is underdeveloped (McArthur & Castles, 2017). They also happen when students can’t use their orthographic processor to effectively read fluently, which is reading with appropriate accuracy, rate, and expression to achieve comprehension. Science of Reading aligned curriculum and instruction help these students that struggle with reading to succeed. Science of Reading Instruction Science of Reading aligned curriculum should explicitly teach the five pillars of reading determined by the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). The five pillars of reading are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (NELP, 2009). When all these pillars are taught explicitly and directly, students can become successful readers (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Ehri, 2020; National Reading Panel, 2000). The first pillar of reading instruction is phonemic awareness. This is when students are consciously aware of individual speech sounds in spoken syllables and can consciously manipulate those sounds. Early phonological awareness is usually developed in preschoolers, basic phonemic awareness develops in kindergarten and first grade, while advanced phonemic awareness continues to develop through about fourth grade (Moats & Tolman, 2019a). Some researchers have found that having strong phonemic awareness is a critical part of memorizing the sequence of letters in a word that leads to retaining words in long-term memory and committing them to sight vocabulary words (Murray, 2017; Stone, 2019; Wooldridge, 2017). Phonics is the next pillar of reading instruction. Phonics is the study of relationships between letters and the sounds they represent. Learning the phonics patterns helps students decode. By teaching phonics to students, they learn to recognize that words are made up of phonemes that are connected to graphemes which need to be blended to make words. Words 11 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types become orthographically mapped in students’ brains and are retained in memory to support reading and spelling (Ehri, 2014). Students need to be taught the phonics patterns so they can decode words. Through this instruction, students’ accuracy, word-recognition, and fluency will increase. Fluency is the rate, accuracy, and prosody at which students read. Rate is the speed at which students can read words, accuracy is the number of words students read correctly in a minute, and prosody is “the ability of readers to appropriately use phrasing and expression” (Rasinski, 2004, p. 5). Rate is usually assessed by oral reading fluency (ORF) which is the average speed a student reads out loud for one minute for three passages, accuracy is usually assessed by percentage of words correct per minute in an ORF passage (Rasinski, 2004; Roehrig, et al., 2007). Because prosody includes “expressiveness of oral text reading as it is related to intonation, stress patterns, and phrasing” (Roehrig et al., 2007), it is hard to assess, but it does help with comprehension in students’ reading (Roehrig et al., 2007). One study that examined student achievement of fluency did not find evidence that direct assessment of prosody provided evidence of reading comprehension beyond that provided by assessments of accuracy and rate (Roehrig et al., 2007), therefore it is not assessed in this study. ORF and accuracy assessment scores are important to analyze because it tells teachers how automatic students’ word recognition and decoding is and what, if any, interventions need to be implemented. Then teachers can use Science of Reading aligned curriculums to design tier 1 guided reading practice and tier 2 interventions for certain students. Vocabulary is the fourth pillar of reading instruction, it is the knowledge of, and memory for, oral and written word meanings. There are two kinds of vocabulary, receptive and expressive. Receptive vocabulary are words that can be recognized when reading or listening to 12 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types others speak, expressive vocabulary are words a person uses in speaking and writing (Honig et al., 2018). Comprehension is the last pillar of reading instruction; reading comprehension is the ability to process written text, understand its meaning and integrate it with what the reader already knows. This is the ultimate purpose for reading instruction. Science of Reading is based on decades of brain research that comprises how the brain processes sounds, letters, and words to be able to read and comprehend written text (Moats & Tolman, 2019a; The Reading League, 2022). The following will examine the research that identifies the components that must be in a program before it can be considered Science of Reading aligned. The program needs to be based on Hoover and Gough’s (1990) Simple View of Reading which was later broken down into more concepts by Scarborough (2001), in her reading rope strands. A Science of Reading program needs to show evidence of each of the strands of the reading rope and each of the five essential elements of reading from the National Reading Panel report (2000) taught explicitly. To be able to teach phonics and fluency properly, teachers need to be familiar with the SVR (Gough & Tunmer,1986; Hoover & Gough 1990; Moats & Tolman, 2019a) which theorizes that word recognition multiplied by language comprehension equals reading comprehension. The SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) was a break-through model for teaching reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). According to Gough and Tunmer (1986) and Hoover and Gough (1990) the two most important components for reading are the ability to decode the written word and comprehend the language of text. The SVR theory highlighted the fact that proficient readers are skilled in both areas. Therefore, word recognition or the accurate and fast retrieval of decoded word forms is important for the development of reading comprehension. When word recognition becomes automatic it frees up cognitive resources. It allows students to pay closer attention to 13 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types the meaning of a text so they can acquire new information and knowledge instead of focusing their attention on the identification of the words. Studies consistently show that printed word recognition ability is important for passage reading comprehension in novice readers (Samuels, 1997). Language comprehension is the second major component of the SVR. It refers to listening comprehension involved in the understanding of oral language. The SVR model asserts that comprehension of spoken language (verbal reasoning, listening comprehension) encourages reading comprehension (Adolf & Perfetti, 2014). This means that students are unlikely to understand something they read if they cannot understand the same ideas when they are spoken or read aloud to them; therefore, students need to practice their verbal reasoning and listening comprehension skills. Language comprehension and the background knowledge necessary to understand a topic becomes more and more important in explaining reading ability as readers become proficient and reach upper grades (Moats & Tolman, 2019b; Vellutino et al., 2007). Scarborough’s (2001) Reading Rope elaborates on the SVR by adding subskills to each of the SVR’s components word recognition and language comprehension. According to Scarborough’s Reading Rope, word recognition includes phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition of familiar and unfamiliar words. Each of these components need to be in place for skilled reading to happen. Language comprehension includes background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge for skilled reading. Background knowledge includes facts and concepts previously known to support the content students are currently reading to help them better comprehend the text. Introducing vocabulary or being able to decipher vocabulary words through morphology and etymology helps increase students' understanding of the text (Moats & Tolman, 2019a). Knowing language structures such as syntax and semantics allows the use of verbal reasoning like inferencing. Understanding 14 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types metaphors and being familiar with literacy knowledge including print concepts such as reading left to right, text features, and genres help students understand what they are reading. Through Reading Science, we know that “both the phonological and orthographic processing systems are primarily responsible for word recognition, and both the meaning and context processing systems are primarily responsible for language comprehension” (Moats & Tolman, 2019a p. 35). This shows that much of the brain is involved when a student is reading. Each of these sub skills are strands that are definable, measurable, and somewhat independent in the learning process. Scarborough’s Reading Rope contents work together to increase reading fluency (Kilpatrick, 2015 Fluency Development Proficient readers who are fluent read words through orthographical decoding by mapping known words and syllables in their minds (Muller et al, 2017; Perfetti, 2007 ). “A strong connection between fluency of word recognition and reading comprehension has been observed in students from first to fourth grade…achieving efficient orthographical decoding skills represents an important footstep in the development of reading fluency” (Muller et al., 2017 p. 2). These researchers have recognized that a more efficient way to read words is by recognizing syllables that are completely translated into phonological representations (Muller et al., 2017) through orthographic mapping. Orthographic mapping is when unfamiliar words are committed to memory and become automatic sight words (Ehri, 2014). This is done by identifying the spelling of the vowel in the syllable so students can determine what sound it makes so they can read it correctly. Other studies on interventions have shown that repeated reading of multi-letter consonant clusters (Hintikka, et al., 2008) of frequent syllables, (Bhattacharya & Ehri, 2004; Heikkila et al., 2013; Wentink, et al., 1997) and of infrequent syllables (Huemer et al., 2010) has been shown to increase the accuracy and fluency of word 15 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types recognition in children who had received at least two years of regular reading instruction (Muller, et al., 2017). This suggests that orthographic mapping helps with the decoding process and reading comprehension (Muller et al., 2017; Perfetti & Hart, 2002). Ehri’s (2014) research has shown that orthographically mapping words help students commit words to long-term memory so they can read words automatically because they have orthographically mapped them before, therefore they have already formed connections between written units, including single graphemes or larger spelling patterns, and spoken units, either phonemes, syllables, or morphemes. In this way, words become orthographically mapped in their brains so they can read the words with better automaticity. By deconstructing words and breaking them into their syllables, then combining them again, students orthographically map words in their minds and learn how words are constructed. This helps students put them in longterm memory (Knight-McKenna, 2008). Drake and Ehri’s (1984) research show how children move from learning to recognize words to teaching words to themselves. As proficiency in reading increases, learning strategies move from syllable identification to morpheme identification, which is identifying the smallest unit of letters that have meaning, and eventually to automatic orthographic word recognition. When students start recognizing the morpheme units that serve as part of words it will bridge the gap between slow phonological recoding and the faster direct recognition of whole words (Muller et al., 2017). When struggling readers are less able to perceive the patterns of syllables, it makes it more difficult for them to advance through the developmental stages of reading. Although the benefits of syllable study and practice greatly benefits all readers, studies have shown that syllable-focused training of reading words can benefit struggling readers even after two months of reading instruction (Bhattacharya & Ehri, 2004; Drake & Ehri, 1984). Therefore, orthographic mapping is a skill that should 16 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types benefit all students as they learn to be proficient readers. The current study will investigate whether a supplemental syllable-study focused training of reading words will benefit all students. Wonders Core Reading Program Wonders (August, D. et al., 2014) is a core reading program developed by Mc-Graw-Hill Education. For each grade level k-6, Wonders includes six units, each broken into six weeks of instruction that are guided by an essential question. Each week’s vocabulary, comprehension, phonics, and fluency are taught through three stories. There are eight vocabulary words with supporting vocabulary activities, and a strategy, skill, and genre focused on comprehension each week. In phonics or word study, different skills are focused on each week, such as short or long vowels, the six syllable types, affixes, or morphology. Fluency skills such as expression, phrasing, rate, and accuracy are focused on each week in a grade level passage. At the end of each week a reading comprehension and skills assessment is given to the students to see if they have mastered the skills that were taught. There is also a language arts section that includes writing, grammar, spelling, and vocabulary skills. Each week’s writing focuses on a different writing trait, such as sentence fluency, organization, ideas, voice, etc. Grammar focuses on the different uses of words, and spelling focuses on different spelling patterns. Because of the amount of material in this program, some researchers that reviewed Wonders said that it would be difficult for a teacher to teach all of it. If teachers do not take enough time to sift through everything offered in the curriculum, they may be unprepared to teach what could really benefit their students (Cabell et al., 2021). Educators differ in their perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the Wonders program. Some practitioners that use Wonders believe that its strengths are the teaching of phonemic awareness and alphabetic knowledge instruction, letter-feature instruction within its 17 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types scope and sequence, its use of direct instruction activities in many of its lessons, the recycling of teaching letter-features taught in earlier grades, a heavy emphasis on reading prosody, and assessment (Cabell et al., 2021). But other researchers and practitioners believe the weaknesses are phonemic awareness instruction because it is only included in the program in k-2, alphabetic knowledge because it is taught using a letter-a-week approach, giving the same time to each letter, which is not consistent with the research, and the rapid pacing of letter-feature instruction. These practices may leave many children, particularly those at risk for reading acquisition, behind in reading development. “For many children, the pace of instruction would leave insufficient time to marinate, practice, and become fluent with decoding words” (Cabell et al., 2021 p. 10). The time focused on fluency is also problematic, while there is a focus on fluency on Thursdays, the practice is insufficient for fluency development. Even though “other activities, such as Close Reading, also provide some reading practice, there was no evidence found that the Wonders curriculum provides students with the uninterrupted reading time necessary to develop fluent reading unless teachers purposefully plan for and supply it” (Cabell et al., 2021 p. 10). This same review had teacher guides answer questions as to how they implement the Wonders curriculum in their classrooms. One teacher practitioner “reported that she supplemented Wonders with outside phonemic awareness and phonics materials as she thought they presented a more systematic approach than what she found in Wonders. This teacher commented that her supplementation resulted in reading scores that out-performed those of the district (Cabell et al., 2021 p. 11).” It appears that teachers may need to supplement the Wonders curriculum to help students develop the skills necessary to achieve desired results. 95% Group Multisyllable Routine The 95% Group Multisyllable Routine (95 Percent Group, 2014)) is a Science of Reading aligned routine that is “designed to help students solve the mystery of multisyllabic 18 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types words by recognizing patterns, identifying correct vowel sounds, and applying syllable division rules” (95 Percent Group, 2014 p.1). The program provides teachers with an instructional routine that uses direct and explicit instruction on how to apply knowledge of the six syllable types and syllable division to read multisyllabic words. As students review the six syllable types, 1) closed, 2) vowel consonant “e”, 3) open, 4) vowel teams, 5) -r controlled vowels and 6) consonant -le, they learn how to identify, divide, and read multisyllabic words. It becomes easier for students to read more fluently as they increase their skills in how to read multisyllabic words (KnightMcKenna, 2008). Syllable-focused interventions increase reading accuracy and rate in many readers. Training in the 6-syllable types is critical to help students recognize words after a student has come to know the alphabetic principle which paves the way for the ability to read multisyllabic words and increase reading fluency (Knight-McKenna, 2008). This program teaches students the syllables and allows them to commit them to memory through orthographically mapping words in syllables therefore, helping them apply that knowledge to reading (95 Percent Group, 2014; Knight-McKenna, 2008; Muller et al.; 2017). Studies have shown that teachers elaborating on the relevance of word reading fluency through focusing on syllables enhances the student’s ability for reading comprehension (Hautala et al., 2012; Knight-McKenna, 2008; Muller et al, 2017). Knowing how to decode and read multisyllabic words gives students the opportunity to read more content rich literature. Teachers should use assessment data while teaching students how to read multisyllable words. Using Assessment Data to Drive Instruction Assessment data should drive instruction (Rasinski, 2004). Because there are now valid screening instruments that are available at the kindergarten and early first-grade levels, screening should be done as early as possible (Moats, 2007). Acadience (Acadience Reading K-6, 2021) 19 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types formally called DIBELS is a short, fluency-based screening that is reliable, efficient, and inexpensive. Assessments can help educators organize children into instructional groups and focus on those skills most important for nurturing progress; they can also help educators determine how to allocate instruction time and resources. Most importantly, they make it possible to monitor students' progress closely, so that children do not stagnate for weeks without appropriate help (Moats, 2007). In kindergarten and the early first-grade levels, Acadience (Acadience Reading K-6, 2021), which is a test that has different subtest at different grade levels, tests letter-naming fluency. This is to assess if students know their letter names, so teachers know if they need to focus on that in class. In first grade and the beginning of second grade, Acadience assesses nonsense word fluency to see if students know letter sounds (Acadience Reading K-6, 2021). These assessments identify if students are at risk of struggling to learn how to read (Moats, 2007). The earlier teachers know if a student is at risk, the more they can do to help them succeed. “Interventions can help those children, but it needs to occur early, preferably in kindergarten or first grade. The later one starts, the less positive the outcome and the more costly the remediation” (Moats, 2007, p. 24). Assessment data can be used to form and create small group interventions as well as inform teachers what to focus on during Tier 1 instruction. If a teachers’ class shows a weakness in a certain area of the assessment, teachers can focus on that skill. Another important Acadience assessment that is given starting in the middle of the year in first grade (Acadience Reading K-6, 2021) is Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) or words correct per minute. The following describes what the ORF is and how it is assessed. 20 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types ORF (Good et al., 2001) is an assessment that measures the oral reading fluency in gradelevel connected text. This standardized, individually administered test of accuracy and reading rate in connected text was designed to identify children who may need additional instructional support and to monitor progress toward instructional goals (Good & Kaminski, 1996). Students read three passages aloud for 1 minute each, with the cue to “be sure to do your best reading” (Good et al., 2001). Words omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than 3 seconds are scored as errors. Words self-corrected within 3 seconds are scored as accurate (Good et al., 2001). The assessor notes errors, and the score is the number of correct words read per minute; the median score from the three passages is the data point for decision-making (Roehrig et al., 2007 pp. 348-349). The way the Acadience test is given ensures that proper interventions will be given to students. The ORF assessment that gives a score for words per minute and accuracy is the best predictor of reading comprehension in 3rd grade. (Roehrig et al., 2007) “Students who can read with about 90 percent accuracy by the end of third grade are likely to pass high-stakes state tests that require sustained passage reading with comprehension” (Moats, 2007, p. 24). Conclusion Students are struggling to learn how to read. Decades of research have examined this problem; this body of research has been coined the term the Science of Reading (The Reading League, 2021). It incorporates all the essential components of researched based reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). Science of Reading is the philosophy that the five essential elements should be taught directly and explicitly. The research behind The Simple View of Reading, Scarborough’s Reading Rope, fluency, orthographic mapping, teaching the six syllable types, and using assessment data to drive instruction should also be used to create and deliver effective 21 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types instruction. The Science of Reading helps teachers develop, create, and encourage successful readers. 22 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Purpose Some components of the Science of Reading research are present in core reading curriculum; however, it is not clear if there is one curriculum that includes all recommended SoR components. Two Science of Reading aligned curriculums, Wonders and the 95 Percent Group, do not exclusively include all the components. Therefore, the current study aims to see if teaching 3rd grade Wonders and replacing the word building activities with a supplemental routine called the 95 Percent Multisyllable Routine in tier 1 instruction will make a difference in student achievement in the Acadience assessments at the middle and end of the year. Thus, this study examines if the Wonders curriculum with a strong multi-syllable routine called the 95% group Multisyllable Routine will increase student reading achievement in 3rd grade. The questions guiding this study are: 1. Does using the Wonders core reader along with the 95% Group Multisyllable Routine make a statistically significant difference in students’ words per minute and accuracy scores on the Acadience test compared to instruction with just the Wonders core reader? 2. Will there be a significant difference in the words per minute and accuracy in the Acadience scores from beginning to middle and middle to end of year in the treatment and control groups? 3. Will students who scored in the bottom third, middle third, and top third of the treatment group have a larger difference in the beginning to end of year words per minute and accuracy Acadience scores compared to the control group? 23 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Method This study examined whether students’ accuracy and words per minute scores increase after explicitly being taught the Science of Reading aligned curriculums Wonders and 95% Multisyllable Phonics Routine (MSCR) compared to students only taught with Wonders. This is a quantitative causal comparative study that used existing data collected during the 2021-2022 school year in two third-grade classrooms. Participants Forty-four nine to ten-year-old students in two third grade classrooms participated in this study. The participants were 23 boys and 21 girls in an urban area school. The treatment group had 23 students, fourteen boys and nine girls. The control group had 21 students, 12 girls, and nine boys. There were three students that had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), two in the control group, and one in the treatment group; therefore, some students were out of the classroom at times when these lessons were given, or students practiced. The students with IEPs also were being taught a Science of Reading aligned curriculum in the special education classroom. Instruments The Acadience ORF test, formally called DIBELS, was used for the pre, middle, and posttest. This study used the rate and accuracy scores from Acadience ORF assessment. The tests were administered by teacher assistants using i-pads. Students read from a paper copy of the passages. Procedure Students in both the treatment and control group were assessed at the beginning of the year to determine a benchmark Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) score for third grade. The treatment 24 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types group was explicitly taught how to read multisyllabic words using a routine called 95% Group Multisyllable Routine in addition to the district curriculum Wonders, and the control group was taught only using Wonders. The treatment group was explicitly taught how to identify the six syllables. After each syllable type was taught, students practiced identifying that syllable type in single syllable pseudowords, then in multisyllable pseudowords. Then the students read real words that have the syllable type the students were working on and students then divided them into syllables. These lessons were taught the first half of the year. Both the treatment and control group were assessed at the middle of the year. The six syllables were periodically reviewed and worked with until the end of the year. Both the treatment and the control group took the ORF again at the end of the school year. The treatment group’s ELA block consisted of at least 60 minutes working with the Wonders program, plus at least 30 minutes of instruction and practice from the 95% Group Multisyllable Routine. The 95% Group Multisyllable Routine replaced the word work portion of the Wonders curriculum. The word work portion of the Wonders curriculum required students to identify vowel sounds in spelling words. The control group worked with the Wonders curriculum for at least 90 minutes a day. Results Question 1: Comparison of Final Acadience Scores for Treatment and Control Group Research question 1 asks: Does using the Wonders core reader along with the 95% Group Multisyllable Routine make a statistically significant difference in students’ words per minute and accuracy scores on the Acadience test compared to instruction with just the core reader? Two independent sample t-tests were run, the first one compared words per minute from the beginning of the year to the end of the year and no statistically significance differences were found t(41) = -.33, p =.37. The second test compared the accuracy scores from the beginning of the year to the end of the year of the treatment and control group. No statistically significant 25 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types differences were found t(41) = -.94, p =.18. Thus, there were no statistically significant differences between the treatment group and the control group for either words per minute or accuracy on the pre and posttest. Question 2: Comparison of Acadience Scores Over Time for Treatment and Control Group Research question 2 asks: Will there be a significant difference in the words per minute and accuracy in the Acadience scores from beginning to middle and middle to end of year in the treatment and control groups? Four one-way MANOVAs were conducted to determine if there were significant differences in the scores between the beginning to middle and middle to end of the year scores for words per minute and accuracy for both the treatment and control groups. When assessing the differences in oral words per minute for the treatment group there were statistically significant differences in word per minute scores over the three assessments based on times in the treatment group (F(1, 19) = 131.891, p = .001; partial eta squared =.863. When assessing the differences in words per minute for the control group there were also statistically significant differences in words per minute scores over the three assessments based on times in the control group (F (1, 19) = 531.04, p = .001; partial eta squared =.863. There was a significant difference from beginning to middle to end of year ORF scores for both the treatment and control group. The mean scores for words per minute for both the treatment and control groups are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Comparison of Words Per Minute Scores Over Time for Treatment and Control Group Treatment Group Beginning of Year Score Middle of Year Score End of Year Score Control Group Beginning of Year Score Mean Standard Deviation 87.2 103.9 121.8 9.7 9.7 10.1 94.0 7.1 26 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Middle of Year Score 105.9 End of Year Score 124.7 Note: Treatment Group n=23, Control Group n=21 7.9 7.4 When assessing differences in accuracy, there were no statistically significant differences in accuracy scores over the three assessments based on times in the treatment group (F (1, 19) = 4.09, p = .06; partial eta squared =.199. When assessing differences in accuracy in the control group, there were significant differences in accuracy scores over the three assessments based on times in the control group, F (1, 19) = 5.207, p = .03; partial eta squared =.199. The mean scores for accuracy over time for the treatment and control group are shown in Table 2 that follows. Table 2 Comparison of Percent Accurate Scores Over Time for Treatment and Control Group Mean Treatment Group Beginning of Year 95.6 Middle of Year 97.3 End of Year 98.1 Control Group Beginning of Year 91.0 Middle of Year 94.8 End of Year 96.9 Note: Treatment Group n=23, Control Group n=21 Standard Deviation 1.6 .9 .6 3.7 1.9 1.1 There were no significant differences in the accuracy scores in the treatment group for beginning to middle and middle to end of year, but there was a significant difference in accuracy scores for the control group. Question 3: Comparison of Rate and Accuracy Scores by Ability Level for Treatment and Control Group 27 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Research question 3 asks: Will students who scored in the bottom third, middle third, or top third of the treatment group have a larger difference in the beginning to end of year words per minute and accuracy Acadience scores compared to the control group? Tables 3 and 4 show the results for research question 3. For research question 3, the classes were divided equally into three groups based on their ORF scores from the beginning of the year. Because the number of participants in each of the lowest, middle, and highest groups were so small, a statistical test for significance was not valid. Instead, a change score for each group was calculated by adding all the scores of each group and then dividing by the number of scores in that group for the beginning of the year (BOY) and the end of the year (EOY). The difference between the two scores was then calculated to see if there was a difference in scores for different groups of students. See Table 3. Table 3 Comparison of Average Word Per Minute Scores by Ability Level for Treatment and Control Group BOY EOY Difference Treatment Lowest Group 30 75 +45 Control Lowest Group 58 88 +30 Treatment Middle Group 80 119 +39 Control Middle Group 93 138 +45 Treatment Highest Group 136 164 +28 Control Highest Group 126 143 +17 Note: Treatment Lowest Group n= 7, Control Lowest Group n=7, Treatment Middle Group n=8, Control Middle Group n=7, Treatment Highest Group n=8, Control Highest Group n=7 Table 3 shows 15 more average words per minute from the treatment lowest group compared to the control lowest group. This shows that the 95 % Multisyllable Routine helped the lowest treatment group the most. 28 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Table 4 shows the average accuracy scores for the lowest, middle, and highest groups. There is a difference of 15 percent between the beginning of year and end of year accuracy scores for the lowest treatment group compared to a 3.5% difference for the lowest control group. There is no real difference between the accuracy scores of the middle and high groups. Table 4 Comparison of Percent Accurate Scores by Ability Level for Treatment and Control Group BOY % EOY % Difference Accurate Accurate Treatment Lowest Group 78 93 +15.0 Control Lowest Group 88 92 +3.5 Treatment Middle Group 95 98 +3.0 Control Middle Group 99 99 +.29 Treatment Highest Group 99 100 +1.3 Control Highest Group 98 100 +1.6 Note: Treatment Lowest Group n= 7, Control Lowest Group n=7, Treatment Middle Group n=8, Control Middle Group n=7, Treatment Highest Group n=8, Control Highest Group n=7 Discussion The results of research question 1 showed that the addition of the 95% Multi-syllable Routine to the Wonders core reading program, did not make a statistical significant difference between the treatment or control group in words per minute or accuracy. These findings were surprising because the research suggested (95 Percent Group, 2014; Knight-McKenna, 2008; Muller, et al. 2020; Muller, et al. 2017) the benefits of syllable study and practice greatly benefits all readers, especially the struggling readers. As for research question 2, when comparing the beginning, middle, and end of year scores the treatment and control groups had significant differences in word per minute (wpm) scores. As students grew in their skills and abilities their wpm scores were supposed to increase. In third grade, wpm growth is supposed to go from 70 wpm to 86 wpm at mid-year and to 100 29 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types wpm at the end of the year. Fifteen out of 22 in the treatment group made benchmark by the middle of year and 15 out of 20 made benchmark in the control group by the middle of year. Fourteen out of 22 in the treatment group made the benchmark by the end of the year. Sixteen out of twenty in the control group made the benchmark by the end of the year. This shows that most of the students made the growth that they were expected to in a third-grade class that was being taught the district adopted curriculum, Wonders. This makes me think that the additional curriculum, 95% Multisyllable Routine, either taught the students things they already knew, or enough practice wasn’t applied in the given curriculum to make a difference in such a short amount of time. But I still believe students who were taught the 95% Group Multi-syllable Routine will be able to understand how to read multi-syllable words better in the long run, because of their understanding of the sounds different vowels make depending on how the word is divided into syllables (95 Percent Group, 2014). When comparing the beginning, and end of the year scores, when accuracy was considered, the control group had significant differences, but the treatment didn’t. One possible explanation for this finding is the control group started with a lower mean accuracy score of 91 and so they had more room for growth. The treatment group started with a mean accuracy score of 96 so they were already near the highest mean score possible. This means they didn’t have as much room to grow. As for the third question, students in the control group who started the year scoring in the lowest third for WPM, started with an average (BOY) score of 58. The students in the treatment group had an average beginning of the year (BOY) score of 30. At the end of the year these students in the control group had an average WPM score of 58, while the treatment group had an average WPM score of 88. The lowest treatment group improved by 15 more wpm than that of the lowest control group. This suggests that the struggling readers in the treatment group were 30 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types helped by the additional study of syllables because they were able to decode more words for an average of 45 more wpm than that of 30 more wpm for the control group. The treatment group may have read more words because they knew what the vowel sounds were because of what syllable type they were. Research suggests struggling students will benefit more from syllable study and practice. (Muller, et al., 2017) The benefit of the 95% syllable work treatment for the lowest students in the study was also evident when examining the percent accuracy scores. The treatment accuracy scores improved from seventy-eight percent to ninety-three percent which was a fifteen percent increase while the control group accuracy scores only increased by 3.5%. It seems that the treatment made the greatest difference for the struggling students in this study. Other researchers have found that targeted syllable work is particularly effective for struggling readers (Muller, et al., 2020; Muller, et al., 2017). Teaching the 95% Multi-syllable Routine could have helped these students realized how to decode better by teaching them the sounds vowels make in words when they are found in certain syllable types thus helping them read more words, more accurately. The benefit of the syllable routine was not as robust for students who scored in the middle third and upper third as it was for students who scored in the lower third. The middle third control group started the year off with a higher average wpm than the treatment group. The control group improved by 45 wpm by the end of the year while the treatment group improved by 39 wpm. All students made progress because they were taught from a science of reading aligned curriculum. All but three of the students in both the treatment and control groups made benchmark, which is where they are supposed to be by the end of third grade. The highest third treatment group started off with the highest average of 136 wpm at the beginning of the year, while the highest third control group had 126 wpm average BOY score. The treatment group improved by 28 wpm while the control group improved by 17 wpm. This 31 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types shows that the additional work with syllables did work for the highest group because those students could read more words, especially multisyllable words. All the students in both the treatment and control groups were at or above benchmark of 100 wpm and all but one improved their score by the end of the year. The middle and lowest third groups didn’t make significant growth in accuracy, because they started at such a high percentage of accuracy to begin with that, they couldn’t make much growth. The conclusion I have come to through this research is that the 95% Multisyllable Routine helped the struggling readers the most, especially in accuracy, therefore, this instruction can and should be given in Tier 2 instruction. The upper two thirds of the class are already receiving the necessary word work they need from the core curriculum. It is the bottom third of the class that needs the extra help of identifying vowels and syllables to decode better. They have been taught these concepts before in the general classroom, but they need to be retaught in an explicit, systematic way that 95% Group Multisyllable Routine provides. These struggling readers can receive this in Tier 2 instruction in small groups. Limitations Many factors go into reading fluently and accurately and not all factors can be accounted for. Some of these factors are background knowledge, experience with vocabulary, and diagnosed reading difficulties (Yang et al., 2022). Some also include test anxiety or personal issues with students. The sample size of the treatment and control groups also limit the generalizability of this study. The 95% Group Multi-syllable Routine was taught until all the syllables were learned, but the teacher did not reinforce the syllable types as much as she could have throughout the rest of the year. There could have been limitations on how much the students retained of the knowledge about syllables they acquired. This could have been remedied by the teacher 32 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types reinforcing what the students had learned at the beginning of the year about syllable types by pointing out the syllable types in the students’ spelling words or orthographically mapping their vocabulary words each week and continuing to practice rate and accuracy during literacy lessons throughout the year. Recommendations and Future Research Being able to read fluently and accurately is important. Using the latest research of the Science of Reading helps to teach skills that students need to be successful (Moats & Tolman, 2019a). Explicitly teaching and continually reviewing the 95% Multisyllable Routine all year benefits all students, but especially helps struggling readers grow to become better fluent readers. Future research could include using a bigger sample group to test the benefits of using the 95% Multisyllable Routine in addition to a core reading program and teaching this routine in small groups. This research project used a small sample size of just two classes of students to examine if there was any growth. If a larger group were used statistically significant differences could possibly be found. 33 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types References 95 Percent Group. (2014). Phonics lesson library. https://www.95percentgroup.com Acadience Reading K-6. (2021). Acadience Learning. https://acadiencelearning.org/acadiencereading/k-grade6/ Adolf, S. M., & Perfetti, C.A. (2014). Individual differences in word learning and reading ability. In C.A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren, & G.P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 246-264). Guilford Press. Archer, A.L., & Hughes, C.A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching (What works for special-needs learners). Guilford Press. August, D., Bear, D. R., Dole, J. A., Echevarria, J., Fisher, D., Gibson, V., Hasbrouck, J., Kilo, M., McTighe, J., Paris, S. G., Shanahan, T., & Tinajero, J. V. (2014). McGraw-Hill Reading Wonders CCSS Reading/Language Arts Program. McGraw-Hill Education. Bhattacharya A. & Ehri, L. (2004). Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 37, 331-348. Doi: 10.1177/00222194040370040501 Cabell, S., Fillmore, L.W, Goldenberg, C., Griffin, A. & Paige, D.D. (2021). Comparing reading research to program design: An examination of McGraw Hill Educations Wonders, an elementary literacy curriculum. Research to Program Design: An Examination of McGraw Hill Education’s Wonders, An Elementary Literacy Curriculum,1-19. Dickinson, D. K. & Porch, M. V. (2011). Relation Between Language Experiences in Preschool Classrooms and Children’s Kindergarten and Fourth-Grade Language and Reading Abilities. Child Development, May ⁄ June 2011, 82(3), 870–886. 34 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Drake, D., & Ehri, L. (1984). Spelling acquisition: Effects of pronouncing words on memory for their spellings. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 297-320. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0103_2 Duke, N.K., & Cartwright, K.B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Special Issue: The Science of Reading: supports, Critiques, and Questions, 56, (1), 25-S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411 Ehri, L.C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21 Ehri, L. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, S45–S60. doi:10.1002//rrq.334pp Good, R.H. III, & Kaminski, R.A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model of decision-making for early literacy skills. School of Psychology Quarterly. 11 (4), 326-336. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088938 Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for thirdgrade, high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 257-288. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10. Hautala, J., Aro, M., Eklund, K., Lerkkaennen, M.K., & Lyytinen, H. (2012). The role of letters and syllables in typical and dysfluent reading in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing. Https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9394-2. 35 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Heikkila, R., Aro, M., Narhi, V., & Westerolm, J. (2013). Does training in syllable recognition improve reading speed? A computer-based trial with poor readers from second and third grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17 (6), 398-414. Doi: 10.1080/10888438.2012.7534 Hintikka, S., Landerl K., Aro, M, & Lyytinen, H. (2008). Training reading fluency: is it important to practice reading aloud and is generalization possible? Annals of Dyslexia 58 (1), 59-79. Https://doi: 10.1007/s11881-008-0012-7 Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160. Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2018). Teaching reading sourcebook (3rd ed.). Arena Press. Huemer, S., Aro, M., Landerl, K., & Lytinen, H. (2010). Repeated reading of syllables among finish-speaking children with poor reading skills. Scientific Study of Reading.14 (4), 317340. Doi doi:10.1080/10888430903150659 Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming read difficulties. Hoboken, NF: Wiley. Knight-McKenna, M. (2008). Syllable Types A Strategy for Reading Multisyllabic Words. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 18-24. Lonigan, C. J., Allan, N.P., & Lerner, M.D., (2011). Assessment of preschool early literacy skills: Linking children’s educational needs with empirically supported instructional activities. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20569. Lyon, R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, D. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 36 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types 1-14. Malouf, R. C. Reisener, C. D., Gadke, D. L. Wimbish, S. W., & Frankel, A. (2014). The effect of helping early literacy with practice strategies on reading fluency for children with severe reading impairments. Reading Improvements, 51(2), 269-279. McArthur, G. & Castles, A. (2017). Helping children with reading difficulties: Some things we have learned so far. npj Science Learn 2, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0008-3 Moats, L. C. (2007). Whole-Language High Jinks: How to Tell When “Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction” Isn’t. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. 44-33. Moats, L. C. & Tolman, C.A. (2019a). LETRS (Vol. 1). Sopris West Education Services. Moats, L. C. & Tolman, C. A. (2019b). LETRS (Vol. 2). Sopris West Education Services. Müller, B., Richter, T., & Karageorgos, P. (2020). Syllable-Based reading improvement: Effects on word reading and reading comprehension in Grade 2.” Learning and Instruction, 66. p. 1-12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475219302890 Müller, B., Richter, T., Karageorgos, P., Krawietz, S., & Ennemoser, M. (2017). Effects of a syllable-based reading intervention in poor-reading fourth graders. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01635 Murray, Maria S. Ph.D. (2017). Orthographic mapping: What it is & why it’s so important [Video]. YouTube. https: youtube.www.youtube.com/watch?v-XfRHcUeGohc National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Executive Summary. National Institute for Literacy. https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to 37 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2019). The nation’s report card. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, and P. Reitsma (Eds.) Precursors of Functional Literacy, (pp.189-213) John Benjamins Publishing Company. Postholm, M.B. (2012). Teachers’ professional development: A theoretical review. Educational Research. 54(4), 405-429. Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. 1–25. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED483166.pdf Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Accuracy of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.006 Samuels, S.J. (1997) The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 1, 76–81. Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research. 1, (pp. 97-110). Guilford Press. Stone, Lyn. (2019). Orthographic mapping explainer. [Video].YouTube. https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=KluwKnZqJEQ The Reading League. (2022). Science of Reading: Defining Guide. 38 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types https://www.thereadingleague.org/what-is-the-science-of-reading/ Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W.E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 3-32. Wentink, H.W. M. J., Van Bon, W. H. J., & Shreuder, R. (1997). Training of poor readers phonological decoding: evidence for syllable-bound processing. Reading and Writing, 9 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007921805360 Wooldridge, L. (2017). “The Big Five: Phonics-Orthographic Mapping”. Orton Gillingham Online Academy. https: www.ortongillinghamonline tutor.com/the-big-five-phonics-orthographic-mapping/ Yang, L., Li, C., Li, X., Zhai, M., An, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., & Weng, X. (2022). Prevalence of developmental dyslexia in primary school children: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Brain Sciences, 12(2), 240. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/12/2/240 39 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Appendix A Dear Pene'e Stewart: The Weber State University Institutional Review Board has rendered the decision below for Will Teaching the Program 95% Group Multisyllable Routine Increase Fluency and Accuracy. Decision: Exempt Approval: September 21, 2023 Selected Category: Findings: I approve of this exempt data analysis. However, the already-collected data set (where is this data coming from?) is not mentioned. Can this be clarified? Research Notes: You may proceed, and you have one year to complete the study. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. If you have any questions, please contact your review committee chair or irb@weber.edu. Sincerely, Daniel Hubler, Ph.D. Interim Chair, College of Education IRB Sub-committee Weber State Institutional Review Board 40 Teaching 95% Multisyllable Types Appendix B Davis School District LEARNING FIRST October 5, 2023 Ms. AnnaLee Haws ahaws@dsdmail.net Ms. Haws,, The Research and Assessment Review Committee recently met to consider your research application. The research study entitled, “Will Teaching 95% Group Multi-syllable Types Program Increase Fluency and Accuracy?” is approved for the 2023 – 2024 school year to be completed in the Davis School District. As a researcher you are responsible for all aspects of the study. District resources may not be used to conduct the study. All costs associated with the study are paid by the researcher. If additional data is needed, please submit a request from the Davis District Assessment Department by submitting a data request form (Data Request Form) under “Requests>Custom Data Request” or calling (801) 402-5305. Approval at the district level still requires each individual school or site to make the final decision regarding participation. This letter may be used as proof of approval from the Davis School District Research and Assessment department as site-level support is finalized. You are also required to obtain permission from parents before any surveys are distributed or interviews are conducted with Davis District students (if applicable). Any anticipated changes to the study or to the currently approved procedures must be submitted to this office prior to implementation. It is also our understanding that you will protect the anonymity of individuals involved in the research. We hope your collaborative work with the district proves insightful and fulfilling. Sincerely, Sincerely, Gregory G. Wilkey, Ed.D. Director of Assessment gwilkey@dsdmail.net I I I PO Box 588 45 East State Street, Farmington UT 84025 801-402-5261 davis.k12.ut.us BOARD OF EDUCATION Liz Mumford – President Brigit Gerrard – Vice President Kristen Hogan Derek Lamb Julie Powell Emily Price John L Robison apr25thesis-Stewart 25 Final Audit Report Created: 2024-05-07 By: Ellynn Raynor (ellynnraynor@weber.edu) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA39atzOFGwIxq3kJMqAlE26HSSgkx6GGL 2024-05-21 "apr25thesis-Stewart 25" History Document created by Ellynn Raynor (ellynnraynor@weber.edu) 2024-05-07 - 7:54:18 PM GMT- IP address: 67.172.248.200 Document emailed to Penee Stewart (pstewart@weber.edu) for signature 2024-05-07 - 7:55:38 PM GMT Email viewed by Penee Stewart (pstewart@weber.edu) 2024-05-07 - 8:36:00 PM GMT- IP address: 66.102.9.130 Email viewed by Penee Stewart (pstewart@weber.edu) 2024-05-20 - 9:43:31 PM GMT- IP address: 66.102.6.233 Document e-signed by Penee Stewart (pstewart@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2024-05-21 - 3:38:50 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.3.89.40 Document emailed to Jadelyn Abbott (jadelynabbott@weber.edu) for signature 2024-05-21 - 3:38:51 AM GMT Email viewed by Jadelyn Abbott (jadelynabbott@weber.edu) 2024-05-21 - 4:23:46 AM GMT- IP address: 172.226.137.20 Document e-signed by Jadelyn Abbott (jadelynabbott@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2024-05-21 - 5:06:18 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.20.45.101 Document emailed to saragailey@weber.edu for signature 2024-05-21 - 5:06:19 PM GMT Email viewed by saragailey@weber.edu 2024-05-21 - 7:26:52 PM GMT- IP address: 66.102.6.226 Signer saragailey@weber.edu entered name at signing as Sara Gailey 2024-05-21 - 7:27:11 PM GMT- IP address: 137.190.215.50 Document e-signed by Sara Gailey (saragailey@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2024-05-21 - 7:27:13 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 137.190.215.50 Agreement completed. 2024-05-21 - 7:27:13 PM GMT