Data Driven Literacy Plan

Ashley Allen
St. Bonaventure University

Introduction
Reading instruction can often be difficult for students with learning
disabilities. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (2004) many of these students struggle with basic reading
skills, involving phonological awareness and word attack, while other
struggle in the area of reading comprehension. As students with learning
disabilities advance through the grades their reading difficulties often
accompany them, due to the lack of phonological instruction (Bhat, Griffin, &
Sindelar, 2003). Unfortunately in the upper grades few literacy programs
continue to focus on phonological skills, they instead shift their focus to
comprehension (Calhoon, Sandown, & Hunter, 2010).
Sarah (this name is a pseudonym), a sixth grade student at the
Mandala School is among the many students with learning disabilities who
face difficulties with basic reading skills. Sarah loves to listen to books and
spends a great deal of time doing so. When a story is read to her, Sarahs
comprehension skills are at, if not above, grade level. However, Sarah does
not enjoy independent reading. She faces great difficulty in the area of
decoding. Sarah is currently reading at a second grade reading level. The two
following IEP goals have been put into place; Sarah will be able to decode
words at a 4.5 grade level and Sarah will be able to read 10 multisyllabic
words with 90% accuracy.

As mentioned above, Sarah attends the Mandala school. There are

fourteen students enrolled ranging from 7 years old to 14 years old. Sarah is
in sixth grade, however the students are divided by their knowledge of the
subject rather than their ages. Dr. John and April are the two teachers at
Mandala. Taylor works with both teachers. April is certified in special
education, however the students do not receive special education services
through April. Sarah does however meet with a reading specialist. Sarah is to
be provided with reading instruction from the specialist every day, however
due to frequent absences this has not been possible. When Sarah is present
in school she does not put forth a great deal of effort into reading instruction.
She comes in with little motivation to learn the material. Sarah lives at home
with her mother, father, and older brother. She enjoys listening to stories on
her IPad and does this quite often. Sarah is also involved in tennis.

Literature Review
According to the National Center of Learning Disabilities (2014) People
with learning disabilities are average or above average intelligence but still
struggle to acquire skills that impact their performance in school, at home, in
the community, and in the work place. Learning disabilities can affect
peoples abilities in many areas, including those of reading and writing
(National Center of Learning Disabilities, 2014). As previously stated, many
students with learning disabilities struggle with basic reading skills, involving

phonological awareness and word attack, while other struggle in the area of
reading comprehension (IDEA, 2004). As students with learning disabilities
advance through the grades their reading difficulties often accompany them,
due to the lack of phonological instruction. Without the appropriate
phonological instruction students may not only continue struggling with
reading, but they may begin to struggle in other subjects that require the use
of reading skills as well (Bhat. Griffin, & Sindelar, 2003). Unfortunately in the
upper grades few literacy programs continue to focus on phonological skills,
they instead shift their focus to comprehension (Calhoon, Sandown, &
Hunter, 2010). However, research has shown that reading programs that
focus on basic reading skills such as phonological instruction still have a
great impact when provided to students in the upper grades (Bhat, Griffin,
Sindelar, 2003; Paige, 2006; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005;
Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001).
Many effective reading programs for struggling students or students
with learning disabilities have had a strong focus on phonological and
decoding skills (Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelar, 2003; Hempenstall, 2008; Shippen,
Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005). Some programs have put an emphasis
on fluency instruction as well (Harlin, Murray, & Shea, 2010; Paige, 2006;
Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001) Phonological instruction has been a primary focus
in many effective reading programs. As previously mentioned, many
adolescent students struggle with the phonological skills necessary for
reading. Phonological awareness improved greatly as students were provided

with individual instruction that introduced concepts such as rhyming,

identifying, onset and final sounds, blending, syllable awareness, phonemes,
phoneme deletion, one concept at a time (Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelar, 2003).
Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, and Sartor (2005) also found that reading
programs that emphasis on sound symbol correspondence, digraphs, and
blends led to student gains in the area of reading. It is important that
students not only become aware of these concepts (sound symbol
correspondence, blends, rhymes, etc.) but are also encouraged to remember
these concepts while examining these words as well. Instruction that
encourages students to pay attention to all letters in a word along with the
letter grouping (blends, letter combinations, etc.) improved students
phonological awareness, word attack skills, and spelling (Hempenstall, 2008).
Phonological skills are the foundation to reading (Hempenstall, 2008).
Instruction in this areas has led to significant improvements in student
success (Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelar, 2003; Hempenstall, 2008; Shippen,
Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005).
Reading instruction with a focus on decoding skills have proven to be
beneficial for struggling readers as well (Birsch; Knight-McKenna, 2008;
Lovett, Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, 2005).
The PHAST program includes a number of word identification strategies that
assist students in successfully decoding words. These strategies include
sounding out, rhyming, peeling of the suffix or affix and examining the root
word, vowel alerts (which teaches students to flip the vowel sound from the

short to the long or vice versa), and spy, which refers to the activity of
searching for a familiar word within a longer word (Lovett, Lacerenza,
&Borden, 2000). It has also been suggested that students be provided with
instruction on the syllable types. Introducing students to the six syllable
types can help to familiarize students with language patterns. (KnightMcKenna, 2008). According to Birsch (2011) Syllable patterns are an
important part of instruction because the type of syllable regulates the vowel
sound. Knowledge of these language patterns will assist students in
decoding words, as they will be able to predict which sound the vowel will
make (Knight-McKenna, 2008). Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor
(2005) found that like phonological instruction, instruction in overt decoding
strategies leads to student gains. It is important that reading instruction for
students with learning disabilities puts an emphasis on decoding skills, as
they positively influence students reading abilities (Birsch; Knight-McKenna,
2008; Lovett, Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon,
2005).
Research has shown improved reading skills as a result of fluency
instruction as well (Harlin, Murray, & Shea, 2010; Paige, 2006; Swanson &
Hoskyn, 2001). Paige (2006) found that repeated reading practice, done in an
attempt to improve fluency, led to a decrease in reading miscues. It is
possible this decrease is due to the multiple opportunities for decoding
practice that repeated reading provides. Repeated reading also gives
teachers the opportunity to observe the types of words students struggle to

decode. They can then use this information to determine the appropriate
interventions. It has also been noted that fluency instruction increases
students word recognition, as well as their confidence (Harlin, Murray, &
Shea, 2010). Swanson (2008) addresses the issue that many schools do not
provide students with the proper amount of time for reading practice. A
greater amount of practice can increase students fluency. Fluency is another
important component in effective reading instruction (Harlin, Murray, & Shea,
2010; Paige, 2006; Swanson, 2008).
As previously stated, students with learning disabilities struggle with
basic reading skills (IDEA, 2004). Students are able to improve these skills
when provided with instruction in the areas of phonological skills, decoding
skills, and fluency (Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelar, 2003; Birsch, 2011; Harlin,
Murray, & Shea, 2010; Hempenstall, 2008; Knight-McKenna, 2008; Lovett,
Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Paige, 2006; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, &
Sartor, 2005; Swanson, 2008; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001). Research has
shown that effective reading instruction is direct, explicit, and intense
(Calhoon, Sandown, & Hunter, 2010; Hempenstall, 2008; Lovett, Lacerenza,
& Borden, 2009; Bhat, Griffin, Sindelar, 2003; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon,
& Sartor, 2005). According to Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, and Sartor
(2005) this is crucial. Direct instruction should include teacher modeling, the
student saying answers with the teacher, and immediate corrective
feedback. Instruction in phonics, word attack skills, and decoding skills was
found to be effective with the use of this direct instruction approach.

Swanson and Hoskyn (2001) found that a number of effective reading

programs shared two common characteristics, one of these being explicit
instruction. Explicit instruction includes distributed review and practice,
repeated review and practice, daily feedback, and weekly review. Similarly,
Hempenstall (2008) noted spaced practice as one of the important
components in an effective reading program that was implemented. This
spaced practice allows for retention of learned skills. Effective reading
intervention programs have implemented direct and explicit instruction in
which students were provided with teacher model, many opportunities for
practice, and immediate and corrective feedback. This form of instruction
has significantly improved students reading abilities (Calhoon, Sandown, &
Hunter, 2010; Hempenstall, 2008; Lovett, Lacerenza, & Borden, 2009; Bhat,
Griffin,Sindelar, 2003; Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005).
Instruction that is systematic positively effects students success as
well (Calhoon, Sandown, and Hunter, 2010; Hempenstall, 2008; Lovett,
Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001). Educators should
introduce new skills that build off of those already mastered. Hempenstall
(2008) found the importance of systematic instruction after exploring the
effects of regular classroom reading instruction and a corrective reading
program that focused on phonological process, word attack, and spelling.
Students who participated in the corrective reading program made
significant gains in these areas. This demonstrates the importance of
continuing phonics instruction. It is not advised for teachers to skip ahead

and replace phonics instruction with comprehension when phonics skills have
not yet been mastered (Hempenstall, 2008). Similarly Calhoon, Sandown,
and Hunter (2010) found it to be most effective to teach linguistic skills
(phonetics, phonology, syllables, and orthography) in isolation prior to
spelling, fluency, and comprehension. Students made greater gains in this
scenario than they did when linguistic skills, spelling, fluency, and
comprehension were taught simultaneously. Again, this demonstrates the
importance of providing students with basic reading skills, as they are the
foundational skills necessary for reading. Students are most successful when
they are given the opportunity to practice and master basic skills before
moving forward in reading instruction. One effective intervention program
that introduced student to multiple literacy skills (rhyming, identifying onset
and final sounds, blending words, syllables, phonemes, and phoneme
deletion) introduces students to these skills one at a time, rather than all at
once (Bhat, Griffin, Sindelar, 2003). An effective reading program referred to
as PHAST suggests introducing word identification strategies in a specific
order; beginning with sounding out, then move forward to sounding out and
rhyming, then to sounding out, rhyming, and peeling off, and so on and so
forth (Lovett, Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000). Knight-Mckenna (2008) also noted
the importance of systematic instruction. When introducing the six syllable
types it is encouraged to teach one syllable type at a time. Students should
only be introduced to a new syllable type after demonstrating mastery of the
type previously taught. Students greatly benefit from systematic reading

instruction in which skills are introduced and mastered one at a time

(Calhoon, Sandown, and Hunter,2010; Hempenstall, 2008; Lovett, Lacerenza,
& Borden, 2000; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001).
Students with learning disabilities often face difficulty with basic
reading skills such as phonic skills and word attack skills. (IDEA, 2004). Often
times students in the upper grades are not provided with instruction on
basic reading skills(Calhoon, Sandown, & Hunter, 2010).This is unfortunate,
as students have shown vast improvements after receiving instruction in
phonological and decoding skills and fluency (Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelar, 2003;
Birsch, 2011; Harlin, Murray, & Shea, 2010; Hempenstall, 2008; KnightMcKenna, 2008; Lovett, Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Paige, 2006; Shippen,
Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001).In order to
assist students in their success, it is important that educators provide
students with instruction in these skills in a direct, explicit, and systematic
manner (Calhoon, Sandown, and Hunter, 2010; Hempenstall, 2008; Lovett,
Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Bhat, Griffin, Sindelar, 2003; Shippen, Houchins,
Steventon, & Sartor, 2005; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001).
Intervention
As earlier described, Sarah faces difficulties in reading. She struggles
to decode words, especially those that are multisyllabic. Rather than
examining all letters in a word, Sarah often makes a guess based on the first
letter. Sarah is in the sixth grade and is currently reading at the second

grade level. Prior to intervention Sarah was given ten multisyllabic words.
She was asked to read each word aloud. Sarah correctly identified four of the
ten words.
For the intervention, Sarahs teacher provided her with reading
instruction one on one. The lesson introduced the first syllable type; closed
syllables. The lesson began with the teacher reviewing the concept of
syllables with Sarah. After this, the rule of closed syllables was introduced.
The teacher began by providing Sarah with an example of a closed syllable
and modeled her thought process that led her to know the syllable was
closed (Where is the vowel?, What comes after the vowel?, So does this
mean the vowel is opened or closed?). After modeling the process for
Sarah, the teacher asked Sarah to use her knew knowledge of closed
syllables to decode a single, closed syllable word (cat). Sarah did comment
that she knew the word cat and did not need to follow the process in order to
identify the word. The teacher explained to Sarah that she understood that
and only had her use that word for practice, before moving on to more
challenging words. Sarah than practiced decoding several more words that
are composed of a single closed syllable. Sarah was able to successfully
decode a majority of these words. At this point in time, the teacher
introduced Sarah to multisyllabic words that consist of two or more closed
syllables. She then demonstrated the process of applying her syllable
knowledge to decode the word picnic (ex. asked questions such as How
many vowel sounds are in the word?, So how many syllables do we think

are in the word?, Are both of the vowels followed by a consonant? If so,
then we know they are closed). The teacher than asked Sarah to try one on
her own. It was noted that Sarah seemed a bit discouraged at this time. She
disregarded what she had learned about multisyllabic words and diverted
back into her habit of guessing based on the first letter. After a few
reminders about closed syllables and prompts to use her knowledge of these,
Sarah did begin to apply the strategy. As the student made use of her new
knowledge, she was able to decode many of these longer multisyllabic
words. However, Sarah was not very interested in this and did require many
prompts to continue through the words. Sarah did express that she felt this
lesson was too young for her. However, the data from the pre-test
demonstrates Sarah is in need of this type of instruction. For further practice,
the teacher had Sarah complete an activity in which she had to manipulate
syllables to create a word. Sarah seemed a bit more interested in this, as she
saw it as a puzzle that needed to be solved. After an extensive amount of
practice decoding words in isolation, Sarah practiced reading a few
sentences that contained multisyllabic words.
This intervention was determined based on instruction that has shown
to be effective in the past. A great deal of research has stressed the
importance of phonological and decoding skills. Instruction in this areas has
led to significant student success (Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelar, 2003; Birsch,
2011; Harlin, Murray, & Shea, 2010; Hempenstall, 2008; Knight-McKenna,
2008; Lovett, Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Paige, 2006; Shippen, Houchins,

Steventon, & Sartor, 2005; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001). Sarah struggles
specifically with larger, multisyllabic words. She often makes note of the first
letter in the word and then bases her answer off of that letter alone. Teaching
the syllable types is one of many effective decoding strategies students may
use. Raising students awareness of syllable types helps to familiarize
students with language patterns. Knowledge of these language patterns will
assist students in decoding words, as they will be able to predict which sound
the vowel will make (Knight-McKenna, 2008). This instruction will provided
Sarah with an alternative to her current method of decoding words.
This intervention was implemented in a direct, systematic manner as
well. Interventions that have been successful in the past consist of
instruction that includes teacher modeling, student practice, and corrective
immediate feedback (Calhoon, Sandown, and Hunter, 2010; Hempenstall,
2008; Lovett, Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Bhat, Griffin, Sindelar, 2003;
Shippen, Houchins, Steventon, & Sartor, 2005; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001).
Throughout the lesson the teacher would model the thought process used
while applying the decoding strategy for the student. The teacher and
student would then would work together to identify a word using the
decoding strategy. After this the teacher gave Sarah time to practice
decoding words with her newly learned skills. Only one syllable type was
taught during the intervention. Knight-McKenna (2008) suggest introducing
the syllable types one at a time. A new type should not be introduced until
the previous one has been mastered. It is suggested that Sarah continues

intervention which will include instruction on the remaining syllable types.

This way Sarah will have the knowledge necessary to decode a wide variety
of multisyllabic words.
At the close of the lesson Sarah completed the post test, in which she
read the same ten words as she did in her pre-test. After the lesson, Sarah
was able to identify eight of the ten words. This is four more than she was
able to pre-intervention (figure 1). Although she did not meet the objective of
identifying nine out of ten correctly, she still made a large gain. Therefore I
believe the intervention was effective.
I felt this intervention plan was a positive learning experience. It has
been an opportunity to expand my knowledge of effective reading
instruction, specifically for students with learning disabilities. I am now aware
of the importance of systematic and direct instruction. The idea of
systematic and direct instruction is something we did not only discuss
multiple times in class but also was mentioned many times in the
literature( Calhoon, Sandown, and Hunter, 2010; Hempenstall, 2008; Lovett,
Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Bhat, Griffin, Sindelar, 2003; Shippen, Houchins,
Steventon, & Sartor, 2005; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001) . For this reason, I will
be sure to keep the I do, we do, you do process in mind for future lessons.
It is also important to keep in mind that students need time and practice in
order to master concepts, this can be done through repeated and distributed
review (Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001). This experience has also allowed me to
see the importance of continuing basic reading instruction for struggling

students, even as they advance into the upper grades. Although students
who struggle in reading may not be on grade level with their peers, it does
not mean their ability cannot improve. Intervention programs focusing on
basic reading skills have led to student gains, even for those students in the
upper grades (Bhat, Griffin, Sindelar, 2003; Paige, 2006; Shippen, Houchins,
Steventon, & Sartor, 2005; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001).
This was a positive learning experience not only for me, but also for
Sarah. The intervention did improve Sarahs decoding ability. As mentioned
above Sarah did find this lesson to be childlike. However, Sarah does lack
proper decoding skills, therefore this instruction is necessary. Based on
Sarahs response, I am interested to examine research in this area. I am
interested to find ways in which teachers may make below grade level work
more appealing to students like Sarah who need instruction at this level.
The outcome of this intervention was positive. With the newly learned
strategy, Sarah was able to identify a greater number of words than she was
previously able to. I feel with reminders and continued practice overtime, this
intervention will continue to serve as an effective strategy for Sarah to use.
As research has demonstrated, successful intervention programs include
distributed review, or spaced practice of skills (Hempenstall, 2008; Swanson
& Hoskyn, 2001). Providing Sarah with this knowledge of closed syllables
and by introducing the other syllable types in the future, Sarah will be given
the knowledge she needs to successfully decode multisyllabic words. Raising
students awareness of syllable types helps to familiarize students with

language patterns Knowledge of these language patterns will assist students

in decoding words, as they will be able to predict which sound the vowel will
make (Knight-McKenna, 2008). Sarah will be able to use her knowledge of
syllable types as a more effective way of decoding a variety of multisyllabic
words. Providing Sarah with opportunities to apply these strategies in an
authentic manner may assist in future gains as well. According to Birsch
(2011) students need to practice identifying these multisyllabic words not
only in isolation, but in stories as well. Based on the results of the post test,
this intervention was effective. It is predicted that further instruction and
practice in the area of multisyllabic words and other decoding skills will assist
Sarah in continued success.
As previously noted, Sarah does not put forth much effort into reading.
Throughout this lesson similar behaviors occurred. She did work through the
lesson, but with little enthusiasm. Although Sarah was not highly motivated,
her decoding abilities did improve. There is the possibility that her improved
abilities will lead to increased confidence. Harlin, Murray, and Shea (2010)
found that increased confidence both an increase in word recognition. It is
hopeful that this new confidence would lead to a more positive attitude
towards reading.
Conclusion
Instruction on the syllable types has proven to be effective for Sarah, a
student with a learning disability. The knowledge of the first syllable type,

closed syllable, has provided Sarah with a successful decoding strategy. With
this strategy, the number of multisyllabic words Sarah is able to identify
correctly has increased. This was predicted, as much of the literature
surrounding this topic of reading instruction for students with learning
disabilities have highlighted the importance of basic phonics instruction,
even for students in the upper grades. This was a positive experience for
both Sarah and myself. Sarah now has tools to assist her in being a
successful reader and I have enhanced my knowledge of effective reading
interventions for students with learning disabilities. This reading intervention
can be continued to further Sarahs success.

References
Birsch, J.(2011). Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills (3rd edition).
Baltimore, MD:
Brookes Publishing.
Bhat, P., Griffin, C.C., & Sindelar, P.T. (2003). Phonological Awareness
Instruction For Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 73.
Calhoon, M.B., Sandow, A., Hunter, C.V. (2010). Reorganizing the instructional
reading components: could there be a better way to design remedial
reading programs to maximize middle school students with reading
disabilities response to treatment? Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 57-85.
Harlin, R.P., Murray, R., & Shea, M.E. (2010). Mentoring Teachers To Think
Outside The Box: Innovations For Struggling Readers And Students
With Learning Disabilities. College Reading Association Yearbook, (31),
163-178.
Hempenstall, K. (2008). Corrective Reading: An Evidence- Based Remedial
Reading Intervention. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32(1),
23-54.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, PL 101-476 (2004).
Knight-McKenna, M. (2008). Syllable Types. Teaching Exceptional Children,
40(3), 18-24.
Lovett, M.W., Lacerenza, L., & Borden, S.L. (2000). Putting Struggling Readers
on the PHAST Track: A Program to Integrate Phonological and StrategyBased Remedial Reading Instruction and Maximize Outcomes. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 458.

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014). Types of LD. What are
Learning Disabilities?
Retrieved from http://ncld.org/typeslearning-disabilities/what-is-ld/what-are-learning-disabilities
Paige, D.D. (2006). Increase Fluency in Disabled Middle School Readers:
Repeated Reading Utilizing Above Grade Level Reading Passages.
Reading Horizons, 46(3), 167-181.
Shippen, M.E., Houchins, D.E., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. (2005). A
Comparison of Two Direct Instruction Reading Programs for Urban
Middle School Students. Remedial & Special Education, 26(3), 175182.
Swanson, E. (2008). Observing Reading Instruction For Students With
Learning Disabilities: A Synthesis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(3),
115-133.
Swanson, H.L., Hoskyn, M. (2001). Instruction Adolescents with Learning
Disabilities: A Component and Composite Analysis. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 109-11.

Appendices

Reading Instruction: Decoding Multisyllabic Words

Lesson question: What is a closed syllable?
Lesson objective: The student will be able to correctly read aloud 9/10
multisyllabic words.
IEP Goal addressed: The student will be able to read 10 multisyllabic
words with 90% accuracy.
Assessment:
Pre-Test: The student will be given a list of 10 multisyllabic words. She will be
asked to read each word of the list (without assistance). The teacher will

have her own sheet with the list of words. She will record whether or not the
student was able to read each word.
Post Test: After receiving direct instruction on closed syllables and practicing
words that are of this syllable type, the student will reread the 10 words from
the pre-test. Again, the teacher will note whether or not the student was able
to read each word.
Opening:
*Before the opening, the student will complete the pre-test.
The teacher will begin by reading the student a riddle. I am a word or a
part of a word. Your mouth only opens once when you say me. There is only
one vowel sound in me. What am I? (Answer: syllable).
-The student will answer the riddle. The teacher and student will then review
the concept of a syllable (a syllable is a word or a word part made with one
opening of the mouth. Some words are made up of only one syllable, while
others are made up of multiple. You are able to determine the number of
syllables in a word by counting the number of times your mouth opens when
pronouncing the word).
Procedure:
1. After reviewing the concept of syllables the teacher will explain to the
student that there are six types of syllables. The teacher will tell the
students that knowing these syllable types will help her decode words
because it will help her determine what sound the vowel will make in a
word.
2. The teacher will introduce the first syllable type: Closed syllables. The
teacher will say When one or more consonants come after a single
vowel the vowel is closed by the constant. When a vowel is closed it
usually says its short sound. For example, lets look at the word cat

(teacher will write the word cat). Where is the vowel? (Student should
point to a). What comes after the a, a vowel or a consonant? (a
consonant). So does that mean the vowel is opened or closed?
(Closed). So what sound does it make? (Short a sound).
3. The teacher and the student will use the process described above
(Where is the vowel?, What comes after it?, So does that mean the
syllable is opened or closed?, So will the vowel say its long sound or
short sound?) to examine a few more words that are made up of a
single closed syllable (stop, crept, shot, split).
4. The teacher will then explain to the student that many times we will
come across words that are made up of more than one closed
syllables. The teacher will give the word picnic as an example. She
will ask the student to circle the vowels in the word (i and i). The
teacher will ask How many vowel sounds are in the word? (2). So
how many syllables do we think there are? (2). The teacher will then
ask the student to determine whether or not each syllable is closed
(Have the student ask themselves, is there a consonant following the
vowel?). Once the student has decided that the syllable is closed the
teacher will ask if that means it will make its long or short sound
(short). The student will then use this knowledge to decode the word.
The teacher and student will go through this process again with the
word puppet.
5. The student will then practice this process to help them decode more
words made up of two or more closed syllables (ex. fabric, number,
Wisconsin, etc.). These words will be provided to the student on
flashcards. The teacher will provide the student with immediate
corrective feedback as she works to decode each word.
6. After decoding the following words (fabric, number, Wisconsin, campus,
goblin, and attic) the student will continue practicing by manipulating

multisyllabic words (magnetic, Atlantic, matter, punishment, plastic).

Each syllable of each word will be on a separate card. The student will
need to pronounce each syllable and then move the cards into the
correct order to create a word.
7. The student will then practice decoding a few multisyllabic words that
appear in sentences.

Closure:
The teacher will review the rules of a closed syllable (the vowel is followed by
a consonant. When the syllable is closed the vowel is usually short) with the
student. The student will then complete the post-test.
Materials:
Pre and Post- test (for student)
Pre and Post- test recording sheet (for teacher)
Cards with multisyllabic words on them
Cards with parts of words on them (for manipulating multisyllabic words)
Sentences that contain multisyllabic words
Figure 1: Lesson Plan. This is the lesson plan that was used to implement
intervention.

Pre and Post Test Scores

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pre- Intervention

Post-Intervention

Figure 2: This graph shows the increase in test scores that occurred post
intervention. The student was able to correctly identify four closed,
multisyllabic words prior to intervention. After intervention took place, she
was able to correctly identify eight of the closed, multisyllabic words.