The Research Behind Cracking The Code

Continued  

RESEARCH BASE

A key area of difficulty for the older struggling reader was the inability to decode words. The research conducted by Carnine, Carnine, and Gertsen (1984) and Lesgold and Curtis (1981) concluded that one characteristic of poor readers is weak decoding skills. Weak decoding skills play a major role in how a student progresses in reading. Additionally, work in cognitive psychology suggests that humans have a limited amount of mental energy (Kahneman, 1973). It thus follows that if decoding requires most of a reader’s mental energy, there is little left for higher level comprehension.

An individual who has difficulty reading avoids reading at all costs. It is clear that a fluent reader builds word recognition and vocabulary based on the amount of time spent engaged in reading. Stanovich (1986) referred to this as the “Mathew Effect” – the “rich get richer” (readers improve and read more) and the “poor get poorer” (poor readers avoid reading thus losing ground and never moving forward.)

Research indicates that poor readers lack a repertoire of reading strategies, relying on rote memorization; they have relatively low self-esteem and attribute their failure to chance and/or teacher bias (Rowley, 2007). Turning a New Page encountered a major block in working with the older struggling reader. They were reluctant to try when they had repeatedly failed over the years. Thus, repeating the same instructional methodology that they had seen for years was out of the question. The issue of self-esteem played a key role in enhancing the progress and success of the inmates.

Research also indicates that explicit instruction is the most beneficial for struggling students (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1996; Evans and Carr, 1985; Honig, 1995). Poor readers need to be explicitly shown the patterns found in words. Unlike a good reader, struggling readers are unable to generalize patterns to unfamiliar words. This phenomenon is directly related to the number of words a poor reader encounters over time versus the number of words a good reader will encounter. The generalization of familiar patterns to unfamiliar words will only take place once the patterns are identified and internalized. Again, the number of words a student encounters greatly influences the recognition of those letter patterns.

Supporting the previous research, eye-movement studies suggest that readers process the letters that make up words, and that reading is a “letter mediated” process (Just and Carpenter, 1987; McConkie and Zola, 1987). Brain based research, too, found that the brain is constantly looking for patterns; however, when it cannot find the pattern, the brain dismisses the information as meaningless (Coward, 1990). This explains why a poor reader will abandon phonics. Students are taught rules that do not seem to apply to the words they come across on a daily basis. Good readers encounter enough words that the rules make sense, and the exceptions are common enough that they are able to internalize the patterns, applying them when necessary. The poor reader, on the other hand, does not read enough words to distinguish the exceptions from the rules.

“CRACKING THE CODE”

Turning a New Page confirmed these findings while working with the inmates and later with students in an elementary school. Recognizing the need for readers to quickly decode in order to build fluency and comprehension was the driving force behind the creation of “Cracking The Code.” “Cracking The Code” addresses the research. It is “letter mediated” and built on patterns; it builds self-esteem by beginning with the participant meeting with success and adding a new skill only after the participant demonstrates automaticity; it is unique in design and approach, separating it from a participant’s past failures; it utilizes explicit instruction that is completely scripted and assessed daily. The scope and sequence shows how readers are taught to recognize the patterns found in words that were once just viewed as exceptions to the rules.

“Cracking The Code” was also piloted in an elementary setting. The latest report by Dr. Lynnette Brunderman (2007), “Cracking The Code: Decoding Really Does Influence Comprehension,” quantified the progress struggling readers made using the program.

REFERENCES

Carnine, L., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1984). Analysis of oral reading errors made by economically disadvantaged students taught with a synthetic-phonic approach. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 19.

Lesgold, A. M. & Ross R. (1969). How reading disabilities develop: Perspectives from a longitudinal study. Journal of Reading, Vol. 12, No. 4.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Mathew effect in reading: The consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 21.

Rowley, D. (2007). Reading processes. http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/dave/Work/Psycholinguistics/Reading%20Processes.htm

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institiute of Technology.

Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of Reading Develoopment. Harcourt Brace & Company.

Evans, M. A. & Carr, T. H. (1985). Cognitive abilities, conditions of learning, and the early development of reading skill. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 20.

Honig, B. (1995). How should we teach our children to read? San Francisco State University: Center for Systemic School Reform.

Just, M.A. & Carpenter, . P.A. (1987). The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

McConkie, G. W. & Zola, D. (1987). Two examples of computer-based research on reading: Eye movement monitoring and computer-aided reading. New York: Teachers College Press.

Coward, A. (1990). Pattern Thinking. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Top of page

Cracking the Code: Decoding Really Does Influence Comprehension

Continued

We recognize the urgency of creating readers out of every student prior to leaving third grade.  The Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children published their findings in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998).  Their research, funded by the National Research Council, points to excellent instruction as the basis for guaranteeing adequate progress in reading and writing.

Their review of different programs, such as Success for All and other Title I Reading programs, suggests that no single-tiered approach is adequate to increase success for all students.  Effective instruction is defined as instruction that meets the needs of each learner.  Some of the barriers to achieving success include inconsistencies in both instruction and curriculum, lack of training of the educators, and lack of time spent instructing students at their instructional levels.

“The purpose of providing extra instructional time is to help children achieve levels of literacy that will enable them to be successful

through their school careers and beyond” Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998, p. 247).  Based on the scientific research (Gunning, 2002; Morrow, 2001; Torgeson, et.al., 2001), interventions for struggling readers include additional, targeted and intensive reading instruction provided to students who continue to struggle with learning to read and write despite conventional instruction.  As indicated, the conventional belief in the industry is that it is too late after third grade to remediate students who struggle with reading without a massive number of hours being devoted to their instruction. The program, “Cracking the Code”, developed by Rick McAtee, seeks to provide the targeted, intensive instruction to struggling readers necessary to achieve within a 30 to 45 minute time frame.  Designed for those students who have not succeeded with traditional reading instruction, “Cracking the Code” is ideal for students in grades three through adult learners who struggle with decoding.

“Cracking the Code” is a pattern-based decoding system in which readers are taught to recognize the pattern of symbols in the written language.  By using this systematic approach, the readers do not have to remember or deal with exceptions to the traditional phonic rules.

The “Big 5” in reading instruction includes Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary, Comprehension and Fluency.  The ability to comprehend and read fluently is directly related to the ability to decode the text and to understand the language, the vocabulary.  The

ability to decode text is dependant on one’s facility with phonics, which is directly related to a student’s phonemic awareness, the ability

to manipulate units of sound.  For some, low English language skills become the barrier to fluent reading.  For the vast majority of

students who struggle, however, the inability to efficiently decode the text is their greatest barrier to comprehension and fluency.  Share

(1995) states, “Becoming skilled in phonological decoding provides the child with a self-teaching mechanism that, along with oral

vocabulary knowledge and context, is useful for learning to read words that they have not previously encountered.  After a few such correct decoding, these words can be recognized quite automatically.”  In summary, students who read poorly do not often succeed in school or in

life, which in turn affects self-esteem and willingness to persevere on difficult tasks.  It is critical that all students gain skill in reading.

The question then becomes: What will happen to a student’s comprehension if the ability to decode text is enhanced?  Thornydale

Elementary School in the Marana Unified School District in Arizona agreed to allow the program, “Cracking the Code”, to be used over

an eight week period with 27 of their third and fourth grade Title I/Remedial Reading students.  By definition these students are significantly behind their grade level in reading skills, by at least one year or more.  Thirty to forty-five minutes daily, four days per week for eight weeks

was devoted to this project.  On day one, each student was administered the Scholastic Reading Inventory at his/her assigned grade level.  The test measures reading comprehension only.  Eight weeks later, an alternate form of the Scholastic Reading Inventory was again administered.  Eighty-five percent of the students in the program were present to take the post assessment.  For each administration,

students were allowed only thirty minutes to complete the test.  This test is a standardized test that yields a lexile level score. 

During the eight weeks between test administration, students were instructed using the “Cracking the Code” program developed by Rick McAtee.  The teacher’s manual is specific in its directions for program delivery.  Independent observers (2 reading teachers and 1

classroom teacher) monitored the process for adherence to the manual.  Group size ranged from nine to eighteen students.  The demographics of the students participating in the project are presented in Table 1. 

Table 1.  Demographics of Students Participating in Project

Comments offered by the observers indicated surprise at the growth exhibited by students throughout the process.  One reading teacher stated, “I had been working with struggling readers in third grade all year on phonics and decoding strategies.  Some of these third graders continued to struggle throughout the year, showing minimal gains.  They had difficulty recalling and remembering vowels, consonants, and applying phonetic rules.  After having the ‘Cracking the Code’ program for just two weeks, these students showed marked improvement.

They were able to show improvement in identifying vowels, consonants, and applying skill rules.  It was so exciting watching these struggling readers gain confidence and regain enthusiasm!  ‘Cracking the Code’ really helped these struggling readers end their school year on a very positive note.”  Additionally, she commented, “I saw the fourth grade struggling readers become more actively involved with class participation with the ‘Cracking the Code’ program.  This program helped these students gain back excitement, confidence and the joy of learning, while eliminating negative behaviors that struggling students sometimes demonstrate.”  Finally, the classroom teacher commented, “The program allowed the students to practice the patterns to the point that they remembered them without difficulty.  They were truly successful in the program and loved every minute of it”.  The confidence level of the students was visibly enhanced.

The proof, however, would be in the comprehension scores of the students on the post-tests although comprehension was not addressed

at all by the program.  Table 2 presents the results.

Table 2. Pre- and Post- Test Scores -  Scholastic Reading Inventory (Forms A and B)

As indicated above, 86% (19 0f 22) of the students demonstrated gains in comprehension as well as gains in the number of items

attempted within the thirty minute testing window.  Two students attempted the same number of items, but showed a loss on the comprehension measure, and one child attempted one item less, but scored the same in comprehension.  Overwhelmingly, these students who have historically made little to no progress each year are showing

gains in comprehension with only eight weeks of instruction in decoding. 

When looked at more closely, additional trends were noted.  The program began by ensuring that students could correctly identify vowels

and consonants.  On day one, none of the students could accurately identify vowels and consonants.  By day four, approximately half of the students were accurate when discriminating between vowels and consonants.  By day seven of the intervention, 100% of the students were able to correctly identify vowels and consonants without error.

As students were then introduced to the vowel patterns, their ability to recall those patterns and identify them in words increased

dramatically.  The program test following instruction of the one, two and three vowel patterns yielded 100% accuracy for all students. 

Next, “o” patterns and “r” patterns were taught.  Students again all scored 100% on the test of the “r” patterns.  Eighty-five percent  initially scored 100% on the test of “o” patterns, but after two subsequent mini-lessons, all students scored 100%.  Interestingly, the “r” patterns

were taught and the tests administered by the reading specialist and the classroom teacher using the program manual without the

presence of the program developer.

“Cracking the Code” was also piloted in a minimum security prison for adult men, Westmorland Institution, in New Brunswick, Canada,

taught by the regular teacher of the inmates.  She writes, “In piloting the program here at Westmorland Institution, I realized that I would not

be expecting this tool to be useful in assisting all my students in decoding words to read, as many of my students were already readers. (reading at a 6-7 grade level)  In piloting the program, the intentions were to help the struggling readers (grade 2 or below) decode and

to enlist the aid of the other students in finding out if there were problem areas or instances where the system didn't seem to work.  Along

the way, I discovered something that was quite unexpected, but nevertheless welcome.  I discovered that it was an excellent tool for

improving spelling.  With the patterns, the students just got it.  Many of them asked why they were not taught this system in elementary

school.  Some of them were held back from making progress because they could not spell, hence they could not write.  Many inmates are

very reluctant to write something that they know is not correct, even if they are told not to worry about it, it can be edited.  Cracking the Codeenabled them to move forward with their writing.  One inmate said that although he was still incarcerated, he was now free to expresshimself in letters to loved ones on the outside, something he had been unable to do before.  What freedom!”  She continues, “Many of the inmates identified problems that their own children have come up against.  In the desire to return home to their families armed with help for their struggling children, these inmates have excelled at the program, concentrating their efforts on learning as much as possible.  Some paroled inmates have phoned to ask to have copies sent to them, received the copies and phoned back to say that their children are doing better.”  Additionally, she states, “We have had contact with a woman who was tutoring a car accident victim who had to relearn.  This woman came in to the prison and was instructed by two inmates who were adept at the program.  She said that it was an excellent tool forthis grade 11 student, who flew through the material and has been able to transfer these skills to other subject areas in her curriculum.”

Finally, she summarizes, “There are some guys who begin the program quite skeptically and do not anticipate getting anything out of it. 

These guys are usually surprised by how easily they adapt to the program, how successfully they are able to use it and how much they look forward to doing it each day.  Some ask right at the onset if they will have to memorize the patterns and when they are told that they will not have to memorize them but theywill memorize them along the way, they say they will not memorize anything that they don't absolutely have to.  Later these same guys will proudly display how effectively they have "learned" the patterns.  Some have asked the question of why this

system is not available now in every school in North America.” 

I have also personally worked with a struggling reader in the sixth grade with the “Cracking the Code” program.  Working with her in a

tutoring setting only one day each week for approximately eight weeks resulted in her confidence level increasing to the point that she was recognized for the Most Improved in her classroom and made the Honor Roll for the last quarter of school.  She eagerly embraced the program, immediately seeing its application to her reading for other subject areas.  She enjoyed pulling words from her Science text, that previously she would simply skip, and marking the patterns so that she could then read the unfamiliar words.

Mr. McAtee has spent the last ten years developing and refining his product.  As a first-hand observer, I have watched struggling readers eagerly embrace this program and begin to unravel the mystery of the printed word, getting excited about reading.  Non-readers are experiencing for the first time the joy of reading. 

References

Gunning, T.G. (2002).  Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties, 2nd ed.  Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

11

Morrow, L.M. (2001). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write, 4th ed. 

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Share, D.L. (1995).  Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55:151-218.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998).  Preventing reading difficulties in young children. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press

.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001).

Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches.  Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34: 33-58, 78.

Top of page