RESEARCH

The Slingerland® Approach, is supported by evidence-based research and practice.

The NICHD study and the Slingerland® Approach
The National Reading Panel Recommendations
Slingerland Research

• Wolf B.J. (1985) - A comparative study of second grade specific language disability children
• McCulloch, C. (1985) - A comparative study of fourth grade specific language disability children
• Crumbley, L. (1985) - First grade reading and spelling achievement
• Royal, N.L. (1987) - Long term consequences
• White, N.C. (1989) - The effects of multisensory instruction on spelling
• Palmer, M.J. (1994) - The effects on decoding
• Palmer, M.J. (1997) - Slingerland® approach and spelling
• Royal, N.L. (1999) - Slingerland multisensory intervention programs
• Palmer, M.J. (2001) - Handwriting and spelling

The NICHD study and the Slingerland® Approach -- www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/nichd.html

• Conducted by the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
• More than 35,000 students have been studied over 33 years at 41 sites.
• Students were followed longitudinally.
• The study included both those who were successful and those who were unsuccessful.
• Early identification methods and teacher training methods were studied.

The NICHD Findings on Reading: What works?

• Begin teaching phonological and phonemic awareness directly at an early age.
• Teach frequent highly regular sound-spelling relationships systematically.
• Use direct instruction to build fluency in reading texts.
• Model for children exactly how to sound out words...and provide practice.
• Provide the child with many opportunities to practice the sound-spelling relationships.
• Use interesting stories to develop language comprehension.
• Reread for fluency.
• Teach the structure of the English language at all levels in reading and spelling.

The NICHD Findings and the Slingerland® Approach

The Slingerland® Approach meets the NICHD identified criteria for quality instruction.

Slingerland characteristics are:

• Simultaneous and multisensory
• Structured
• Sequential, building on previous learning
• Alphabetic-phonetic
• Teaches to the intellect
• Stresses over-teaching and over-learning
• Builds intersensory associations
• Success-oriented
• Uses any curriculum materials
  

The National Reading Panel Recommendations and the Slingerland® Approach -- www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/summary.htm

The National Reading Panel found that the factors that make a significant difference in improving reading across all groups were:

• Alphabetics - Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
• Fluency
• Comprehension - vocabulary instruction and text comprehension
• Teacher Education and Reading Instruction
• Computer Technology

The Slingerland® Approach meets the National Reading Panel identified criteria for quality instruction:

• alphabetic-phonetic
• begins with single sound/symbol relationship
• teaches the intellect including vocabulary and text comprehension
• stresses over-teaching and over-learning
• builds intersensory associations
• develops reading fluency
• success-oriented
• uses any curriculum materials including computer technology
• provides teacher education

Slingerland Research

Wolf, B.J. (1985). A comparative study of second grade specific language disability children.

The SLD Slingerland groups made significant gains in both language and reading. The children with no apparent problems who received Slingerland instruction also did better in language skills.

McCulloch, C. (1985). A comparative study of fourth grade specific language disability children.

The Slingerland groups made significantly greater gains in both reading and language than did the conventional groups.

Crumbley, L. (1985). First grade reading and spelling achievement in Slingerland and non-Slingerland classes.

There were not significant differences between the experimental and control goups. However, the children with SLD had been correctly identified, had made satisfactory progress in both reading and spelling and had made the most gains on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.

Royal, N.L. (1987). The long term consequences of specific language disabilities: The secondary school years.

A longitudinal study was conducted with 5th and 6th grade multi-ethnic students in Southern California. Results showed that after receiving Slingerland instruction in the earlier grades, a higher percentage of the SLD group (69.55%) remained within the local school system than the control group (54.19%). Furthermore, the majority of the SLD group (81.9%) was maintaining grade point averages and standardized achievement test scores within the average or above average range. When controlling for ethnicity, it was found that 75.4% of the Hispanic SLD group and 66.1 percent of the Hispanic non-SLD group were maintaining grade point averages of C or better. Examination of self-reports indicated little or no difference between groups in regard to attitudes towards school, times spent on homework, participation in athletics or other extracurricular and peer group activities. A higher percentage of SLD students were employed. Vocational goals and higher education aspirations were similar for both groups.

White, N.C. (1989). The effects of a simultaneous, multisensory alphabetic-phonic, direct instruction approach on the teaching of spelling.

For students with demonstrated weaknesses in the auditory, the visual and the combined auditory-visual modalities, the multisensory approach was more effective than the visual presentation of whole words direct instruction approach both immediately after treatment and when maintenance of skills over a two-week interim. The Slingerland® Multisensory Approach was more effective for students with no demonstrated modality weaknesses.

Palmer (Hale), M.J. & White, N.C. (1994). The effects of the Slingerland® Approach on the decoding competence of children with specific language learning differences.

Highly significant gains in decoding competence were achieved by 95 students enrolled in several three-week summer reading and writing programs in Texas, California, Alaska, Tennessee, and Washington. Highly significant results were obtained in the lowest three reading quartiles. Students receiving word attack instruction had a considerable increase in decoding abilities.

Palmer, M.J. (1997). The Slingerland Approach and spelling performance.

Highly significant gains in spelling were achieved by 154 students enrolled in summer programs in Washington, California, and Tennessee. Students were able to generalize the systematic nature of the English ortography for spelling of predictable words. Significant results were also obtained in the spelling of irregular words.

Royal, N.L. (1999). Slingerland Multisensory Intervention Programs & Slingerland Screening Procedures for Identifying Specific Language Disability

Significant gains in acquisition of phonetic skills, word identification, and reading comprehension. Word attack subtest results showed 15.2 months of progress after 10 months of instruction. Word identification subtest result showed 20.1 months of progress after 10 months of instruction. On reading comprehension subtest, 10 months of instruction resulted in 16.9 months of progress. In spelling, 10 months of instruction resulted in 8.7 months of progress.

Palmer, M.J. (2001). Handwriting and spelling achievement in children with specific language learning differences.

Significant results were obtained by 180 total students with 90 experimental students in groups enrolled in Slingerland classrooms located in California, Alaska, Washington, Texas, and Oregon, and 90 in control group from maintstreamed 4th and 5th grade classrooms located in Washington. Significant results were obtained in the study. The control group preformed better in spelling using manuscrpt and cursive than the experimental group using manuscript. Further examination of the experimental groups indicated that students who were more familiar with manuscript than with cursive handwriting had better spelling scores using manuscript writing. However, those students who used cursive exclusively during the school day showed stronger abilities in spelling with cursive handwriting. Direct instruction of handwriting is important, and automaticity of handwriting style does have an effect on spelling ability.