Research to Practice Brief

Improving Secondary Education and Transition Services through Research December 2002 Vol. 1 Issue 4

Improving Word Identification Skills

Using Strategic Instruction Model
(SIM) Strategies
By Christine D. Bremer, Ann T. Clapper, and Donald D. Deshler
National Center on
Secondary Education
and Transition
Creating Opportunities for Youth
With Disabilities to Achieve
Successful Futures
A partnership of
Institute on Community Integration,
University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
National Center for the Study
of Postsecondary Education
Supports (RRTC), University
of Hawaii at Manoa
TransCen, Inc.,
Rockville, Maryland
PACER Center,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Institute for Educational
Leadership, Center for Workforce
Development, Washington, DC
National Association of State
Directors of Special Education,
Alexandria, Virginia
U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education
Programs, Washington, DC

Introduction
Students with learning disabilities often move into secondary education with elementary-level reading skills, including an inability to readily decode unfamiliar words. As
a result, they have difficulty with content-area classes, such as history and science, in
which grade-level reading is required. This brief focuses on the Word Identification
Strategy component of the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) (Deshler &
Schumaker, 1988), and reviews recent research showing the effectiveness of this
strategy for secondary students with disabilities.

The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)

The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM), introduced by Deshler and Schumaker
(1988) and further developed by several researchers at the University of Kansas, is an
instructional system designed to help students with learning disabilities succeed in
their general education courses. SIM includes curricular materials revised to accommodate different learning styles, routines for teachers to help them meet the needs of
diverse learners, and strategies for students. Within SIM, there are learning strategies
related to six areas: reading, storing and remembering information, expressing information, demonstrating competence, social interaction, and mathematics.

SIM Reading Strategies

There are four SIM strategies specifically related to reading:
1. Paraphrasing (students express main idea and details in their own words);
2. Self questioning (students develop questions concerning reading passages and
read to find answers);
3. Visual imagery (students visualize scenes in detail); and
4. Word identification (students decode unfamiliar words by using context clues
and word analysis).

The Word Identification Strategy

This publication is available online at

www.ncset.org

The Word Identification Strategy used in SIM was developed by Lenz and Hughes
(1990) and initially tested on 12 middle school students with learning disabilities.
This strategy is intended to help struggling readers decode and identify unfamiliar
words, and is based on the common underlying structure of most polysyllabic words
in English. Most of these words can be pronounced by identifying the components of

2 National Center on Secondary Education and Transition Research to Practice Brief

2the words (prefixes, suffixes, and stems) and then

applying three syllabication rules to the stem word.
In this approach, prefixes and suffixes are loosely
defined as recognizable groups of letters that the
student can pronounce.
As described by Lenz and Hughes (1990), there
are seven steps to identifying an unknown word.
The steps are remembered using the first-letter
mnemonic, DISSECT:
Step 1: Discover the context. This step requires the
student to skip over the unknown word
and read to the end of the sentence. Then,
the student uses the apparent meaning of
the sentence to guess what word might
best fit. If the guess does not match the
unknown word, the student moves on to
the next step.
Step 2: Isolate the prefix. In this step, students
look for a pronounceable sequence of
letters at the beginning of the word.
Students are taught a list of prefixes to
facilitate recognition. If a prefix is identified, the student draws a box around it
to separate it visually from the rest of
the word (for example, inactivity,
underachievement).
Step 3: Separate the suffix. Using a procedure
similar to Step 2, the student boxes off the
suffix, if there is one (inactivity, underachievement).
Step 4. Say the stem. The student attempts to
pronounce the stem (activ, achieve). If the
stem cannot be named, the student moves
on to Step 5.
Step 5: Examine the stem. In this step, the student
divides the stem into small, pronounceable
word parts, using the Rules of Twos and
Threes (Lenz & Hughes, 1990, p. 151).
The rules can be summarized as follows:
Rule 1: If the stem or part of the stem
begins with a vowel, separate the
first two letters; if it begins with a
consonant, separate first three
letters; continue to apply this rule
until the end of the stem is reached
(ac\tiv, ac\hie\ve).
Rule 2: If you cant make sense of the stem
after using Rule 1, take off the
first letter of the stem and use

Rule 1 for the remainder of the

stem (a\chi\ev\e).
Rule 3: When two vowels are together,
use what you know about pronunciation (for example, pronounce
two adjacent vowels as a single
sound, and remember that a final e
following a consonant is usually
silent) and try the different possibilities (a\chiv, a\chev).
Step 6: Check with someone. The student checks
with a teacher, parent, or other person.
Step 7: Try the dictionary. The student looks up
the word, uses pronunciation information
to pronounce the word, and, if the word is
unfamiliar, reads the definition.
Lenz and Hughes (1990) recommend that the
strategy be fully employed only for those words that
are most critical to understanding a passage of text,
such as a word in a chapter heading. Bryant,
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Ugel, Hamff, &
Hougen (2000) note that this strategy works best
when the word being analyzed is one that is already
in the students listening vocabulary.

Instructional Methodology
The instructional methodology used in teaching
SIM strategies involves eight stages, with the following goals: (a) obtain a pre-training measure of
students skills and gain the students commitment
for learning; (b) make the students aware of the
strategy steps, where the strategy can be applied, and
how the strategy will benefit them; (c) demonstrate
for students how to use the strategy; (d) ensure that
students understand and can name the strategy
steps; (e) ensure that students master the use of the
strategy in simplified materials or situations; (f )
ensure that students master the use of the strategy in
materials and situations similar to those encountered
in general education classes; (g) obtain a posttraining measure of students skills; and (h) ensure
that the students generalize the use of the strategy to
general education classes (Ellis, Deshler, Lenz,
Schumaker, & Clark, 1991).
The materials and procedures to be used by the
learning specialist in these undertakings have been
empirically validated in a series of studies (e.g.,
Hughes & Schumaker, 1991; Lenz & Hughes,
1990; Schmidt, Deshler, Schumaker & Alley, 1989).

Improving Word Identification Skills Using Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) Strategies 3

Some of the materials have been published for

teachers use (e.g., Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, &
Beals, 1984; Schumaker, Deshler, & Denton, 1984;
Van Reusen, Bos, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1987).

Recent Research on the Word

Identification Strategy
Recent research by Woodruff, Schumaker, and
Deshler (2002) has added to the evidence that the

3
Word Identification Strategy helps struggling secondary readers improve their reading skills. In
Michigan in 1998, teachers undertook a research
project in which approximately 600 ninth grade
students in one high school served as a treatment
group and a group of ninth-grade students at another high school served as a comparison group.
Both groups were pre-tested using the Slossen
Diagnostic Screening Test for Reading using the

Practitioner Perspectives
Cathy Spriggs is an Instructional Facilitator at Turlock Junior High in Turlock, California. She agreed to be interviewed
for this NCSET Brief.
On the relationship between word identification and comprehension . . .

We turned word identification into a routine that could be used in a large class setting, and then coupled it with a
comprehension strategy. What we found in our school was that the students were fairly good decoders, but their
comprehension was very, very poor. We discovered that they didnt know they were supposed to be doing something
in their minds when they were reading. They just read the words and didnt process them. So we started teaching
them about what good readers do as theyre reading, and how to pull out the main idea and the details.
On the impact of the Word Identification Strategy on
more proficient readers . . .

Right now, were working with a group of students who were put into a medium level language arts class. Most of
them were at least two years below grade level in their reading scores, and there was quite a range of decoding and
comprehension skills. But we decided to go ahead and teach the decoding strategy to everybody, because we had so
many students in the group who really needed it.
Whats really interesting is that some of the students who had fairly good reading skills have told us that they are
using the DISSECT strategy in their science and social studies classes. These students were the hardest sell, because
theyd say, Why am I doing this anyway? Im already a pretty good decoder. So weve been pleased that they
recognized situations where they needed to use the strategy and it helped them. So I dont feel like we wasted their
time. I think that was important, because they were wondering, Is this going to be useful or not?
On the challenges of using SIM . . .

If theres anything thats on the down side, its that it takes time to learn how to implement the pieces. The up
side is that you learn how to be a really great teacher, and that is what has come out of my involvement with SIM. I
have become a much better teacher, because I have a really good understanding of what I have to do from beginning
to end to help students learn. I need to describe. I need to model. I need to practice. I have to have varying levels of
practice. So you really learn how to do that. But its not going to happen in a year. Its going to take probably two or
three years, but its worth it.
On the unexpected benefits . . .

I have so many letters from students thanking me for teaching them strategies, especially DISSECT. It makes a huge
difference for students, because it gives them tools for their mental toolbox. Then they can go out there and tackle
the challenges of content area classes and be successful. Thats what were trying to do: keep kids in the core curriculum, not water it down.
I also have letters from teachers thanking me. Theyll say, You made a big difference in the way I think, the way I
teach, and the way I deliver instruction to students. SIM is an absolutely powerful program. It can really make a
difference in the lives of students and teachers.

4 National Center on Secondary Education and Transition Research to Practice Brief

Word Identification Subtest, Form A. Those students who scored at least two years below grade level
at the targeted high school then received intensive
reading instruction (50 minutes per day for three to
eight weeks) on the Word Identification Strategy.
The instruction was delivered in small groups of
four or five students with one teacher. Students were
pulled out of their regular English class, and then
returned to their regular classes after reaching
mastery. These students, and the students at the
comparison high school, were then post-tested using
Form B of the Slossen Diagnostic Screening Test for
Reading Word Identification Subtest. Results were
disaggregated for demographic subgroups. Figure 1
shows the students pre- and post-test scores for
three demographic subgroups: male African-Americans, male Hispanics, and students with disabilities.
These demographic subgroups were of interest
because of national data showing persistent gender
and racial/ethnic gaps in reading performance (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002). Comparison
group scores for male African Americans and male
Hispanics are also shown; students with disabilities
were not tested at the comparison high school.
Figure 1 shows that students who learned the Word
Identification Strategy showed greater gains than

Figure 1: 1998 Michigan study,

High School Reading (Decoding)
10
9
8
7
6
Grade
Level 5
4
3
2
1
0

9
7
6 6

Male African
Americans

Male Hispanics
comparison

Students with LD
treatment

Please see text for further explanation of this table.

From The effects of an intensive reading intervention on the decoding skills
of high school students with reading deficits by S. Woodruff, J. B.
Schumaker, and D. D. Deshler, 2002, Lawrence, KS: The University
of Kansas Institute for Academic Access. Copyright 2002 by The
University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. Reprinted with
permission.

Figure 2: Kansas Study, Sixth Grade (n=78)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

79
71
57

decoding

comprehension
14

Pre-test

Post-test

Please see text for further explanation of this table.

From The effects of an intensive reading intervention on the
decoding skills of high school students with reading deficits by
S. Woodruff, J. B. Schumaker, and D. D. Deshler, 2002,
Lawrence, KS: The University of Kansas Institute for
Academic Access. Copyright 2002 by The University of
Kansas Center for Research on Learning. Reprinted with
permission.
demographically similar students at the comparison high school. The gains shown by students with
disabilities were comparable.
Personnel at an urban school district in Kansas
became aware of the results of the Michigan study,
and implemented instruction in the Word Identification Strategy with a group of sixth graders in the
district in 1999. District wide, entering sixth
graders were tested using the Metropolitan
Achievement Test, and all those scoring below the
37th percentile received 47 minutes of intensive
daily instruction on the Word Identification
Strategy for seven to nine weeks. Students were
pulled out of their regular reading or elective
classes and taught in small groups. For the remainder of the school year, students participated in
monthly review sessions.
Figure 2 shows the results for 78 participating
students, using two measures. The first measure is
the percent of students correctly decoding at least
98% of words in a text written at the sixth grade
level (dark bars) and the percentage of questions
answered correctly on the Woodcock-Johnson
reading comprehension test (light bars). In the
post-test, students had clearly improved in both
decoding and comprehension.

Improving Word Identification Skills Using Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) Strategies 5

Conclusions
The Word Identification Strategy is effective in
helping secondary students with learning disabilities
to decode and identify difficult words encountered
in text. By developing expertise in identifying words,
students can improve their success in content-area
classes and be better prepared for postsecondary
education and the workplace. Teachers need additional training, however, in order to teach the
strategy in the most effective manner. Training and
materials for SIM are available through the Center
for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas. The Word Identification Strategy manual is
available only in conjunction with training by a
certified SIM instructor. Additional information is
available from the University of Kansas Center for
Research on Learning at http://www.ku-crl.org.

References
Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S.,
Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2000).
Reading outcomes for students with and without
reading disabilities in general education middleschool content area classes. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 23(4), 238-252.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). An
instructional model for teaching students how to
learn. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, and M. J.
Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery
systems: Enhancing instructional options for all
students (pp. 391-411). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker,
J. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An instructional
model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 23(6), 1-24.
Hughes, C. A., & Schumaker, J. B. (1991). Testtaking strategy instruction for adolescents with
learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2, 205-221.
Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word
identification strategy for adolescents with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 149-158, 163.
Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., &
Beals, V. L. (1984). Learning strategies curriculum:
The word-identification strategy. Lawrence, KS:
University of Kansas.

5&
Schmidt, J. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B.,
Alley, G. R. (1989). Effects of generalization
instruction on the written language performance
of adolescents with learning disabilities in the
mainstream classroom. Reading, Writing, and
Learning Disabilities, 4(4), 291-309.
Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Denton, P. H.
(1984). An integrated system for providing
content to learning disabled adolescents using an
audio-taped format. In W. M. Cruickshank & J.
M. Kliebhan (Eds.), Early adolescence to early
adulthood: Vol. 5 The Best of ACLD (pp. 79-107).
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Digest of
education statistics 2001 (OERI Publication No.
NCES 2002-130). Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved July 23,2002 from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2002/2002130.pdf
Van Reusen, A. K., Bos, C., Schumaker, J. B., &
Deshler, D. D. (1994). Self-advocacy strategy for
education and transition planning. Lawrence, KS:
Edge Enterprises.
Woodruff, S., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D.
(2002). The effects of an intensive reading intervention on the decoding skills of high school students
with reading deficits. Lawrence: The University of
Kansas Institute for Academic Access.
Web Resources
Institue for Academic Access (IAA)
http://www.academicaccess.org
This Web site, a collaborative project of the University of Kansas and the University of Oregon, has
several articles about SIM in the IAA Online Library.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory,
Reading Resources
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/reading16/7.html
This site includes resources on reading research and
assessment, and a link to the document, Building
Reading Proficiency at the Secondary Level: A
Guide to Resources, which includes a section on
word analysis strategies.

6Web Resources, cont.

Strategy Instruction for Problem-Solving Unknown Words
http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/teaching_techniques/
ellis_unknownwords.html
This 1996 book chapter by E. S. Ellis, was originally published in
Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (Eds.) Teaching Adolescents
with Learning Disabilities: Strategies and Methods. Denver: Love Publishing. It has been reprinted on the LD Online Web site, and provides a
detailed description of the Word Identification Strategy.
University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning
http://www.ku-crl.org
Provides information about SIM, including a brochure, newsletters,
resources, and Web sites for related topics and organizations.

National Center on Secondary

Education and Transition
Institute on Community Integration (UCEDD),
University of Minnesota, 6 Pattee Hall,
150 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Tel: 612.624.2097; Fax: 612.624.9344;
Web: http://www.ncset.org;
E-mail: [email protected]
This report was supported in whole or in part by the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, (Cooperative Agreement No. H326J000005).
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect
the policy or position of the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs, and no official
endorsement by the Department should be inferred.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator
and employer. This publication is available on the Web at
http://www.ncset.org, and is available in alternate formats
upon request. To request an alternate format or additional
copies, contact NCSET at 612.624.2097.

Authors Christine D. Bremer and Ann T. Clapper are with NCSET.

Donald D. Deshler is with the Center for Research in Learning,
University of Kansas.

Institute on Community Integration (UAP)

University of Minnesota
6 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Drive, SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
National Center on Secondary
Education and Transition

Mpls., MN
Permit No. 155

PAID
Non-profit Org.
U.S. Postage