Running head: READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD

Transcription

1 Running head: READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD EFFECTS OF READING INTERVENTIONS ON STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES IN UPPER ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL by Lynn M. May Submitted to Northern Michigan University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master Of Arts In Education Graduate Studies Office 2012

2 Abstract This study examined the literature regarding reading interventions and reading strategy supports for upper elementary and middle school students diagnosed with reading disabilities, or who struggle with reading. Secondarily, the study explored whether different, and readily implementable, support modalities have greater efficacy for individual student deficits. The literature suggests that greatest student benefit can be found in three interventions: Repeated Readings with Phrase Drill Error Correction; Experimental analysis study with tape preview, error correction, and choral reading; and Reciprocal Teaching. Additionally, certain reading strategies have a higher likelihood of providing greater comprehension, including: the Component Model of Reading to pinpoint specific reading deficits; using Peer Tutoring; using the Reading Comprehension Strategy (RCS) with or without Attribution Retraining; and using both the Standardized and Individualized interventions to improve specific reading deficits. i

3 Table of Contents Abstract... i Table of Contents... ii List of Tables... iv List of Figures... v Chapter 1: Introduction... 1 Background of Problem... 2 Purpose of Study... 3 Research Questions... 6 Theoretical Model... 6 Definition of Terms... 7 Summary of the Introduction... 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review Reading Interventions for Upper Elementary and Middle School Students Educator Instructional Strategies Chapter 3: Results Reading Intervention Effectiveness Supporting Students with Disabilities Chapter 4: Discussion and Summary Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Intervention Efficacy Reading Strategy/Supports Efficacy Conclusion ii

4 References Appendix A: Reading Comprehension Strategies Appendix B: Reading Intervention Results iii

5 List of Tables Table 1: Component Model of Reading Table 2: Word Attack and Comprehension Findings Table 3: Aaron et al. Demographics Table 4: Efficacy of Program Intervention Table 5: Central Tendencies for Comprehension Measurements Table 6: Central Tendencies and Effect Sizes for Reading Attribution Table 7: Efficacy of Standardized and Individualized Interventions Table 8: Efficacy of Strategy Interventions iv

6 List of Figures Figure 1: Gains in word attack and comprehension scores by treatment and comparison groups Figure 2: Summary comprehension score by experimental condition v

7 Chapter 1: Introduction Due to recent changes in education policy, including new accountability measures, many schools are striving to improve reading scores. Much current research focus is on reading development, reading problems, and reading instruction to determine best practices in these areas. Current research findings indicate that multi-tiered reading programs and interventions are vital for struggling readers to become successful readers. Quality studies done on reading instruction and intervention strategies reveal five essential instructional components for reading success. These are phoneme awareness; phonics, word study and spelling; reading fluency; vocabulary; and comprehension (Moats, 2009). According to Martin, Martin and Carvalho (2008), students who struggle with reading, will struggle in all aspects of school, since reading narrative text compared to reading to learn from informational texts are key components in all subject areas. For students who have a reading disability, learning to read is crucial for school success. The preferred methodology for teaching reading fluctuates because of on-going debates as to which methods are most effective. The instructional methods most widely used are the whole language approach, phonics study, direct instruction and guided reading with various rates of success. Due to the perceived effectiveness of these methods, states and districts have a tendency to implement new programs every few years or switch back to a method previously used. Yet the question still remains as to which instructional methods, interventions and strategies are the most effective in teaching students with a reading disability these skills. 1

8 Research in reading is important to helping students with learning disabilities become successful readers by using the best programs and interventions that are available. Analyzing reading studies is essential to discover if the studies meet the standards for quality research and were proven effective. Students who have a learning disability in reading need to have reading interventions and programs in place throughout their school years to be successful readers, achieve grade level content and graduate with a high school diploma. This study explores research conducted on best practice reading interventions and strategies available to help struggling upper elementary and middle school students become successful readers. Background of Problem According to research findings conducted by Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2003) past remediation for students with learning disabilities focused on students processing deficits, such as intellectual functioning, perceptual reasoning and / or processing speed, commonly known as the discrepancy model, instead of their area of need; reading, writing or math. Despite the lack of support the deficit process treatment models are still being used with meager results relating to learning goals. The modalitymatched approach has been widely used. Modality refers to sight, hearing, and touch or movement and is based on matching instruction to a student s preferred modality for learning. Another name for the modality method is learning styles. Although Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2003) discovered these approaches are widely employed, they did not find any recent empirical support for these methods. Another approach that was advocated in the past for students with learning disabilities is multisensory instruction. Multisensory instruction involves the teaching of students by activating all the pathways 2

9 to the brain, principally visual, auditory and kinesthetic-tactile. While Vaughn and Linan- Thompson (2003) found documented success for individual cases using multisensory instruction, they did not find convincing evidence that it is beneficial for students with learning disabilities. Their findings indicate that instructional approaches that have been effective have the characteristics of being explicit, well specified, carefully designed, and relate to the student s learning goals. Eckert, Dunn and Ardoin discovered (2006) despite all the reading studies conducted many students continue to struggle with reading and or have not responded to interventions in place. Becoming a good reader is the most important skill a child needs to learn for school achievement, post-secondary education opportunities, and to be successful in life. Many students present with reading problems. Longitudinal reading studies have estimated that 75% of children in third grade who were struggling readers continued to struggle with reading in ninth grade. Other studies have looked at school drop-out statistics. Being a poor reader may be one of the factors that lead students to make the decision to drop out of school. Purpose of Study The discrepancy model, which is when there is a discrepancy between a student s ability and his /her achievement, has been used to identify students with learning disabilities for almost 40 years. Aaron, Joshi, Gooden and Bentum s (2008) review of reading research discovered most students diagnosed with a learning disability receive reading remediation in a resource room setting. Their findings on the discrepancy model indicate that the instructional methods used in this setting are ineffective. One reason for the poor outcomes based on the discrepancy model is high student-teacher ratio in the 3

10 resource room. Another reason is the placement of students with an emotional impairment and/or behavioral issues in the resource room as cohorts of students with learning disabilities. However, the same report points to the primary reason for the poor outcomes as being that the discrepancy model does not provide teachers with clear, explicit directions for instruction. The researchers noted resource room instruction was based on the whole language approach which is centered on group work instead of student s individual needs. Martin, Martin and Carvalho (2008) reviewed a study by the U.S. Department of Education which reported in 2002 that the majority of the approximately 2,887,217 children receiving special education services were identified with a learning disability in reading. The number of children identified as having a reading disability has grown considerably. Their findings found that while researchers have piloted studies on effective reading strategies for students in upper elementary and middle school with reading disabilities, study effects remain unclear. A primary reason for the vague results is the need to match instruction to the specific needs of each student. Martin, Martin and Carvalho (2008) found studies that indicate that for a reading program to be effective the program must combine various methodologies based on each child s needs while at the same time implementing the principal techniques of the program. The two most prevalent reading methods used with students who have a reading disability are whole language instruction and direct instruction. Findings from research conducted by Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn and Ciullo (2010) revealed most studies on effective reading interventions have focused on the early elementary; Kindergarten through third grade. However, more recent focus has been on 4

11 effective interventions for students who did not respond to the interventions presented in the early grades and continue to struggle in fourth grade and on up. This group of struggling readers also includes students who have a learning disability in reading. Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn and Ciullo (2010) reviewed research studies that estimated 69% of fourth grade students are not reading at proficient levels with 36% unable to read at basic levels. They also discovered that when students enter the upper elementary grades the way they read changes from learning to read to reading to learn. Learning to read means learning to pronounce words identify words and get their meaning. Reading to learn means learning to make sense of a text in order to get meaning from it. In 2007 The National Assessment of Education Progress reported that 69% of eighth grade students were not able to read for meaning, which requires students being able to comprehend and understand the words they read in grade level texts. Upper elementary students with a reading disability present with different deficits than early elementary students. Problems include recognizing and understanding words and their meanings, making connections to the text students are reading and lacking previous knowledge that aids in comprehension. Effective reading interventions listed were those that provided targeted reading mediations in comprehension and included multiple reading components or word recognition approaches and practice with oral reading fluency (Vaughn et al, 2011). The goal of this study is to discover the most effective reading interventions and programs available for students who have a reading disability in upper elementary and middle school that fits each individual s specific needs, yet are feasible to implement. 5

12 Research Questions Most reading studies have been piloted towards interventions and strategies for early elementary students. Many students with a reading disability do not always respond to reading interventions such as extra reading support like the Title I program in the early grades and continue to struggle with reading. This review focuses on strategies and interventions an educator can use for upper elementary and middle school students who slip through the cracks. Once students reach the upper elementary and middle school grades reading changes from learning how to read to reading to learn. Effective interventions and strategies are a must to help this population achieve grade level content and graduate with a high school diploma versus a certificate of completion. 1. Based on current findings, what are the most effective reading interventions and programs for upper elementary and middle school students who have a disability in reading? 2. Each student with a reading disability has unique needs. What feasible strategies can an educator use to support students with disabilities yet meet the needs of all students within the classroom? Theoretical Model This literature review centers on the Design-based Research method identified by Collins (2010) on studies analyzing different reading intervention practices used to improve students with a learning disability reading skills. The Design-Based Research includes the following components: Addressing complex problems in real, authentic contexts in collaboration with practitioners; 6

13 Applying integrating known and hypothetical design principles to render plausible solutions; Conducting rigorous and reflective inquiry to test and refine innovative learning environments; Research and development through continuous cycles of design, enactment, analysis, and redesign; Development of such accounts relies on methods that can document and connect processes of enactment to outcomes of interest; Research must account for how designs function in authentic settings (adapted from Collins, 2010). This review also involves Behaviorist theories of learning gathered by Woolfolk (2010). Despite the fact that theorists disagree on a common definition of learning, most theorists agree that learning occurs when experiences cause a change in a child s behavior. Thus the knowledge a student attains leads to an observable change in a student s behavior. Behaviorists focus on the role environmental stimuli plays in learning that produces an observable response to the learning instruction. Definition of Terms Learning disability: Individuals with Disabilities Act s (IDEA) Definition of Learning Disability is twofold: First, a specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including 7

14 conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Second, a specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2011). Reading: Reading is defined as being able to decode, which is word recognition and understanding language, both oral and written. This definition also includes being able to comprehend the words read, which is understanding the meaning of the words read; reading to learn (Duff & Clarke, 2011). Reading intervention: A reading intervention is defined as differentiated instruction in word study, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills which compromise the five essential components for reading success (Wanzek et al., 2010). Whole language instruction: This method is student-centered with the instructional format consisting of students learning to read through the use of novels and short stories (Martin et al., 2008). Direct instruction: Direct instruction is teacher-centered. Teachers group students according to each student s reading level and then teach the specific skill or skills that the student is lacking (Martin et al., 2008). Learning: The manner through which experience causes lasting change in knowledge or behavior (Woolfolk, 2010). 8

15 Behavioral learning theories: Descriptions of learning that center on external experiences as the cause of changes in behaviors that are observable (Woolfolk, 2010). Summary of the Introduction To help the population of students in upper elementary and middle school with a reading disability become fluent readers, effective interventions are essential and should be implemented. These interventions and programs must be researched-based and shown in studies to be successful. Some practices that have shown positive outcomes for students who have a reading disability are the whole language approach and direct instruction during interventions. Strategies that have proven effective are small group instruction, teaching self-monitoring techniques, teaching strategies and problem solving skills, teaching the five big ideas of reading and providing students with ongoing systematic feedback on their progress. This study explores best practice reading interventions and reading strategies for upper elementary and middle school students who have a disability in reading. 9

16 Chapter 2: Literature Review This literature review examines published pilot studies on reading interventions and strategies. The goal of this review is to identify those methodologies proven most effective in helping students with a reading disability in upper elementary and middle school become successful readers. It also examines those interventions that did not demonstrate efficacy; keeping in mind that one size does not fit all. Reading Interventions for Upper Elementary and Middle School Students The strategy of Repeated Readings (RR) to improve oral reading fluency continues to show RR s effectiveness. Repeated Reading consists of a student repeatedly reading all the words in a text. Begeny, Daly III, and Valleley (2006) cite studies by the National Reading Panel from 2000 and O Shea, Sindelar and O Shea from 1985 that showed RR has had positive outcomes for students with a reading disability, especially in target areas of reading fluency and accuracy, reading comprehension and on reading scores measured by standardized tests. However when using the RR strategy, if a student makes numerous errors while reading a passage, the student may end up repeatedly practicing incorrect word responses. In some situations a student may need corrective feedback on the word errors, such as Phrase drill error correction (PD). The PD technique involves the teacher modeling the correct response and providing prompts to the student to repeatedly practice the correct response. With PD compared to RR, students practice correct responses in the natural setting of reading; not in isolation of other words. PD prompts students to repeatedly practice text reading. The difference between PD and RR is with RR a student practices reading all the words in a passage. With PD the student only reads the words the student 10

17 read incorrectly and the phrase containing the error words. PD has less empirical data supporting PD s effectiveness than RR, but some studies suggest PD can be a supportive component in reading interventions that are targeting reading fluency and accuracy. The study involved one third grade boy who was receiving special education services. Reading passages were selected from first, second and third grade reading texts and were presented in order of difficulty. Progress was monitored using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills 6 th Edition (DIBELS) (Begeny et al., 2006). For this study the instructional baseline for words correct per minute had a mean of Findings indicate that both PD and RR were effective interventions. End of study results showed words correct per minute (WCPM) for RR had a mean of with a standard deviation of and WCPW for PD had a mean of with a standard deviation of Experimental analysis has been used to explore the validity of a method for providing reading instruction through small group to students with reading disabilities. Experimental analysis permits researchers to determine functional relationships between variables. Bonfiglio, Daly III, Persampieri, and Andersen (2006) explored empirically substantiated reading fluency instructional practices and employed instructional and motivational variables. The variables used were considered reliable owing to previous theories on academic responding. Since most interventions can rarely be provided individually in schools, the likely setting for most reading instruction is within a small group format. The participants for the study consisted of four fourth grade students. The four students were not receiving special education services, but were identified as struggling 11

18 readers. The eight week study consisted of students receiving the reading intervention six to 20 minutes per day, four days a week. The treatment package comprised the group first listening to a selected grade-level narrative and expository reading passages while following along in the text (TP). Next, the group participated in Choral Reading with the experimenter (CR). When a student read a word incorrectly, a Word Drill error correction was applied. The experimenter stopped the student, modeled the correct word and asked all four students to read the word correctly three times (EC). A reward system was put in place for students meeting their oral reading fluency goals; praise and tangible items (R). Goals were developed for each student on an individual basis based on correctly read words (CRW) and low error rate. Goals were adjusted during the study and student progress was monitored on a daily basis. The complete treatment involved TP plus EC plus CR plus R. The researchers then used a dismantling process to discover the most efficient and effective reading intervention. End of study findings indicate all four students made gains in their correct words per minute scores (Bonfiglio et al., 2006). Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn and Ciullo (2010) after completing a review on 20 years of reading research, found that upper elementary and middle school students showed positive outcomes when students received direct instruction on word study, decoding strategies, word meaning instruction and comprehension strategies. The recent studies they reviewed advocate giving students numerous opportunities to practice the learned strategies and also providing corrective feedback during instruction. See Appendix B for findings. 12

19 Educator Instructional Strategies Aaron, Joshi, Gooden and Bentum (2008), conducted a seven year study on the effectiveness of instruction based on the Component Model of Reading (CMR). CMR is a process to help identify and remediate specific reading deficits. A student may have difficulty achieving basic literacy skills due to deficits in any component in any one of the three domains listed below in Table 1. Table 1 Component Model of Reading Reading Component Model Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Cognitive Components Psychological Ecological Components Components Word Recognition Cognition Motivation and interest Home environment, culture and Locus of control parental involvement Learned helplessness Classroom environment Learning styles Peer influence Teacher expectations Dialect Gender differences English as a second language Note. Adapted from Aaron et al., 2008, p. 69. The study compared CMR instructional practices to instruction based on the discrepancy model used in a resource room setting for grades second through fifth. However, the research results were based only on the cognitive domain as the researchers were comparing the effectiveness of instructional practices between the discrepancy model and CMR. In the study the treatment group of 171 struggling readers yet to be identified as LD received vocabulary and comprehension instruction through a program called Reading for Excellence in Academic Development (READ) and The Writing Road to Reading program. The control group of 159 LD students received instruction in a 13

20 resource room setting based on the discrepancy model that did not specifically target student s reading deficits (Aaron et al., 2008). Comprehension instruction was based on seven strategies that reading studies have shown are effective in fostering reading comprehension. The strategy steps are as follows: Schema activation; purpose of reading; stop and think; visualize; seek help; ask a question and summarize. Figure 1 provides the results of the study which demonstrate that the CMR model was more effective for pinpointing specific reading deficits and the subsequent instruction than the instruction received in the resource room based on the discrepancy model s identification and instruction. Table 2 shows pre and posttest results for word attack and comprehension scores. Table 3 shows number of children in the study by grade and gender. Note LD=Learning Disabilities. Figure 1: Gains in word attack and comprehension scores by treatment and comparison groups. 14

21 Table 2 Word Attack and Comprehension Findings Note. Reprinted from Aaron et al., 2008, p. 79. Table 3 Aaron et al. Demographics Note: Reprinted from Aaron et al., 2008, p. 71 Dufrene et al. (2010) conducted a school yearlong study on the effectiveness of using Peer Tutoring as effective method to increase struggling readers reading fluency as a Response to Intervention. Seven sixth grade students participated in the study, three of which were tutors and four were the tutees. The tutees were not LD but were identified as at risk students through DIBELS assessments. The tutors were trained on tutoring procedures such as modeling, allowing numerous opportunities for practice, student 15

22 feedback and scoring procedures. Tutoring sessions were conducted for each tutee two to three times per week outside of the general education classroom in a quiet setting. Sessions consisted of the tutor conducting Listening Passage Preview (LPP) and Repeated Readings (RR) with the tutee using DIBELS reading passages. All sessions were tape recorded. RR was performed three times by the tutee with the tutor correcting any reading errors made. The last step consisted of a one minute timed read for words correct per minute score (WCPM) with the tutor not correcting reading errors, but recording errors per minute (EPM). Rewards were given to each tutee after each session from the school s Positive Behavior Intervention program in the form of tickets. The tickets could be exchanged for tangible items. Progress monitoring was conducted weekly using DIBELS progress monitoring reading passages. Tutee One had a baseline mean of WCPM and an EPM mean of After the intervention strategy Tutee One had a mean of 87 WCPM and an EPM mean of Tutee Two had a baseline mean of 80.5 WCPM and an EPM of After intervention Tutee Two had a mean 121 WCPM and an EPM mean of Tutee Three had a baseline mean of 90.8 WCPM and an EPM of 3.8. After intervention Tutee Three had a mean of 161 WCPM and an EPM mean of Tutee Four had a baseline mean of WCPM and an EPM of 6. After intervention Tutee Four had a mean of WCPM and an EPM mean of 6.3. Dufrene et al. (2010) believe the results of their study on Peer Tutoring are promising because of the need for reading intervention resources and are important for middle school settings that do not have the benefit of teacher aides. This study extended 16

23 the previous research Dufrene et al. (2010) conducted endorsing the effectiveness of Peer Tutoring. One of the main goals of reading is to be able to obtain meaning while reading. Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs (2011), reviewed studies on expository text that indicated expository text is more challenging than reading narrative text. Reading expository text is even more challenging for students who have a disability in reading. Students read expository texts to gather information and/or learn something new. Students with a disability in reading need to learn multiple techniques to improve their reading comprehension of expository text. Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs s (2011) review of reading studies found that combining strategies with direct instruction is important in reading comprehension instruction. Elements of effective Reading Comprehension Strategy (RCS) instruction include the teacher modeling the steps by using think alouds and providing prompts and cues to use the strategies. Other techniques are clearly stating the reading objective, state the reason for the lesson, provide explicit modeling, provide guided practice with feedback, provide independent practice along with time for generalization, explain the purpose of the strategy and monitor student progress. According to Berkeley et al. (2011) one comprehension technique that appears to be frequently overlooked is Metacomprehension and strategy awareness. Metacognition means being aware of one s own thinking, using strategies to complete a task and assessing one s progress. Applying this technique to reading comprehension involves a student understanding the task at hand as well as the student being able to decide which strategy will be most effective. Metacognition is an important tool for older students with 17

24 a disability in reading who struggle with choosing the appropriate strategy, trying to apply the strategy and then monitoring the task. Berkeley et al. (2011) found that a student s beliefs about his or her own ability to learn (self-efficacy) are important when considering instruction on teaching reading strategies. Techniques can be taught, but are only effective if students are motivated to learn and maintain the content. This idea is especially important for students with a reading disability since these students usually do not maintain or generalize their learning. Berkeley et al. (2011) review of studies have shown that instructor feedback that helps students make connections between making an effort and achieving success, promotes motivation to learn, positive self-efficacy and improved academic skills. Older students with a disability in reading often do not use the strategies after instruction. Older students sometimes believe not a lot of effort is needed to complete a task. Consequently these same students will not put in the effort to use cognitive and metacognitive techniques. As older students with a disability in reading typically have a history of academic failure, older students often believe they have no control over their academic success. Some students attribute their successes to luck (external causes) and failures to their own abilities (internal causes). A recent study was conducted on the effectiveness of adding an Attribution Retraining (AR) component to a Reading Comprehension Strategy (RCS) of reading instruction. In a 2011 study, Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs compared three treatment groups that were designed to teach reading comprehensions strategies to middle school students. Fifty-nine seventh, eighth and ninth grade students were randomly selected into the three groups. The first group received instruction through RCS and AR using reading 18

25 selections from Junior Scholastic magazine which features short articles comparable to the social studies text used in the general education curriculum. The second group used the same magazine receiving RCS instruction only and the third group, the comparison group, only received instruction using the Read Naturally program, which is a computer based program featuring non-fiction stories. The 12 instructional sessions lasted for four weeks; 30 minutes for each session. Results showed RCS instruction with and without AR had a greater impact on comprehension strategy awareness than the Read Naturally comparison group. The researchers believe these results are important because although direct instruction produces effective results in improving reading comprehension, students with a learning disability do not always maintain or generalize the strategies. The findings appeared to show that the students did maintain and generalize the techniques taught. See Appendix A for Reading Comprehension Strategies. Pertaining to response to intervention, Vaughn et al. (2011) found some researchers advocated two approaches for students with reading disabilities: a problem solving approach and a standardized approach. Standardized interventions use researchbased programs with step by step instruction that is implemented the same way for all students with a reading disability. Educators like the standardized interventions because the methodologies usually consist of student materials and teacher guides, programs give clear expectations and enable teachers to document student progress. Standardized interventions are feasible to implement concerning school budgets and teacher time. The problem solving approach is grounded in school psychology with a focus on behavioral problem solving. However, Vaughn et al. (2011) review of studies showed limited empirical support for the problem solving method. The Vaughn et al. (2011) study tried a 19

26 new approach. The idea stemmed from special education and was called an individualized approach designed to meet a student s individual needs. The researchers randomly assigned 133 middle school students who did not respond to previous interventions to three groups; 36 comparison who received no intervention, 51 individualized and 46 for standardized interventions. Instruction consisted of 50 minute sessions during 160 lessons during a school year. Standardized interventions consisted of: Repeated readings with a peer tutor for fluency using grade-level texts; REWARDS program which is a decoding strategy for word study; vocabulary study using grade-level texts and for fluency and comprehension the REWARDS Plus program. Individualized interventions consisted of using general education curriculum materials with modifications made for each student s level with weekly goal setting for each area of need, with teachers using Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) to assess progress. Data was compiled on students progress throughout the interventions. The researchers compared standardized interventions with individualized interventions and found some gains in reading comprehension, decoding and fluency, but mixed results in word attack skills. The overall findings appeared to show that the standardized interventions put in place were more effective than the individualized interventions. 20

27 Chapter 3: Results This literature review focused on peer reviewed research related to reading strategies and interventions an educator can use for upper elementary and middle school students who slipped through the cracks in the early elementary grades. The studies also included students with reading disabilities who are also still struggling with reading. Numerous studies have been conducted on best practice reading interventions for the early grades, but until recently, only a few studies were piloted towards upper elementary, middle school students and older students with reading disabilities. Reading Intervention Effectiveness Research question one addresses the issue of what are the most effective reading interventions and programs for upper elementary and middle school students who have a disability in reading. Begeny et al. (2006) reported Phrase Drill error correction (PD) and Repeated Readings (RR) are effective interventions for improving student oral reading fluency and showed positive outcomes for students with reading disabilities. The results also indicated that PD was more effective at reducing word errors. Both techniques increased student word correct per minute scores. For this study the instructional baseline for words correct per minute had a mean of Findings indicate that both PD and RR were effective interventions for the student in this study. End of study results showed words correct per minute (WCPM) for RR had a mean of with a standard deviation of and WCPW for PD had a mean of with a standard deviation of Bonfiglio, Daly III, Persampieri, and Andersen s (2006) experiment using TP, students following along as a passage is read aloud, then participating in CR (Choral Reading), with the experimenter applying WC (Word Drill error) and EC (reading the 21

28 word correctly three times) with R (Rewards) based on CRW (Correct Words Read) showed that all four students increased CRW and decreased errors per minute in nearly all treatment conditions. After students read the first two reading passages TP plus EC was removed from the treatment for the third reading passage. These same components were added again for the fourth reading passage, however CR was removed. For the fifth reading passage CR was added back to the treatment and the reward was removed. The complete treatment involved TP plus EC plus CR plus R. Data analysis revealed the most feasible and effective treatment to increase oral reading fluency for all four students was TP plus EC plus CR. Student One s baseline for Correctly Read Words (CRW) was a mean of and a mean error rate of 4. After intervention Student One s CRW mean increased to with a mean error rate of Student Two s baseline mean for CRW was 91 with a mean error rate of 1. After intervention Student Two s CRW increased to a mean of 113 with a mean error rate of Student Three s CRW baseline mean was with a mean error rate of After intervention Student Three s CRW mean increased to with a mean error rate of 2. Student Four s baseline mean for CRW was with an error rate of After intervention the CRW mean increased to and the error rate increased to 5. Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn and Ciullo (2010) completed a literature review on 20 years of research on reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades. Their findings indicated positive outcomes for struggling readers and students with reading disabilities when the students received direct instruction on word study, decoding strategies, word meaning instruction and comprehension strategies while also providing numerous opportunities to practice the learned strategies and providing 22

29 corrective feedback during instruction. Results also indicated the most effective reading interventions for upper elementary and middle school students to be teaching comprehension strategies for before, during and after reading. See Appendix B for findings and results of the reading interventions reviewed. Table 4 shows comparison results of studies conducted on specific Reading Interventions. The findings appear to show that the student made significant gains in his Words Correct per Minute when reading passages using PD and RR. The results also appear to show that students made gains in Words Correct per Minute using the experimental analysis breakdown of listening to a taped preview of story (TP) plus error correction for words read incorrectly (EC) and choral reading (CR). Since the Wanzek et al. literature review consisted of numerous studies see Appendix B for full results. Table 4 Efficacy of Program Intervention Author Student Age Intervention Results Begney et al. 1 UE Phrase Drill WCPM 60M 9.91SD Repeated WCPM 59.63M 15.20SD Readings Bonfiglio et al. 4 UE Experimental Analysis of Reading Interventions (TP+EC+CR) WCPM 162.6M 2.4ER Wanzek et al. UE, MS Reciprocal Teaching for Reading Comprehension (Lederer) 40% - 100% increase in comprehension Note. UE = upper elementary, MS = middle school. WCPM = Words Correct per Minute, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, ER = Mean Error Rate. 23

30 Supporting Students with Disabilities Research question two addressed feasible strategies educators can use to support students with disabilities and meet the needs of all students within the classroom. Aaron, Joshi, Gooden and Bentum (2008), conducted a seven year study on the effectiveness of instruction based on the Component Model of Reading (CMR) as a process to help identify and remediate specific reading deficits when compared to the discrepancy model. The results of the study indicated that the CMR model was more effective for pinpointing specific reading deficits and the subsequent instruction than the instruction received in the resource room based on the discrepancy model s identification and instruction. Dufrene et al. (2010) school yearlong study on the effectiveness of using Peer Tutoring as effective method to increase struggling readers reading fluency as a Response to Intervention showed positive outcomes. Results of the study indicated all tutees showed improvement in oral reading fluency rate and three tutees showed an increase on progress monitoring probes. Tutee One had a baseline mean of WCPM and an EPM mean of After the intervention strategy Tutee One had a mean of 87 WCPM and an EPM mean of Tutee Two had a baseline mean of 80.5 WCPM and an EPM of After intervention Tutee Two had a mean 121 WCPM and an EPM mean of Tutee Three had a baseline mean of 90.8 WCPM and an EPM of 3.8. After intervention Tutee Three had a mean of 161 WCPM and an EPM mean of Tutee Four had a baseline mean of WCPM and an EPM of 6. After intervention Tutee Four had a mean of WCPM and an EPM mean of 6.3. Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs (2011) study comparing three treatment groups using Reading Comprehension Strategy (RCS) and Attribution Retraining (AR) 24

31 designed to teach reading comprehensions strategies to middle school students presented positive results. The first group received instruction through RCS and AR, the second group only RCS instruction and the third group, the comparison group, only received instruction using the Read Naturally program (Figure 2). Figure 2: Summary comprehension score by experimental condition. Note: RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR attribution retraining; RN = Read Naturally. Reprinted from Berkeley et al. (2011). p. 27. The RCS group was taught six reading comprehension strategies: setting a purpose, previewing, activating prior knowledge, self-questioning, summarizing and strategy monitoring. The RCS plus AR included the same RCS components, but also included attribution concept sheets. Reminders included: I know lots of good strategies; I will try hard to use the best ones and I will only have positive thoughts. This group also received Attribution Challenge worksheets for independent practice on hypothetical situations. Results showed RCS instruction with and without AR had a greater impact on 25

32 comprehension strategy awareness than the Read Naturally only comparison group. Figure 2 shows Reading Comprehension pretest and posttest results for conditions. Table 5 shows results for Metacomprehension Strategy Awareness. Table 6 shows results for Attributional Retraining. Table 5 Central Tendencies for Comprehension Measures Note: Reprinted from Berkeley et al. (2011). p

33 Table 6 Central Tendencies and Effect Sizes for Reading Attributions Note: Reprinted from Berkeley et al., 2011, p. 28. Vaughn et al. s (2011) study on an individualized approach to reading remediation showed some growth but not significant results. The study participants consisted of three groups of middle school students; 36 in the comparison, 51 in the individualized and 46 in the standardized intervention group who had not responded to previous reading interventions. After comparing standardized interventions with individualized interventions the researchers found some differences between the two interventions, but their findings did not substantiate their hypothesis that students in the 27

34 individualized group would make significantly more gains than the standardized or comparison group (see Table 7 for results). However, Vaughn et al. (2011) do not believe that their single study findings offered conclusive evidence that standardized interventions are more effective than individualized for middle school students with intensive reading deficits. Table 7 Efficacy of Standardized and Individualized Interventions Note. Group means with standard deviations in parentheses. TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficacy. WJ = Woodcock-Johnson test. Reprinted from Vaughn et al. (2011) p Table 8 demonstrates that the Component Model of Reading strategy appears to show students made gains in their word attack and comprehension skills. The strategy of Peer Tutoring shows students made gains in their Words Correct per Minute scores and lowered their error rates. The reading comprehension strategy with Attributional Retraining appears to show students made significant gains in their comprehension skills. The last strategy between Standardized versus Individualized interventions appears to show students made gains in reading comprehension but mixed results in word attack skills. 28

35 Table 8 Efficacy of Strategy Interventions Author Student Age Strategy Results Aaron et al. UE 330 Component Model of Reading Word Attack gains M 5.39 Comprehension gains M 3.65 Dufrene et al. MS 4 Peer Tutoring WCPM M EPM M 4.2 Berkeley et al. MS 59 Reading Comprehension Strategy w/out Attributional Retraining Reading Comprehension Strategy w/ Attributional Retraining Vaughn et al. MS 133 II Word Identification SI Word Identification II Word Attack SI Word Attack II Spelling SI Spelling II Sight Word SI Sight Word II Decoding SI Decoding IIComprehension SIComprehension M gain 2.79 M gain 3.70 M gain 2.29 M gain 2.44 M gain.31 M gain 2.18 M gain.76 M loss M gain.10 M gain 1.77 M.0 M gain 3.2 M gain 2.71 M gain.81 Note. UE = upper elementary, MS = middle school. Note: WCPM = Words Correct per Minute, EPM = Error Rate per Minute, M = Mean. Note: II = Individualized Intervention, SI = Standardized Intervention. 29

36 Chapter 4: Discussion and Summary This study synthesized current research regarding best practice reading interventions and educational strategy supports for struggling readers in upper elementary and middle school. Some reading interventions and teacher strategies appear to have greater efficacy than others. In this chapter, I will cover the self-identified limitations researchers mention in their articles and the recommendations they make for future research. I will conclude with a synthesis of the research-based best practices for reading interventions and strategies with my own classroom experiences to help struggling readers in middle school and students with a reading disability. Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Begeny et al. (2006) state their results should be taken with caution as their experiment with PD involved only one third grade subject. It is uncertain whether the findings would be the same if different constraints were used for response opportunities in the study. They also assert their findings may not be generalizable outside of the experimental setting as these outcomes were not assessed. Begeny et al. (2006) suggest future research should measure Phrase Drill s long term effects with a larger number of participants using a range of dependent measures, thus possibly demonstrating PD s effectiveness with other reading interventions. Bonfiglio et al. (2006) stated an advantage of their experimental method was that other variable combinations can be effective for all students who are struggling readers; an intervention can be custom-made to meet their needs using experimental analysis methods. However, caution should be taken in interpreting the validity of their study, because: 30

37 First, the students were repeatedly coached and queried on the same reading passages; Second, the passages used in the study were shorter in length than an average story; Third, only four students participated in the study; Fourth, competence was assumed based on a small number of strategies, not on an exact measure of efficiency; meaning measuring the teacher s time and effort; Fifth, the design analysis did not control thoroughly for sequence effects; Sixth, the rating for social validity was centered on only one responding participant; and Finally, the methods used in the study may not be easy to duplicate in all school settings; time consuming, plus numerous data collecting procedures. Bonfiglio et al. (2006) state despite the limitations of their study the positive results of experimental analysis should encourage further research into experimental analysis of academic and reading performance. Aaron et al. (2008) cited limitations to their study with regard to: The fact that resource room instruction was not constant in the data collected, whereas the data for CMR was uniform; and; Pre and post-testing for both programs occurred at different periods, which may have been a confounding factor as the resource room comparison group was tested after three years of instructions whereas the CMR group was tested after one semester. Future research to replicate CMR measures should provide for a longer instructional period. Dufrene et al. (2010) cite one of the limitations of their study on Peer Tutoring to be the failure of tutors to consistently correct tutee s reading errors. Future research on 31

38 this topic should assess tutee training and feedback procedures to correctly detect and correct tutee reading errors. Likewise using instructional reading passages rather than grade level passages may have resulted in fewer reading errors, reducing the rate of the tutors having to detect and correct errors. Dufrene et al. (2010) also found that all of the tutees did not respond to the rewards put in place. Future research could be conducted on assessing the effectiveness of a reward based on meeting pre-set criteria and identifying a student s preferred reward. Wanzek et al. (2010) found that they could locate very few studies on reading interventions for upper elementary and middle school students. The studies they analyzed reported good outcomes, however most of these studies relied on researcher-developed measures. This potentially puts the reliability of the findings in question. Their recommendations for future research consist of measuring reading interventions that take into consideration specific deficits in reading comprehension. Wanzek et al. (2010) also recommend assessing the reading interventions used for comprehension using standardized measures. Since they could only find a limited amount of research on vocabulary and multi-component study for reading interventions, more research is needed on these types of interventions. The limitations noted in Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs (2011), study on Metacognition and Attribution Retraining were the students self-reporting on the strategies and attribution measures. The self-reports contained double-negative statements that students could have misconstrued. These factors may have influenced the study s results. Another limitation in this study was that the researchers taught uneven groups of students in different grades, despite random assignments. Future research on 32