Response to intervention (RTI) has received considerable attention from both researchers and practitioners as a schoolwide model for service delivery. However, research is limited on RTI applications in middle and high schools. The purpose of this article is to describe the outcomes of an experimental examination of a secondary (Tier 2) literacy intervention for at-risk fifth- and sixth-grade students in an urban middle school assigned to one of three conditions: Story Structure (SS), Typical Practice delivered by reading specialists (TP), and Sustained Silent Reading (SSR). Results indicated a statistically significant difference between the mean posttest cloze scores of the SSR group and both the SS and TP conditions. Study findings support the growing body of research indicating that at-risk students need intensive and explicit instruction in addition to opportunities to practice reading.
Connecticut State Board of Education (CSBE). (2007). Connecticut mastery test, fourth generation: 2007 interpretive guide. Hartford, CT: Author.
3.
CoyneM.SimonsenB.Faggella-LubyM. (2008). Cooperating initiatives: Supporting behavioral and academic improvement through a systems approach. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40 (6), 54–59.
4.
DanielsH. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
5.
DiminoJ.GerstenR.CarnineD.BlakeG. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students' comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91 (1), 19–32.
6.
Faggella-LubyM.DeshlerD. (2008). Reading Comprehension in Adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23 (2), 70.
7.
Faggella-LubyM. N.SchumakerJ. S.DeshlerD. D. (2007). Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30 (2), 131–147.
8.
Faggella-LubyM.WareS.CapozzoliA. (2009). Adolescent literacy — Reviewing adolescent literacy reports: Key components and critical questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 453–475.
9.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. (2007, May 1). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22 (2), 129.
10.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP.YoungC. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 157–171.
11.
GardillM. C.JitendraA. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2–17.
12.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.WilliamsJ. P.BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71 (2), 279–320.
13.
GranerP.Faggella-LubyM.FritschmannN. (2005, January 1). An overview of responsiveness to intervention: What practitioners ought to know. Topics in Language Disorders, 25 (2), 93.
14.
GreshamF.GansleK.NoellG.CohenS. (1993). Treatment integrity of school-based behavioral intervention studies: 1980–1990. School Psychology Review, 22 (2), 254–272.
15.
HiebertE.FisherC. (2005). A review of the National Reading Panel's studies on fluency: The role of text. Elementary School Journal, 105 (5), 443–460.
16.
KintschW. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In RudellR. B.UnrauN. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270–1324). Newark, DE: International Reading Assoc.
17.
MacGinitieW. H.MacGinitieR. K.MariaK.DreyerL. G. (2002). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, fourth edition. Technical report for forms S & T. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
18.
McMillanJ. H. (2008). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation's report card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010-458). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
21.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22.
PalincsarA.BrownA. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2), 117–175.
23.
OaklandT.LaneH. (2004). Language, reading, and readability formulas: Implications for developing and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 4 (3), 239–252.
24.
OlsonM. W.GeeT. C. (1988). Understanding narrative: A review of story grammar research. Childhood Education, 64 (5), 302–306.
25.
PlantyM.HussarW.SnyderT.ProvasnikS.KenaG.DinkesR.KewalRamaniA.KempJ. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
26.
ShadishW. R.CookT.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin and Company.
27.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2003). AIMSweb§ Training workbook administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome Measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation, Inc.
28.
SimonsenB.ShawS.Faggella-LubyM.SugaiG.CoyneM.RheinB.MadausJ.AlfanoM. (2010). A schoolwide model for service delivery: Redefining special educators as interventionists. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 17–23.
29.
Spear-SwerlingL. (2008). Using scientific research-based interventions: Improving education for all students/Connecticut's framework for RTI (executive summary). Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Department of Education.
SteinN. L.GlennC. G. (1978). An analysis of story composition on elementary school children. In FreedleR. O. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (volume 2, pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instructional method. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14 (3), 129–140.
33.
SwansonH.DeshlerD. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 (2), 124–135.
34.
TroiaG. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Roles for speech-language pathologists in the prevention and identification of learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25 (2), 106–119.
