The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to (a) compare Tier 2 evidence-based intensive reading instruction to business-as-usual instruction for sixth graders with and without learning disabilities who were “far below” or “below” basic level in literacy and (b) explore the development of a response-to-intervention model in middle school. The study took place in a large inner-city urban setting, where 100% of students received free or reduced-price lunch and 90% of the students were considered English learners at some point in their school history. Intervention students received intensive small-group instruction for 30 hours across 10 weeks. Credential candidates in special education provided the small-group instruction in the treatment condition. Results on oral reading fluency, less so for Maze reading comprehension measures, indicated greater improvements for treatment students, and students with learning disabilities benefited as much or more than the other struggling sixth graders. Educational implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2007). Examining the technical adequacy of word and passage reading fluency measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report #41). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
2.
ArcherA.GleasonM.VachonV. (2002). REWARDS (Reading Excellence: Word Attach & Rate Development Strategies). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
3.
ArcherA. L.GleasonM. M.VachonV. L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26 (10), 89–101.
4.
BeckI.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: The robust vocabulary. New York, NY: Guilford.
5.
BradleyR.DanielsonL. (2004). The Office of Special Education Program's LD initiative: A context for inquiry and consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27 (4), 186–188.
6.
California State Department of Education. (2003). California English Language Development Test (CELDT). Sacramento: Author.
7.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37 (3), 184–192.
8.
DentonC. A.WexlerJ.VaughnS.BryanD. (2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23 (2), 79–89.
9.
DuesberyL.Braun-MoneganJ. (2008, February). Robustness of curriculum-based measures of reading to changes in common administration protocols. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
10.
EchevarriaJ.GravesA. (2010). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching students with diverse needs (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79 (1), 262–300.
12.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.HughesM. T.St MoodyS. W. (1999). Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65 (3), 399–415.
EnglertC. S.ZhaoY.CollingsN.RomigN. (2005). Learning to read words: The effects of Internet-based software in the improvement of reading performance. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 357–373.
15.
FitzgeraldJ.GravesM. F. (2004). Scaffolding reading experiences for English-language learners. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
16.
FletcherJ. M.CoulterW. A.ReschlyD. J.VaughnS. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54 (2), 304–331.
17.
FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17.
18.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 93–99.
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.WalzL.GermannG. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22 (1), 27–48.
20.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18 (3), 157–171.
21.
GerstenR.BakerS.HaagerD.GravesA. W. (2005). Exploring the role of teacher quality in predicting reading outcomes for first grade English learners: An observational study. Remedial & Special Education, 38, 212–222.
22.
GravesA. W. (2010). The longitudinal study of the impact of effective beginning reading instruction for English learners: Literacy, language, and learning disabilities. In ScruggsT.MastropieriM. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, 23, 155–174. London, England: Emerald.
23.
GravesA. W.GerstenR.HaagerD. (2004). Literacy instruction in multiple-language first-grade classrooms: Linking student outcomes to observed instructional practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19 (4), 262–272.
24.
GravesA. W.Plasencia-PeinadoJ.DenoS.St JohnsonJ. (2005). Formatively evaluating the reading progress of first-grade English learners in multiple language classrooms. Remedial & Special Education, 38, 245–255.
25.
GreenwoodC. R.TapiaY.AbbottM.WaltonC. (2003). A building-based case study of evidence-based literacy practices: Implementation, reading behavior, and growth in reading fluency, K-4. Journal of Special Education, 37, 200–215.
26.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. (2005). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59 (7), 636–644.
27.
InhotC.MatsoffJ.GavinJ.HendricksonL. (2001). Read naturally. St. Paul, MN: Read Naturally.
28.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446. (2006).
29.
JohnsonD. R.StoddenR.EmanuelE.LueckingR.MacKM. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children, 68 (4), 519–531.
30.
KimY-SPetscherY.SchatschneiderC.FoormanB. (2010). Does growth in oral reading fluency matter in reading comprehensionJournal of Educational Psychology, 102 (3), 652–667.
31.
KlingnerJ. L.EdwardsP. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 108–117.
LloydJ.CullinanD.HeinsE.EpsteinM. (1980). Direct instruction: Effects on oral and written language comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3 (1), 70–76.
34.
LloydJ. W. (2002). There's more to identifying learning disability than discrepancy. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 427–435). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35.
MagieraK.ZigmondN. (2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20 (2), 79–85.
36.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (6), 525–531.
37.
McIntoshA.GravesA.GerstenR. (2007). The effects of response to intervention on literacy development in multiple language settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30 (3), 197–212.
38.
MellardD. F.ByrdS. E.JohnsonE.TollefsonJ. M.BoescheL. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness-to-intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27 (4), 243–256.
39.
Purcell-GatesV.DukeN.MartineauM. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific texts: The roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 8–45.
40.
ReschlyD. J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (6), 510–515.
41.
RobertsG.TorgesenJ. K.BoardmanA.ScammaccaN. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction for older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23 (2), 63–69.
42.
SchleppegrellM.GoA. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional approach. Language Arts, 84, 529–536.
43.
ShinnM.DenoS.EspinC. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education, 34 (3), 164–172.
44.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. M. (2007). How much growth can we expect? A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74 (1), 71–84.
45.
SpandelV.NathanR.RobbL. (2001). Daybook of critical reading and writing. Willmington, MA: Great Source Education Group.
46.
SpycherP. (2009). Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse kindergarten classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 359–379.
47.
TorgesenJ.MyersD.SchirmA.StuartE.VartivarianS.MansfieldW. (2006). National assessment of Title I. Interim report. Volume II: Closing the reading gap: First year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
48.
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. K.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34 (1), 33–58.
49.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
50.
VaughnS.KlingnerJ. (2007). Overview of the three-tier model or reading intervention. In HaagerD.KlingnerJ.VaughnS. (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 3–9). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
51.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.KouzekannaniK.BryantD. P.DicksonS.BlozisS. A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 127–141.
52.
VaughnS.CirinoP. T.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.FletcherJ. M.DentonC. A. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39 (1), 3–21.
53.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SmallS.FanueleD. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (2), 157–169.
54.
YovanoffP.DuesberyL.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2005). Grade-level invariance of a theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral reading fluency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24 (3), 4–12. Washington, DC: National Council on Measurement in Education.
