For many students at risk of reading difficulties, effective, early reading instruction can improve reading outcomes and set them on a positive reading trajectory. Thus, response-to-intervention models include a focus on a student’s Tier I reading instruction as one element for preventing reading difficulties and identifying students with a learning disability. The purpose of this study was to examine the amount of time kindergarten students at risk of reading difficulties actively engaged in reading print during Tier I reading instruction, and the extent to which time in reading print was related to end-of-year reading achievement. Findings revealed the amount of time students were engaged in reading print predicted end-of-year reading achievement, although time engaged in reading print during Tier I was limited overall. Student- and teacher-level factors and their relationship to the amount of time students engage in reading print is also examined.
AllingtonR. L. (1980). Poor readers don’t get to read much in reading groups. Language Arts, 57, 872–876.
2.
AllingtonR. L. (1984). Content coverage and contextual reading in reading groups. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 85–95.
3.
Al OtaibaS.ConnorC. M.FolsomJ. S.GreulichL.MeadowsJ.LiZ. (2011). Assessment data-informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized control field trial. Elementary School Journal, 111, 535–560. doi:10.1086/659031
4.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431. doi:10.1177/00222194060390050401
5.
BanksonN. W. (1990). Bankson Language Test (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
6.
BereiterC.BrownA.CampioneJ.CarruthersI.CaseR.HirshbergJ.TreadwayG. H. (2002). Open court reading. Columbus, OH: SRA McGraw-Hill.
7.
BrophyJ.GoodT. (1989). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York, NY: Macmillan.
8.
CaldasS. J.BankstonC. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 269–277.doi:10.1080/00220671.1997.10544583
9.
CavanaughC. L.KimA.WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2004). Kindergarten reading intervention for at-risk students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 9–21.
10.
ChardD. J.Kame’enuiE. J. (2000). Struggling first-grade readers: The frequency and progress of their reading. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 28–38. doi:10.1177/002246690003400103
11.
EngelmannS.BrunerE. C. (2002). Reading mastery plus. Columbus, OH: SRA McGraw-Hill.
12.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement.
13.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_4
14.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.SmithS. B. (1998). Effective academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills. Educational and Child Psychology, 15, 56–70.
15.
GreshamF. M.ElliottS. N. (1990). Social skills rating system manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
16.
HaagerD.GerstenR.BakerS.GravesA. W. (2003). The English-language learner classroom observation instrument for beginning readers. In VaughnS.BriggsK. L. (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for the observation of teaching and learning (pp. 111–144). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
17.
HaynesM. C.JenkinsJ. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161–190. doi:10.3102/00028312023002161
18.
HerbersJ. E.CutuliJ. J.SupkoffL. M.HeistadD.ChanC.HinzE.MastenA. S. (2012). Early reading skills and academic achievement trajectories of students facing poverty, homelessness, and high residential mobility. Educational Researcher, 41, 366–374. doi:10.3102/0013189X12445320
19.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).
20.
JoshiR. M.AaronP. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97. doi:10.1080/02702710050084428
21.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437
22.
KentS. C.WanzekJ.Al OtaibaS. (2012). Print reading in general education kindergarten classrooms: What does it look like for students at-risk for reading difficulties?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 56–65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00351.x
23.
LoniganC. J.WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (2007). Test of Preschool Early Literacy. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
24.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HillemeierM. M.MaczugaS. (2012). Are minority children disproportionately represented in early intervention and early childhood special education?Educational Researcher, 41, 339–351. doi:10.3102/0013189X12459678
25.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
26.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State Schools Officers. (2010). The common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
27.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (Reports of the subgroups). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
28.
NewcomerP. L.HammillD. D. (1997). Test of language development-primary. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
29.
NoldusL. P. J. J. (1991). The observer: A software system for collection and analysis of observational data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 23, 415–429.
30.
O’ConnorR. E.JenkinsJ. R. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0302_4
31.
O’ConnorR. E.Notari-SyversonA.VadasyP. F. (1996). Ladders to literacy: The effects of teacher-led phonological activities for kindergarten children with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 117–130.
32.
O’SullivanP. J.YsseldykeJ. E.ChristensonS. L.ThurlowM. L. (1990). Mildly handicapped elementary students’ opportunity to learn during reading instruction in mainstream and special education settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 131–146.
33.
RasbashJ.SteeleF.BrowneW. J.GoldsteinH. (2012). A user’s guide to MLwIN v. 2.26. Bristol, UK: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
34.
ReidD.HreskoW.HammillD. (2001). Test of early reading ability–Third Edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
35.
SindelarP. T.SmithM. A.HarrimanN. E.HaleR. L.WilsonR. J. (1986). Teacher effectiveness in special education programs. Journal of Special Education, 20, 195–207.
36.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453. doi:10.3102/00346543075003417
37.
StageS. A.SheppardJ.DavidsonM. M.BrowningM. M. (2001). Prediction of first-graders’ growth in oral reading fluency using kindergarten letter fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 225–237. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00065-6
38.
StanovichK. E.SiegelL. S. (1994). The phenotypic performance profile of reading disabled children: A regression-based test of the phonological core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24
39.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Intervention for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
41.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.RoseE.LindamoodP.ConwayT.GarvanC. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579
42.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS.ChenR.PrattA.DencklaM. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601
43.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
44.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.HechtS. A.BarkerT. A.BurgessS. R.. . .GaronT. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468–479. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.468
45.
WechslerD. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
46.
WestJ.DentonK.Germino-HauskenE. (2000). America’s kindergartners: Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998-99, fall 1998. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
47.
WoodcockR. W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
48.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
