The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth investigation of the four lowest performing students in one kindergarten classroom. The students were provided with 10 weeks of explicit, intensive intervention in phonological awareness skills. Three types of data were collected during the intervention: fluency measures; strategy use to perform phonological awareness tasks; and students' number of responses during instruction. The combination of these data allowed both qualitative and quantitative examination of the characteristics of low-performing students. Low-performing students who were responsive to the intensive instruction differed on each of the aforementioned variables from students who were not responsive.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300—316.
2.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (2002) Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
3.
Brown, I.S., & Felton, R.H. (1990). Effects of instruction on beginning readers' skills in children at risk for reading disability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 223—241.
4.
Bus, A.G., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403—414.
5.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kame'enui, E. (1997). Direct instruction reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
Coutinho, M., & Oswald, D. (2004, March—April). Disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education: Measuring the problem. NCCREST Practitioner Brief Series. Retrieved from http://www.nccrest.org/
7.
Crowley, K., & Siegler, R.S. (1999). Explanation and generalization in young children's strategy learning. Child Development, 70, 304—316.
8.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, B., Yaghoub, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250—287.
9.
Foorman, B., Francis, D., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 255—276.
10.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness to intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157—171.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7—22.
12.
Gerber, M., Jimenez, T., Leafstedt, J., Villaruz, J., Richards, C., & English, J. (2004). English reading effects of small-group intensive intervention in Spanish for K—1 English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 252—261.
13.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2003). English-language learners with learning disabilities . In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 94—109). New York : Guilford Press.
14.
Gersten, R., & Woodard, J. (1994). The language minority student and special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310—322.
15.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.S., Kame'enui, E.S., Kaminski, R.A., & Wallin, J. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Technical Report No. 11). Eugene: University of Oregon.
16.
Gresham, F. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson , & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R. 1350, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
18.
Leafstedt, J., & Gerber, M. (2005). Crossover of phonological processing skills: A study of Spanish-speaking students in two instructional settings. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 226—235.
19.
Leafstedt, J., Richards, C., & Gerber, M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 239—251.
20.
Nelson, J.R., Benner, G., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 255—267.
21.
Richards, C., Leafstedt, J.M., Gerber, M.M., Jimenez, T., & Filippini, A. (2003). La Patera phonological awareness tests (LP-PAT) . Santa Barbara: University of California , Center for the Advanced Study of Individual Differences.
22.
Siegler, R. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Torgesen, J. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55—64.
24.
Torgesen, J.K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 1—21.
25.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to intervention as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children , 69, 391—410.
26.
Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., RuSan, C., et al. (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.
27.
Yopp, H. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159—177.
