This study examined Tier 2 instructional effects on approximately 120 early (K-2) elementary school students across five elementary schools in a large, suburban school district in the Midwestern United States. Students identified scored at the 30th percentile or below on teacher-created pre-tests measuring phonemic awareness, decoding, and recognition of sight words. Recommendations from the National Reading Panel (2000) indicate the need to emphasize more time, smaller groups, and practice in the areas of phonemic awareness and phonics to teach decoding of words and fluency mixed with instruction of vocabulary and comprehension. This study provides evidence for this theory of Tier 2 reading instruction where striving readers were exposed to the small group interventions suggested by the National Reading Panel (2000). The study emphasized the impact of these interventions on striving readers to help them catch up to their more efficient peers.
As noted by Shapiro (2014) in the Response to Intervention® (RTI) Action Network, high-quality Tier 1 instruction should reach 75-80 percent of students; the tier that encompasses the most students is Tier 1 (Buffman, Mattos, & Weber, 2009). This study focused on Tier 2 students when making decisions about students at risk for dyslexia who may need direct, explicit, structured literacy instruction in order to meet their needs. This study explores the impact of intentional implementation with Evidence-Based Reading Instruction (EBRI) for striving readers at the Tier 2 level.
The state of the art in reading remediation is prevention and early intervention (Foorman, 2008). This study focused on groups of students involved in small group EBRI where a specific number of intervention sessions were assigned to students depending on the severity of their reading deficits. These small group interventions emphasized “explicit and systematic instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics with application to reading and comprehending in text” (Clinefelter & Clinefelter, 2018, p. 39). The theory being that fluency is strengthened through ensuring an advanced level of phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, reading practice, and sight word acquisition. Systematic reading in context allowed students to apply learned skills and use visual imagery and questioning to demonstrate comprehension of text (T. C., personal communications, June 5, 2018). This study evaluated the success of EBRI on Tier 2 students by looking at pre- and post-tests focused on phonemic awareness, sight words, and reading fluency.
This study utilized assessment to determine if EBRI helped striving readers to catch up to their peers over a specific amount of time. The study looked to focus on striving readers in the early grades, as identified by classroom teachers’ informal observations. The first part of the study sought to examine the degree of correlation between the number of intervention sessions and its relationship to student growth among these striving readers. Moreover, the study separated these striving readers into three ability groups based on standardized pre-tests and sought to see if there was a difference in growth between the three groups as measured by Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills® (DIBELS) test of fluency and Pathways to Reading® (PtR) assessments in phonemic awareness, spelling a sound, and working with nonsense words. Students used multi-sensory experiences that include articulation of sounds, manipulation of letters and shadow writing. Teachers provided immediate feedback on student errors following the program’s model of questioning, which required students to verbalize their thinking and self-correct to become independent decoders and thinkers.
This research investigated what level of success small group instruction of EBRI had with striving readers. In its simplest form, EBRI means a particular program or collection of instructional practices with a record of success. Thus, the expectation of growth can be established when EBRI is implemented with fidelity among readers (International Reading Association, 2002). EBRI provides data to show evidence for the success or failure for this type of instruction. This study utilized various forms of assessments in pre- and post-testing formats to gauge the impact of small group intervention on striving readers divided into three levels of ability.
Since EBRI should have an impact on the phonemic awareness and decoding ability in students, the study used assessments that measured the skills of manipulating sounds and sight-reading of words. The study used the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing-2® (CTOPP-2) Elision test for measuring phonological ability and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency® (TOWRE) test to measure students’ efficiency in phonemic decoding and recognition of sight words. The study also utilized three PtR assessments to measure the same reading skills. Lastly, the researchers evaluated fluency with the DIBELS assessment to measure students reading rate, words per minute (wpm).
Literacy interventions must be implemented at a reasonable duration, or length (Wanzek et al., 2018). By the same token, the frequency of such should be closely examined, supporting daily instructional intervention whenever possible (Ankrum & Bean, 2008; Wanzek et al., 2018). Reducing the instructional group size for intervention has also been found to be effective, particularly in small group and individualized settings. Directed by students’ academic progress, exercising fluidity with grouping structures is likewise encouraged (Wanzek et al., 2018). Explicit and systematic instruction in support of learning is critical to steady, student progress, highlighting cornerstones of quality modeling and frequent think-alouds (Hanover Research, 2019; Kilpatrick, 2015; Rupley, Blair, & Nichols, 2009; Wanzek et al., 2018).
Open dialogue rooted in rich and regular feedback has also been identified as a critical factor to the success of implemented literacy interventions (Rupley, Blair, & Nichols, 2009). This practice can easily be imbedded within MTSS and through the support of multiple stakeholders as need(s) for intervention are found (Jones, Conradi, & Amendum, 2016; Scholastic, 2016; Wanzek et al., 2018). Moreover, MTSS should further be utilized to continuously monitor students’ degrees of intervention, while adjusting as needed based on systematic assessment data (Wanzek et al., 2018). As student-level assessment data is closely monitored, instructional scaffolding can be modified based on current learning need (Hanover Research, 2019; Kilpatrick, 2015; Stover, Sparrow, & Siefert, 2017).
Differentiated instruction is also a key pinnacle in the success of literacy interventions.
As cited by Hanover Research (2019), differentiation is a multi-faceted process that requires a significant commitment on the part of the teacher and true engagement from the learner. “Differentiation allows teachers to alter the instructional time, literacy content, and intensity of scaffolding that students receive based on their [current] reading level” (p. 5). Ankrum and Bean (2008) further propose necessary conditions for true differentiation and appropriate coaching to occur. “Differentiated instruction can only truly occur if the teacher possesses a deep knowledge of the reading process, an understanding of the strengths and needs of their students, and the ability to teach responsively” (p. 134). When differentiated instruction is closely aligned with learner need and the plan for intervention, “…skill sets and ability levels of diverse learners” are better met and supported (Hanover Research, 2019, p. 5).
Effective literacy intervention focuses on quality over quantity and owns the belief that less offers more. Jones, Conradi, & Amendum (2016) claim that “…too many interventions are inefficient and fail to accelerate readers’ progress” (p. 307). With measures in place to avoid the implementation of excess interventions, instruction can remain “…differentiated, efficient, and focused” (Jones, Conradi, & Amendum, 2016, p. 314). Extension of this idea again stresses a central theme that student need, determined by present achievement and assessment data, defines the plan for intervention. “Because not all striving readers need help in all areas of reading, we promote brief, systematic interventions targeting the students’ most pressing need” (Jones, Conradi, & Amendum, 2016, p. 307).
Early readers desire to feel competent, possess autonomy as new readers, remaining motivated to establish goals, and anticipate open communication and feedback (Harvey & Ward, 2017). They further want to avoid labels, similar to those that could be associated or linked with specific grouping structures and formats (Johnson, 2011). Desiring independence with all things reading, early readers further seek and appreciate opportunities for choice in both what they read and how (Walczyk & Griffin-Ross, 2007). As efforts are made to satisfy these specific needs among our striving, primary readers, research has highlighted tools and instructional frameworks that collectively support plans for effective literacy intervention.
Comprised of three, intervention levels of support, Response to Intervention (RtI) and MTSS are framed in prevention, “…aimed at improving outcomes for all students” (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2020). By screening all students, data-based decision-making processes can be activated to further determine which students require progress-monitoring to more closely track records of achievement under a more intensive intervention plan. Jones, Conradi, & Amendum (2016) encourage teachers and literacy professionals alike to utilize “…curriculum-based measures to [accurately] determine what [each striving] reader needs most” (p. 308). A variety of literacy assessments can be utilized to aid in making this evidence-based determination, including: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP); Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE); Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS); Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST); and, Pathways to Reading (PtR).
.
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text