results. PtR is not normed for national percentiles. When looking at national percentiles, natural growth patterns among students would be accounted for. Thus, a limitation to this study is found because percentile comparisons were not completed, but instead, considered a narrowed look at pre- to post-test means of achievement among our sample of early readers.
Conclusion
The literature reviewed for this article supports the five components of reading success for early readers and intentional small group instruction based on repetitive practice. The PtR assessments break down some of these aspects in the area of phonics, phonemic awareness, and recognition of sight words. DIBELS measures the same impact of intervention in the form of words per minute resulting in student reading fluency. These are the areas that showed to have the most growth after the intervention of striving readers. Educational leaders are looking for the most effective interventions to help striving readers catch up to their peers. This study shows evidence that a focus in small groups using phonemes, sight words, and reading in context as three of the five reading components does have a positive impact on helping the lowest readers catch up to their more efficient peers. Even though the assessment in the study did not evaluate reading comprehension, school leaders can assume that striving readers will benefit from a focus on phonemes and sight words as a pathway to better comprehension.
Where the assessments of TOWRE and CTOPP focus on phonological memory, accuracy and fluency, the PtR tests were developed to hone in on the phonemic awareness aspect of reading. None of these assessments are intended to measure reading comprehension of young readers. This could be the reason for not seeing a correlation between the amount of interventions focused on EBRI and growth on the CTOPP and TOWRE assessments. Interventions were more focused on sight words and phonemes along with reading in context, but the assessments did not measure reading comprehension.
While reading in context is the last and final focus of the five components and is known to impact reading comprehension, this study did not evaluate the development of young readers’ reading comprehension after the use of small group interventions. It was more focused on sight words and phonemic awareness. However, the study does reinforce the use of small group instruction with a focus on the concentration of phonemes, sight words, and reading in context as a useful tool in helping striving readers catch up to more developed readers even when both are receiving the same intervention. Every reader can benefit from small group instruction. This study reflects that the more deficits a reader has, the more rapid growth can take place with a strong focus on intervention with an emphasis in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and recognition of sight words. Further study should have more of an emphasis on assessments that measure reading comprehension. This study focused more on the development of the fundamental skills required to help striving readers recognize phonemes and specific sight words that would eventually lead to better reading comprehension.
.
Double-click to