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).
Methodology
Students at the 30th percentile or below were pre- and post-tested using a variety of assessments including the CTOPP, TOWRE, DIBELS, PtR, among others. The researchers logged the number/percentage of small group intervention sessions attended by the students and looked for a correlation between the number of sessions and change in pre- to post-test percentiles. The hypothesis being that the more a student attended these small group intervention sessions, the more that a positive and significant change in percentile would occur. The researchers completed a correction study to investigate this hypothesis.
Next, the researchers divided students into three groups of ability based on standardized assessments and teacher observation conducted at the beginning of the school year. Then, an ANOVA analysis was conducted between the low, medium, and high ability groups to determine if there was a significant difference in rate of growth between any of the three groups. The hypothesis is that the lowest group of students would a have a greater gain in percentile growth from pre- to post-test than either the medium or high group of students.
Results
The main focus for the analysis of results focused on the relationship between the number of intervention sessions and growth on a wide range of assessments that evaluate reading skills for early readers. The only test that had any correlation for all students in the study, meaning a relationship between the number of sessions and growth, was DIBELS. The more students attended sessions, the more they improved on words per minute (see Table 1) as tested by DIBELS.
Finding no meaningful relationship between any other assessment for the entire group of students and growth, the researchers responded by breaking down the students into ability groups to investigate if the intervention sessions had a bigger impact on one group of students over another. The research question then became: Is there a significant difference in “a skill” between lower and higher scoring students on pre-tests after the intervention sessions?
Once again the researchers found no significant difference using CTOPP or either TOWRE test. However, when using the PtR assessments there were significant differences in phonemic awareness (see Table 2), spelling a sound (see Table 3), and nonsense words (see Table 4). All three tests for specific skills associated with early reading success show evidence of a significant difference on the impact of interventions between lower scoring students on pre-tests as opposed to higher scoring students on the pre-test, meaning that lower scoring students have a much greater gain in scores from pre to post than higher scoring students as measured by the PtR tests.
The tests showing significant results were pre to post using the same tests, as one would expect students to gain from pre- to post-test over time. However, the lower students seemed to progress faster than the higher students from the PtR 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.
.
Doublllclick to add text