View
213
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Running head: READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
EFFECTS OF READING INTERVENTIONS ON STUDENTS WITH LEARNING
DISABILITIES IN UPPER ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL
by
Lynn M. May
Submitted to Northern Michigan University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of
Master Of Arts In Education
Graduate Studies Office
2012
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
i
Abstract
This study examined the literature regarding reading interventions and reading
strategy supports for upper elementary and middle school students diagnosed with
reading disabilities, or who struggle with reading. Secondarily, the study explored
whether different, and readily implementable, support modalities have greater efficacy
for individual student deficits.
The literature suggests that greatest student benefit can be found in three
interventions: Repeated Readings with Phrase Drill Error Correction; Experimental
analysis study with tape preview, error correction, and choral reading; and Reciprocal
Teaching.
Additionally, certain reading strategies have a higher likelihood of providing
greater comprehension, including: the Component Model of Reading to pinpoint specific
reading deficits; using Peer Tutoring; using the Reading Comprehension Strategy (RCS)
with or without Attribution Retraining; and using both the Standardized and
Individualized interventions to improve specific reading deficits.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background of Problem ............................................................................................... 2
Purpose of Study .......................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 6
Theoretical Model ........................................................................................................ 6
Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................... 7
Summary of the Introduction ....................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 10
Reading Interventions for Upper Elementary and Middle School Students .............. 10
Educator Instructional Strategies ............................................................................... 13
Chapter 3: Results ............................................................................................................. 21
Reading Intervention Effectiveness ........................................................................... 21
Supporting Students with Disabilities ....................................................................... 24
Chapter 4: Discussion and Summary ................................................................................ 30
Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ........................... 30
Intervention Efficacy ................................................................................................. 34
Reading Strategy/Supports Efficacy .......................................................................... 35
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 38
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
iii
References ......................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A: Reading Comprehension Strategies ............................................................ 44
Appendix B: Reading Intervention Results ...................................................................... 45
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Component Model of Reading............................................................................ 13
Table 2: Word Attack and Comprehension Findings ....................................................... 15
Table 3: Aaron et al. Demographics ................................................................................. 15
Table 4: Efficacy of Program Intervention ....................................................................... 23
Table 5: Central Tendencies for Comprehension Measurements ..................................... 26
Table 6: Central Tendencies and Effect Sizes for Reading Attribution ............................ 27
Table 7: Efficacy of Standardized and Individualized Interventions ................................ 28
Table 8: Efficacy of Strategy Interventions ...................................................................... 29
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gains in word attack and comprehension scores by treatment and comparison
groups. ....................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2: Summary comprehension score by experimental condition.............................. 25
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Due to recent changes in education policy, including new accountability
measures, many schools are striving to improve reading scores. Much current research
focus is on reading development, reading problems, and reading instruction to determine
best practices in these areas. Current research findings indicate that multi-tiered reading
programs and interventions are vital for struggling readers to become successful readers.
Quality studies done on reading instruction and intervention strategies reveal five
essential instructional components for reading success. These are phoneme awareness;
phonics, word study and spelling; reading fluency; vocabulary; and comprehension
(Moats, 2009).
According to Martin, Martin and Carvalho (2008), students who struggle with
reading, will struggle in all aspects of school, since reading narrative text compared to
reading to learn from informational texts are key components in all subject areas. For
students who have a reading disability, learning to read is crucial for school success. The
preferred methodology for teaching reading fluctuates because of on-going debates as to
which methods are most effective. The instructional methods most widely used are the
whole language approach, phonics study, direct instruction and guided reading with
various rates of success. Due to the perceived effectiveness of these methods, states and
districts have a tendency to implement new programs every few years or switch back to a
method previously used. Yet the question still remains as to which instructional methods,
interventions and strategies are the most effective in teaching students with a reading
disability these skills.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
2
Research in reading is important to helping students with learning disabilities
become successful readers by using the best programs and interventions that are
available. Analyzing reading studies is essential to discover if the studies meet the
standards for quality research and were proven effective. Students who have a learning
disability in reading need to have reading interventions and programs in place throughout
their school years to be successful readers, achieve grade level content and graduate with
a high school diploma. This study explores research conducted on best practice reading
interventions and strategies available to help struggling upper elementary and middle
school students become successful readers.
Background of Problem
According to research findings conducted by Vaughn and Linan-Thompson
(2003) past remediation for students with learning disabilities focused on students
processing deficits, such as intellectual functioning, perceptual reasoning and / or
processing speed, commonly known as the discrepancy model, instead of their area of
need; reading, writing or math. Despite the lack of support the deficit process treatment
models are still being used with meager results relating to learning goals. The modality-
matched approach has been widely used. Modality refers to sight, hearing, and touch or
movement and is based on matching instruction to a student’s preferred modality for
learning. Another name for the modality method is learning styles. Although Vaughn and
Linan-Thompson (2003) discovered these approaches are widely employed, they did not
find any recent empirical support for these methods. Another approach that was
advocated in the past for students with learning disabilities is multisensory instruction.
Multisensory instruction involves the teaching of students by activating all the pathways
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
3
to the brain, principally visual, auditory and kinesthetic-tactile. While Vaughn and Linan-
Thompson (2003) found documented success for individual cases using multisensory
instruction, they did not find convincing evidence that it is beneficial for students with
learning disabilities. Their findings indicate that instructional approaches that have been
effective have the characteristics of being explicit, well specified, carefully designed, and
relate to the student’s learning goals.
Eckert, Dunn and Ardoin discovered (2006) despite all the reading studies
conducted many students continue to struggle with reading and or have not responded to
interventions in place. Becoming a good reader is the most important skill a child needs
to learn for school achievement, post-secondary education opportunities, and to be
successful in life. Many students present with reading problems. Longitudinal reading
studies have estimated that 75% of children in third grade who were struggling readers
continued to struggle with reading in ninth grade. Other studies have looked at school
drop-out statistics. Being a poor reader may be one of the factors that lead students to
make the decision to drop out of school.
Purpose of Study
The discrepancy model, which is when there is a discrepancy between a student’s
ability and his /her achievement, has been used to identify students with learning
disabilities for almost 40 years. Aaron, Joshi, Gooden and Bentum’s (2008) review of
reading research discovered most students diagnosed with a learning disability receive
reading remediation in a resource room setting. Their findings on the discrepancy model
indicate that the instructional methods used in this setting are ineffective. One reason for
the poor outcomes based on the discrepancy model is high student-teacher ratio in the
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
4
resource room. Another reason is the placement of students with an emotional
impairment and/or behavioral issues in the resource room as cohorts of students with
learning disabilities. However, the same report points to the primary reason for the poor
outcomes as being that the discrepancy model does not provide teachers with clear,
explicit directions for instruction. The researchers noted resource room instruction was
based on the whole language approach which is centered on group work instead of
student’s individual needs.
Martin, Martin and Carvalho (2008) reviewed a study by the U.S. Department of
Education which reported in 2002 that the majority of the approximately 2,887,217
children receiving special education services were identified with a learning disability in
reading. The number of children identified as having a reading disability has grown
considerably. Their findings found that while researchers have piloted studies on
effective reading strategies for students in upper elementary and middle school with
reading disabilities, study effects remain unclear. A primary reason for the vague results
is the need to match instruction to the specific needs of each student. Martin, Martin and
Carvalho (2008) found studies that indicate that for a reading program to be effective the
program must combine various methodologies based on each child’s needs while at the
same time implementing the principal techniques of the program. The two most prevalent
reading methods used with students who have a reading disability are whole language
instruction and direct instruction.
Findings from research conducted by Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn and Ciullo (2010)
revealed most studies on effective reading interventions have focused on the early
elementary; Kindergarten through third grade. However, more recent focus has been on
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
5
effective interventions for students who did not respond to the interventions presented in
the early grades and continue to struggle in fourth grade and on up. This group of
struggling readers also includes students who have a learning disability in reading.
Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn and Ciullo (2010) reviewed research studies that estimated
69% of fourth grade students are not reading at proficient levels with 36% unable to read
at basic levels. They also discovered that when students enter the upper elementary
grades the way they read changes from learning to read to reading to learn. Learning to
read means learning to pronounce words identify words and get their meaning. Reading
to learn means learning to make sense of a text in order to get meaning from it.
In 2007 The National Assessment of Education Progress reported that 69% of
eighth grade students were not able to read for meaning, which requires students being
able to comprehend and understand the words they read in grade level texts. Upper
elementary students with a reading disability present with different deficits than early
elementary students. Problems include recognizing and understanding words and their
meanings, making connections to the text students are reading and lacking previous
knowledge that aids in comprehension. Effective reading interventions listed were those
that provided targeted reading mediations in comprehension and included multiple
reading components or word recognition approaches and practice with oral reading
fluency (Vaughn et al, 2011).
The goal of this study is to discover the most effective reading interventions and
programs available for students who have a reading disability in upper elementary and
middle school that fits each individual’s specific needs, yet are feasible to implement.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
6
Research Questions
Most reading studies have been piloted towards interventions and strategies for
early elementary students. Many students with a reading disability do not always respond
to reading interventions such as extra reading support like the Title I program in the early
grades and continue to struggle with reading. This review focuses on strategies and
interventions an educator can use for upper elementary and middle school students who
slip through the cracks. Once students reach the upper elementary and middle school
grades reading changes from learning how to read to reading to learn. Effective
interventions and strategies are a must to help this population achieve grade level content
and graduate with a high school diploma versus a certificate of completion.
1. Based on current findings, what are the most effective reading interventions and
programs for upper elementary and middle school students who have a disability
in reading?
2. Each student with a reading disability has unique needs. What feasible strategies
can an educator use to support students with disabilities yet meet the needs of all
students within the classroom?
Theoretical Model
This literature review centers on the Design-based Research method identified by
Collins (2010) on studies analyzing different reading intervention practices used to
improve students with a learning disability reading skills. The Design-Based Research
includes the following components:
• Addressing complex problems in real, authentic contexts in collaboration
with practitioners;
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
7
• Applying integrating known and hypothetical design principles to render
plausible solutions;
• Conducting rigorous and reflective inquiry to test and refine innovative
learning environments;
• Research and development through continuous cycles of design,
enactment, analysis, and redesign;
• Development of such accounts relies on methods that can document and
connect processes of enactment to outcomes of interest;
• Research must account for how designs function in authentic settings
(adapted from Collins, 2010).
This review also involves Behaviorist theories of learning gathered by Woolfolk
(2010). Despite the fact that theorists disagree on a common definition of learning, most
theorists agree that learning occurs when experiences cause a change in a child’s
behavior. Thus the knowledge a student attains leads to an observable change in a
student’s behavior. Behaviorists focus on the role environmental stimuli plays in learning
that produces an observable response to the learning instruction.
Definition of Terms
Learning disability: Individuals with Disabilities Act’s (IDEA) Definition of Learning
Disability is twofold:
• First, a specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the
basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen,
think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
8
conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
• Second, a specific learning disability does not include learning problems that
are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental
retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage (National Dissemination Center for Children with
Disabilities, 2011).
Reading: Reading is defined as being able to decode, which is word recognition and
understanding language, both oral and written. This definition also includes being
able to comprehend the words read, which is understanding the meaning of the
words read; reading to learn (Duff & Clarke, 2011).
Reading intervention: A reading intervention is defined as differentiated instruction in
word study, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills which
compromise the five essential components for reading success (Wanzek et al.,
2010).
Whole language instruction: This method is student-centered with the instructional
format consisting of students learning to read through the use of novels and short
stories (Martin et al., 2008).
Direct instruction: Direct instruction is teacher-centered. Teachers group students
according to each student’s reading level and then teach the specific skill or skills
that the student is lacking (Martin et al., 2008).
Learning: The manner through which experience causes lasting change in knowledge or
behavior (Woolfolk, 2010).
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
9
Behavioral learning theories: Descriptions of learning that center on external experiences
as the cause of changes in behaviors that are observable (Woolfolk, 2010).
Summary of the Introduction
To help the population of students in upper elementary and middle school with a
reading disability become fluent readers, effective interventions are essential and should
be implemented. These interventions and programs must be researched-based and shown
in studies to be successful. Some practices that have shown positive outcomes for
students who have a reading disability are the whole language approach and direct
instruction during interventions. Strategies that have proven effective are small group
instruction, teaching self-monitoring techniques, teaching strategies and problem solving
skills, teaching the five big ideas of reading and providing students with ongoing
systematic feedback on their progress. This study explores best practice reading
interventions and reading strategies for upper elementary and middle school students who
have a disability in reading.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
10
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This literature review examines published pilot studies on reading interventions
and strategies. The goal of this review is to identify those methodologies proven most
effective in helping students with a reading disability in upper elementary and middle
school become successful readers. It also examines those interventions that did not
demonstrate efficacy; keeping in mind that one size does not fit all.
Reading Interventions for Upper Elementary and Middle School Students
The strategy of Repeated Readings (RR) to improve oral reading fluency
continues to show RR’s effectiveness. Repeated Reading consists of a student repeatedly
reading all the words in a text. Begeny, Daly III, and Valleley (2006) cite studies by the
National Reading Panel from 2000 and O’Shea, Sindelar and O’Shea from 1985 that
showed RR has had positive outcomes for students with a reading disability, especially in
target areas of reading fluency and accuracy, reading comprehension and on reading
scores measured by standardized tests.
However when using the RR strategy, if a student makes numerous errors while
reading a passage, the student may end up repeatedly practicing incorrect word responses.
In some situations a student may need corrective feedback on the word errors, such as
Phrase drill error correction (PD). The PD technique involves the teacher modeling the
correct response and providing prompts to the student to repeatedly practice the correct
response. With PD compared to RR, students practice correct responses in the natural
setting of reading; not in isolation of other words. PD prompts students to repeatedly
practice text reading. The difference between PD and RR is with RR a student practices
reading all the words in a passage. With PD the student only reads the words the student
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
11
read incorrectly and the phrase containing the error words. PD has less empirical data
supporting PD’s effectiveness than RR, but some studies suggest PD can be a supportive
component in reading interventions that are targeting reading fluency and accuracy. The
study involved one third grade boy who was receiving special education services.
Reading passages were selected from first, second and third grade reading texts and were
presented in order of difficulty. Progress was monitored using Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills 6th Edition (DIBELS) (Begeny et al., 2006).
For this study the instructional baseline for words correct per minute had a mean
of 40.5. Findings indicate that both PD and RR were effective interventions. End of
study results showed words correct per minute (WCPM) for RR had a mean of 59.63 with
a standard deviation of 15.20 and WCPW for PD had a mean of 60.00 with a standard
deviation of 9.91.
Experimental analysis has been used to explore the validity of a method for
providing reading instruction through small group to students with reading disabilities.
Experimental analysis permits researchers to determine functional relationships between
variables. Bonfiglio, Daly III, Persampieri, and Andersen (2006) explored empirically
substantiated reading fluency instructional practices and employed instructional and
motivational variables. The variables used were considered reliable owing to previous
theories on academic responding. Since most interventions can rarely be provided
individually in schools, the likely setting for most reading instruction is within a small
group format.
The participants for the study consisted of four fourth grade students. The four
students were not receiving special education services, but were identified as struggling
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
12
readers. The eight week study consisted of students receiving the reading intervention six
to 20 minutes per day, four days a week. The treatment package comprised the group first
listening to a selected grade-level narrative and expository reading passages while
following along in the text (TP). Next, the group participated in Choral Reading with the
experimenter (CR). When a student read a word incorrectly, a Word Drill error correction
was applied. The experimenter stopped the student, modeled the correct word and asked
all four students to read the word correctly three times (EC). A reward system was put in
place for students meeting their oral reading fluency goals; praise and tangible items (R).
Goals were developed for each student on an individual basis based on correctly read
words (CRW) and low error rate. Goals were adjusted during the study and student
progress was monitored on a daily basis. The complete treatment involved TP plus EC
plus CR plus R. The researchers then used a dismantling process to discover the most
efficient and effective reading intervention. End of study findings indicate all four
students made gains in their correct words per minute scores (Bonfiglio et al., 2006).
Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn and Ciullo (2010) after completing a review on 20
years of reading research, found that upper elementary and middle school students
showed positive outcomes when students received direct instruction on word study,
decoding strategies, word meaning instruction and comprehension strategies. The recent
studies they reviewed advocate giving students numerous opportunities to practice the
learned strategies and also providing corrective feedback during instruction. See
Appendix B for findings.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
13
Educator Instructional Strategies
Aaron, Joshi, Gooden and Bentum (2008), conducted a seven year study on the
effectiveness of instruction based on the Component Model of Reading (CMR). CMR is a
process to help identify and remediate specific reading deficits. A student may have
difficulty achieving basic literacy skills due to deficits in any component in any one of
the three domains listed below in Table 1.
Table 1
Component Model of Reading
Note. Adapted from Aaron et al., 2008, p. 69.
The study compared CMR instructional practices to instruction based on the
discrepancy model used in a resource room setting for grades second through fifth.
However, the research results were based only on the cognitive domain as the researchers
were comparing the effectiveness of instructional practices between the discrepancy
model and CMR. In the study the treatment group of 171 struggling readers yet to be
identified as LD received vocabulary and comprehension instruction through a program
called Reading for Excellence in Academic Development (READ) and The Writing Road
to Reading program. The control group of 159 LD students received instruction in a
Reading Component Model Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3
Cognitive Components Psychological Components
Ecological Components
Word Recognition Cognition Motivation and interest Locus of control Learned helplessness Learning styles Teacher expectations Gender differences
Home environment, culture and parental involvement
Classroom environment Peer influence Dialect English as a second language
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
14
resource room setting based on the discrepancy model that did not specifically target
student’s reading deficits (Aaron et al., 2008).
Comprehension instruction was based on seven strategies that reading studies
have shown are effective in fostering reading comprehension. The strategy steps are as
follows: Schema activation; purpose of reading; stop and think; visualize; seek help; ask
a question and summarize. Figure 1 provides the results of the study which demonstrate
that the CMR model was more effective for pinpointing specific reading deficits and the
subsequent instruction than the instruction received in the resource room based on the
discrepancy model’s identification and instruction. Table 2 shows pre and posttest results
for word attack and comprehension scores. Table 3 shows number of children in the
study by grade and gender.
Note LD=Learning Disabilities.
Figure 1: Gains in word attack and comprehension scores by treatment and comparison groups.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
15
Table 2
Word Attack and Comprehension Findings
Note. Reprinted from Aaron et al., 2008, p. 79.
Table 3
Aaron et al. Demographics
Note: Reprinted from Aaron et al., 2008, p. 71
Dufrene et al. (2010) conducted a school yearlong study on the effectiveness of
using Peer Tutoring as effective method to increase struggling readers reading fluency as
a Response to Intervention. Seven sixth grade students participated in the study, three of
which were tutors and four were the tutees. The tutees were not LD but were identified as
at risk students through DIBELS assessments. The tutors were trained on tutoring
procedures such as modeling, allowing numerous opportunities for practice, student
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
16
feedback and scoring procedures. Tutoring sessions were conducted for each tutee two to
three times per week outside of the general education classroom in a quiet setting.
Sessions consisted of the tutor conducting Listening Passage Preview (LPP) and
Repeated Readings (RR) with the tutee using DIBELS reading passages. All sessions
were tape recorded. RR was performed three times by the tutee with the tutor correcting
any reading errors made. The last step consisted of a one minute timed read for words
correct per minute score (WCPM) with the tutor not correcting reading errors, but
recording errors per minute (EPM). Rewards were given to each tutee after each session
from the school’s Positive Behavior Intervention program in the form of tickets. The
tickets could be exchanged for tangible items. Progress monitoring was conducted
weekly using DIBELS progress monitoring reading passages.
Tutee One had a baseline mean of 50.33 WCPM and an EPM mean of 8.67. After
the intervention strategy Tutee One had a mean of 87 WCPM and an EPM mean of 6.42.
Tutee Two had a baseline mean of 80.5 WCPM and an EPM of 6.25. After intervention
Tutee Two had a mean 121 WCPM and an EPM mean of 2.89. Tutee Three had a
baseline mean of 90.8 WCPM and an EPM of 3.8. After intervention Tutee Three had a
mean of 161 WCPM and an EPM mean of 1.38. Tutee Four had a baseline mean of
101.33 WCPM and an EPM of 6. After intervention Tutee Four had a mean of 120.3
WCPM and an EPM mean of 6.3.
Dufrene et al. (2010) believe the results of their study on Peer Tutoring are
promising because of the need for reading intervention resources and are important for
middle school settings that do not have the benefit of teacher aides. This study extended
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
17
the previous research Dufrene et al. (2010) conducted endorsing the effectiveness of Peer
Tutoring.
One of the main goals of reading is to be able to obtain meaning while reading.
Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs (2011), reviewed studies on expository text that
indicated expository text is more challenging than reading narrative text. Reading
expository text is even more challenging for students who have a disability in reading.
Students read expository texts to gather information and/or learn something new.
Students with a disability in reading need to learn multiple techniques to improve their
reading comprehension of expository text. Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs’s (2011)
review of reading studies found that combining strategies with direct instruction is
important in reading comprehension instruction. Elements of effective Reading
Comprehension Strategy (RCS) instruction include the teacher modeling the steps by
using think alouds and providing prompts and cues to use the strategies. Other techniques
are clearly stating the reading objective, state the reason for the lesson, provide explicit
modeling, provide guided practice with feedback, provide independent practice along
with time for generalization, explain the purpose of the strategy and monitor student
progress.
According to Berkeley et al. (2011) one comprehension technique that appears to
be frequently overlooked is Metacomprehension and strategy awareness. Metacognition
means being aware of one’s own thinking, using strategies to complete a task and
assessing one’s progress. Applying this technique to reading comprehension involves a
student understanding the task at hand as well as the student being able to decide which
strategy will be most effective. Metacognition is an important tool for older students with
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
18
a disability in reading who struggle with choosing the appropriate strategy, trying to
apply the strategy and then monitoring the task.
Berkeley et al. (2011) found that a student’s beliefs about his or her own ability to
learn (self-efficacy) are important when considering instruction on teaching reading
strategies. Techniques can be taught, but are only effective if students are motivated to
learn and maintain the content. This idea is especially important for students with a
reading disability since these students usually do not maintain or generalize their
learning. Berkeley et al. (2011) review of studies have shown that instructor feedback
that helps students make connections between making an effort and achieving success,
promotes motivation to learn, positive self-efficacy and improved academic skills. Older
students with a disability in reading often do not use the strategies after instruction. Older
students sometimes believe not a lot of effort is needed to complete a task. Consequently
these same students will not put in the effort to use cognitive and metacognitive
techniques. As older students with a disability in reading typically have a history of
academic failure, older students often believe they have no control over their academic
success. Some students attribute their successes to luck (external causes) and failures to
their own abilities (internal causes).
A recent study was conducted on the effectiveness of adding an Attribution
Retraining (AR) component to a Reading Comprehension Strategy (RCS) of reading
instruction. In a 2011 study, Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs compared three treatment
groups that were designed to teach reading comprehensions strategies to middle school
students. Fifty-nine seventh, eighth and ninth grade students were randomly selected into
the three groups. The first group received instruction through RCS and AR using reading
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
19
selections from Junior Scholastic magazine which features short articles comparable to
the social studies text used in the general education curriculum. The second group used
the same magazine receiving RCS instruction only and the third group, the comparison
group, only received instruction using the Read Naturally program, which is a computer
based program featuring non-fiction stories. The 12 instructional sessions lasted for four
weeks; 30 minutes for each session. Results showed RCS instruction with and without
AR had a greater impact on comprehension strategy awareness than the Read Naturally
comparison group. The researchers believe these results are important because although
direct instruction produces effective results in improving reading comprehension,
students with a learning disability do not always maintain or generalize the strategies.
The findings appeared to show that the students did maintain and generalize the
techniques taught. See Appendix A for Reading Comprehension Strategies.
Pertaining to response to intervention, Vaughn et al. (2011) found some
researchers advocated two approaches for students with reading disabilities: a problem
solving approach and a standardized approach. Standardized interventions use research-
based programs with step by step instruction that is implemented the same way for all
students with a reading disability. Educators like the standardized interventions because
the methodologies usually consist of student materials and teacher guides, programs give
clear expectations and enable teachers to document student progress. Standardized
interventions are feasible to implement concerning school budgets and teacher time. The
problem solving approach is grounded in school psychology with a focus on behavioral
problem solving. However, Vaughn et al. (2011) review of studies showed limited
empirical support for the problem solving method. The Vaughn et al. (2011) study tried a
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
20
new approach. The idea stemmed from special education and was called an
individualized approach designed to meet a student’s individual needs. The researchers’
randomly assigned 133 middle school students who did not respond to previous
interventions to three groups; 36 comparison who received no intervention, 51
individualized and 46 for standardized interventions. Instruction consisted of 50 minute
sessions during 160 lessons during a school year. Standardized interventions consisted of:
Repeated readings with a peer tutor for fluency using grade-level texts; REWARDS
program which is a decoding strategy for word study; vocabulary study using grade-level
texts and for fluency and comprehension the REWARDS Plus program. Individualized
interventions consisted of using general education curriculum materials with
modifications made for each student’s level with weekly goal setting for each area of
need, with teachers using Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) to assess progress. Data
was compiled on students’ progress throughout the interventions. The researchers
compared standardized interventions with individualized interventions and found some
gains in reading comprehension, decoding and fluency, but mixed results in word attack
skills. The overall findings appeared to show that the standardized interventions put in
place were more effective than the individualized interventions.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
21
Chapter 3: Results
This literature review focused on peer reviewed research related to reading
strategies and interventions an educator can use for upper elementary and middle school
students who slipped through the cracks in the early elementary grades. The studies also
included students with reading disabilities who are also still struggling with reading.
Numerous studies have been conducted on best practice reading interventions for the
early grades, but until recently, only a few studies were piloted towards upper
elementary, middle school students and older students with reading disabilities.
Reading Intervention Effectiveness
Research question one addresses the issue of what are the most effective reading
interventions and programs for upper elementary and middle school students who have a
disability in reading. Begeny et al. (2006) reported Phrase Drill error correction (PD) and
Repeated Readings (RR) are effective interventions for improving student oral reading
fluency and showed positive outcomes for students with reading disabilities. The results
also indicated that PD was more effective at reducing word errors. Both techniques
increased student word correct per minute scores. For this study the instructional baseline
for words correct per minute had a mean of 40.5. Findings indicate that both PD and RR
were effective interventions for the student in this study. End of study results showed
words correct per minute (WCPM) for RR had a mean of 59.63 with a standard deviation
of 15.20 and WCPW for PD had a mean of 60.00 with a standard deviation of 9.91.
Bonfiglio, Daly III, Persampieri, and Andersen’s (2006) experiment using TP,
students following along as a passage is read aloud, then participating in CR (Choral
Reading), with the experimenter applying WC (Word Drill error) and EC (reading the
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
22
word correctly three times) with R (Rewards) based on CRW (Correct Words Read)
showed that all four students increased CRW and decreased errors per minute in nearly
all treatment conditions. After students read the first two reading passages TP plus EC
was removed from the treatment for the third reading passage. These same components
were added again for the fourth reading passage, however CR was removed. For the fifth
reading passage CR was added back to the treatment and the reward was removed. The
complete treatment involved TP plus EC plus CR plus R.
Data analysis revealed the most feasible and effective treatment to increase oral
reading fluency for all four students was TP plus EC plus CR. Student One’s baseline for
Correctly Read Words (CRW) was a mean of 120.50 and a mean error rate of 4. After
intervention Student One’s CRW mean increased to 180.25 with a mean error rate of
2.25. Student Two’s baseline mean for CRW was 91 with a mean error rate of 1. After
intervention Student Two’s CRW increased to a mean of 113 with a mean error rate of
0.33. Student Three’s CRW baseline mean was 90.50 with a mean error rate of 1.20.
After intervention Student Three’s CRW mean increased to 159.75 with a mean error rate
of 2. Student Four’s baseline mean for CRW was 104.60 with an error rate of 4.40. After
intervention the CRW mean increased to 197.75 and the error rate increased to 5.
Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn and Ciullo (2010) completed a literature review on 20
years of research on reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary
grades. Their findings indicated positive outcomes for struggling readers and students
with reading disabilities when the students received direct instruction on word study,
decoding strategies, word meaning instruction and comprehension strategies while also
providing numerous opportunities to practice the learned strategies and providing
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
23
corrective feedback during instruction. Results also indicated the most effective reading
interventions for upper elementary and middle school students to be teaching
comprehension strategies for before, during and after reading. See Appendix B for
findings and results of the reading interventions reviewed.
Table 4 shows comparison results of studies conducted on specific Reading
Interventions. The findings appear to show that the student made significant gains in his
Words Correct per Minute when reading passages using PD and RR. The results also
appear to show that students made gains in Words Correct per Minute using the
experimental analysis breakdown of listening to a taped preview of story (TP) plus error
correction for words read incorrectly (EC) and choral reading (CR). Since the Wanzek et
al. literature review consisted of numerous studies see Appendix B for full results.
Table 4
Efficacy of Program Intervention
Author Student Age Intervention Results Begney et al. 1 UE Phrase Drill
Repeated Readings
WCPM 60M 9.91SD WCPM 59.63M 15.20SD
Bonfiglio et al. 4 UE Experimental Analysis of Reading Interventions (TP+EC+CR)
WCPM 162.6M 2.4ER
Wanzek et al.
UE, MS
Reciprocal Teaching for Reading Comprehension (Lederer)
40% - 100% increase in comprehension
Note. UE = upper elementary, MS = middle school. WCPM = Words Correct per Minute, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, ER = Mean Error Rate.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
24
Supporting Students with Disabilities
Research question two addressed feasible strategies educators can use to support
students with disabilities and meet the needs of all students within the classroom. Aaron,
Joshi, Gooden and Bentum (2008), conducted a seven year study on the effectiveness of
instruction based on the Component Model of Reading (CMR) as a process to help
identify and remediate specific reading deficits when compared to the discrepancy model.
The results of the study indicated that the CMR model was more effective for pinpointing
specific reading deficits and the subsequent instruction than the instruction received in
the resource room based on the discrepancy model’s identification and instruction.
Dufrene et al. (2010) school yearlong study on the effectiveness of using Peer
Tutoring as effective method to increase struggling readers reading fluency as a Response
to Intervention showed positive outcomes. Results of the study indicated all tutees
showed improvement in oral reading fluency rate and three tutees showed an increase on
progress monitoring probes. Tutee One had a baseline mean of 50.33 WCPM and an
EPM mean of 8.67. After the intervention strategy Tutee One had a mean of 87 WCPM
and an EPM mean of 6.42. Tutee Two had a baseline mean of 80.5 WCPM and an EPM
of 6.25. After intervention Tutee Two had a mean 121 WCPM and an EPM mean of 2.89.
Tutee Three had a baseline mean of 90.8 WCPM and an EPM of 3.8. After intervention
Tutee Three had a mean of 161 WCPM and an EPM mean of 1.38. Tutee Four had a
baseline mean of 101.33 WCPM and an EPM of 6. After intervention Tutee Four had a
mean of 120.3 WCPM and an EPM mean of 6.3.
Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs (2011) study comparing three treatment
groups using Reading Comprehension Strategy (RCS) and Attribution Retraining (AR)
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
25
designed to teach reading comprehensions strategies to middle school students presented
positive results. The first group received instruction through RCS and AR, the second
group only RCS instruction and the third group, the comparison group, only received
instruction using the Read Naturally program (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Summary comprehension score by experimental condition. Note: RCS = reading comprehension strategy; AR – attribution retraining; RN = Read Naturally. Reprinted from Berkeley et al. (2011). p. 27.
The RCS group was taught six reading comprehension strategies: setting a
purpose, previewing, activating prior knowledge, self-questioning, summarizing and
strategy monitoring. The RCS plus AR included the same RCS components, but also
included attribution concept sheets. Reminders included: I know lots of good strategies; I
will try hard to use the best ones and I will only have positive thoughts. This group also
received Attribution Challenge worksheets for independent practice on hypothetical
situations. Results showed RCS instruction with and without AR had a greater impact on
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
26
comprehension strategy awareness than the Read Naturally only comparison group.
Figure 2 shows Reading Comprehension pretest and posttest results for conditions. Table
5 shows results for Metacomprehension Strategy Awareness. Table 6 shows results for
Attributional Retraining.
Table 5
Central Tendencies for Comprehension Measures
Note: Reprinted from Berkeley et al. (2011). p. 27
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
27
Table 6
Central Tendencies and Effect Sizes for Reading Attributions
Note: Reprinted from Berkeley et al., 2011, p. 28.
Vaughn et al.’s (2011) study on an individualized approach to reading
remediation showed some growth but not significant results. The study participants
consisted of three groups of middle school students; 36 in the comparison, 51 in the
individualized and 46 in the standardized intervention group who had not responded to
previous reading interventions. After comparing standardized interventions with
individualized interventions the researchers found some differences between the two
interventions, but their findings did not substantiate their hypothesis that students in the
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
28
individualized group would make significantly more gains than the standardized or
comparison group (see Table 7 for results). However, Vaughn et al. (2011) do not believe
that their single study findings offered conclusive evidence that standardized
interventions are more effective than individualized for middle school students with
intensive reading deficits.
Table 7
Efficacy of Standardized and Individualized Interventions
Note. Group means with standard deviations in parentheses. TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficacy. WJ = Woodcock-Johnson test. Reprinted from Vaughn et al. (2011) p. 400.
Table 8 demonstrates that the Component Model of Reading strategy appears to
show students made gains in their word attack and comprehension skills. The strategy of
Peer Tutoring shows students made gains in their Words Correct per Minute scores and
lowered their error rates. The reading comprehension strategy with Attributional
Retraining appears to show students made significant gains in their comprehension skills.
The last strategy between Standardized versus Individualized interventions appears to
show students made gains in reading comprehension but mixed results in word attack
skills.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
29
Table 8
Efficacy of Strategy Interventions
Author Student Age Strategy Results
Aaron et al. UE 330 Component Model of Reading
Word Attack gains M 5.39 Comprehension gains M 3.65
Dufrene et al.
MS 4
Peer Tutoring
WCPM M 122.3 EPM M 4.2
Berkeley et al. MS 59 Reading Comprehension Strategy w/out Attributional Retraining Reading Comprehension Strategy w/ Attributional Retraining
M gain 2.79 M gain 3.70
Vaughn et al.
MS 133
II Word Identification SI Word Identification II Word Attack SI Word Attack II Spelling SI Spelling II Sight Word SI Sight Word II Decoding SI Decoding IIComprehension SIComprehension
M gain 2.29 M gain 2.44 M gain .31 M gain 2.18 M gain .76 M loss -2.54 M gain .10 M gain 1.77 M .0 M gain 3.2 M gain 2.71 M gain .81
Note. UE = upper elementary, MS = middle school. Note: WCPM = Words Correct per Minute, EPM = Error Rate per Minute, M = Mean. Note: II = Individualized Intervention, SI = Standardized Intervention.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
30
Chapter 4: Discussion and Summary
This study synthesized current research regarding best practice reading
interventions and educational strategy supports for struggling readers in upper elementary
and middle school. Some reading interventions and teacher strategies appear to have
greater efficacy than others. In this chapter, I will cover the self-identified limitations
researchers mention in their articles and the recommendations they make for future
research. I will conclude with a synthesis of the research-based best practices for reading
interventions and strategies with my own classroom experiences to help struggling
readers in middle school and students with a reading disability.
Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Begeny et al. (2006) state their results should be taken with caution as their
experiment with PD involved only one third grade subject. It is uncertain whether the
findings would be the same if different constraints were used for response opportunities
in the study. They also assert their findings may not be generalizable outside of the
experimental setting as these outcomes were not assessed. Begeny et al. (2006) suggest
future research should measure Phrase Drill’s long term effects with a larger number of
participants using a range of dependent measures, thus possibly demonstrating PD’s
effectiveness with other reading interventions.
Bonfiglio et al. (2006) stated an advantage of their experimental method was that
other variable combinations can be effective for all students who are struggling readers;
an intervention can be custom-made to meet their needs using experimental analysis
methods. However, caution should be taken in interpreting the validity of their study,
because:
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
31
• First, the students were repeatedly coached and queried on the same reading passages;
• Second, the passages used in the study were shorter in length than an average story;
• Third, only four students participated in the study;
• Fourth, competence was assumed based on a small number of strategies, not on an
exact measure of efficiency; meaning measuring the teacher’s time and effort;
• Fifth, the design analysis did not control thoroughly for sequence effects;
• Sixth, the rating for social validity was centered on only one responding participant;
and
• Finally, the methods used in the study may not be easy to duplicate in all school
settings; time consuming, plus numerous data collecting procedures.
Bonfiglio et al. (2006) state despite the limitations of their study the positive results of
experimental analysis should encourage further research into experimental analysis of
academic and reading performance.
Aaron et al. (2008) cited limitations to their study with regard to:
• The fact that resource room instruction was not constant in the data collected,
whereas the data for CMR was uniform; and;
• Pre and post-testing for both programs occurred at different periods, which may have
been a confounding factor as the resource room comparison group was tested after
three years of instructions whereas the CMR group was tested after one semester.
Future research to replicate CMR measures should provide for a longer instructional
period.
Dufrene et al. (2010) cite one of the limitations of their study on Peer Tutoring to
be the failure of tutors to consistently correct tutee’s reading errors. Future research on
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
32
this topic should assess tutee training and feedback procedures to correctly detect and
correct tutee reading errors. Likewise using instructional reading passages rather than
grade level passages may have resulted in fewer reading errors, reducing the rate of the
tutors having to detect and correct errors. Dufrene et al. (2010) also found that all of the
tutees did not respond to the rewards put in place. Future research could be conducted on
assessing the effectiveness of a reward based on meeting pre-set criteria and identifying a
student’s preferred reward.
Wanzek et al. (2010) found that they could locate very few studies on reading
interventions for upper elementary and middle school students. The studies they analyzed
reported good outcomes, however most of these studies relied on researcher-developed
measures. This potentially puts the reliability of the findings in question. Their
recommendations for future research consist of measuring reading interventions that take
into consideration specific deficits in reading comprehension. Wanzek et al. (2010) also
recommend assessing the reading interventions used for comprehension using
standardized measures. Since they could only find a limited amount of research on
vocabulary and multi-component study for reading interventions, more research is needed
on these types of interventions.
The limitations noted in Berkeley, Mastropieri and Scruggs (2011), study on
Metacognition and Attribution Retraining were the students’ self-reporting on the
strategies and attribution measures. The self-reports contained double-negative
statements that students could have misconstrued. These factors may have influenced the
study’s results. Another limitation in this study was that the researchers taught uneven
groups of students in different grades, despite random assignments. Future research on
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
33
metacognition and attribution retraining should address proportionate study groups and
use measures to assess findings other than student self-reporting. The positive outcomes
of this study may have been due to the continuous use of the strategies put in place.
Future research on this topic should consider adding direct measures of the strategies
used while also adding measures of student self-efficacy and motivation.
Vaughn et al. (2011) suggest their findings may have differed if participants in the
study had been selected by their specific reading disabilities instead of being identified
for special education services. They also do not believe their single study provided
convincing evidence that standardized interventions are more effective than
individualized considering the intensity needed to remediate reading deficits at the
middle school level. Vaughn et al. also cite the fact that student performance was based
on a state reading comprehension test rather than a benchmark, which could have
changed the outcomes of the study. Furthermore, the cost to implement the interventions
in this would be high, since students received instruction in small groups of five, when
normally a teacher would provide instruction to 20 or more students in a typical
classroom setting. Future research should consider focusing on students with specific
reading deficits as well as implementing the reading interventions for longer than the one
year this study employed. The findings suggest that 50-minute sessions were not
adequate remediation supports for middle school students with low vocabulary and
reading comprehension. Most students in middle school with severe reading deficits will
need intense supports to reach grade level reading for understanding.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
34
Intervention Efficacy
Pertaining to the Begeny et al. (2006) study on PD and RR, I have used RR
numerous times with my own students with reading deficits, and have found that this type
of intervention does work with some students. The addition of PD reduces repeated word
error mistakes and provides an opportunity to practice the missed word or words through
teacher modeling. The issue I take with the Begeny et al. (2006) study is that it involved
only one student, which may impact the study’s validity. I do agree that these
interventions help most students with fluency, but not with comprehension of the material
being read. Understanding what one reads is part of the definition of reading. Another
concern is that the study did not include generalization or maintenance measures. This
may minimize the effectiveness of the intervention outside of the study’s setting.
The Bonfiglio et al. (2006) concept of using experimental analysis to design an
effective reading package piqued my interest as it was designed to meet student
individual needs. I have to take issue with the fact that only four students were involved
with the study, which begs the question of overall effectiveness. The time it would take to
complete experimental analysis for an effective intervention for each student with reading
difficulties would be very time consuming, but I believe effective. Teachers would have
to be taught the procedure, but it would be advantageous to all students in the classroom
whether they present with reading deficits or not.
The Wanzek et al. (2010) study of 24 reading interventions for upper elementary
students for the past 20 years demonstrated to me the importance of my research
questions. Wanzek et al. (2010) found relatively few studies pertaining to this age group,
particularly in the area of vocabulary study. The technique that appeared to show positive
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
35
outcomes was reciprocal teaching for reading comprehension and vocabulary. Repeated
readings also appeared to show positive outcomes along with sustained reading for
improving fluency. I have used reciprocal teaching methods with my students in the
resource room with positive outcomes in improving comprehension and vocabulary
skills. My students learned what the terms predict, clarify and summarize mean and then
demonstrated their understanding either orally or in writing. I feel the findings from this
study are valuable in directing teachers to best practices for reading interventions. The
study’s findings demonstrated again that RR is an effective intervention combined with
other reading supports, such as sustained reading, in assisting struggling readers become
more fluent.
Reading Strategy/Supports Efficacy
As I work primarily with students who have a learning disability in reading in my
capacity as a special education teacher, the Aaron et al. (2008) study had specific
importance to me. Despite the fact this study is now four years old and special education
is moving away from the discrepancy model, the findings for the component model of
reading have positive implications for struggling readers and educators. CMR makes
more sense to me than the discrepancy model as CMR interventions target a student’s
specific reading deficit compared to the undifferentiated instruction most students receive
in a resource room setting. CMR assessments are easy and uncomplicated, are less time
consuming than the discrepancy model and can be administered by classroom teachers.
DM assessments are typically administered by a school psychologist because of the
needed IQ scores for comparison with a student’s reading achievement scores which in
my experience takes some time for a school psychologist to accomplish due to his or her
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
36
schedule. CMR immediately lets an educator determine a student’s reading deficit,
enabling directed focus on instruction and delivery of that instruction. I feel this is an
exceptional strategy for educators to use as it just makes sense to focus on a student’s
reading deficits. The only issue I take with the Aaron et al. (2008) study is the fact that
the CMR group was assessed after only one school semester for growth whereas the
students in the LD comparison group were assessed after three years. The long period
between the pre- and posttesting could be a confounding factor in the findings. However,
if the long term intervention instruction for the LD group was beneficial, the study’s
outcomes should have supported the LD comparison group which it did not. The study
does have good validity in that 330 students participated and it was conducted over a
seven year period.
The Dufrene et al. (2010) study on the use of peer tutoring to improve reading
fluency appears promising since the study was a replication of a similar study the authors
conducted on the same topic in 2006. The findings demonstrate positive outcomes for
increasing fluency scores in struggling readers, and peer tutoring for fluency could also
lead to positive outcomes using similar strategies for other reading strategies such as
working on comprehension skills. I have used peer tutoring within my resource room
with positive results where I have paired an older and younger students to work on
reading skills. Not only did it increase the younger student’s reading skills, self-esteem
and confidence but it built up the same attributes in the older student as well. When tutors
are trained correctly in appropriate procedures and reading strategies to work with
struggling readers, the classroom teacher can use his/her time to work with other
students, and instructional time for all students is increased. Consequently, peer tutoring
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
37
appears to be a win-win for students and teachers. However, and educator must choose
and train a peer tutor carefully. In the Dufrene et al. (2010) study tutors delivered eight of
the ten steps in the intervention with only 80% integrity. Peer tutoring times must be
structured and session times must be consistent in order for the intervention to work
appropriately.
The Berkeley et al. (2011) study caught my attention as it used the Read Naturally
program with the comparison group. Read Naturally, which features all non-fiction
stories, is a program I use on a daily basis in my resource room to improve student
reading fluency, vocabulary acquisition, and comprehension skills of expository text.
The reading comprehension strategy groups with and without attribution retraining
showed students made greater gains than the students in the RN program. Thus the RCS
with and without AR appears to be an effective strategy to use with middle school
students who did not respond to previous reading interventions and strategies put in
place. Furthermore, the RCS with or without AR can benefit all students whether they
present with a reading disability or not, and can be used with any narrative or expository
text. The only issue I take with this study is the students’ self-report measure for AR.
Many students have a fear of being wrong, and it is possible that student responses reflect
a desire to appease the researcher.
The Vaughn et al. (2011) study was perplexing. There hypothesis seems
reasonable; that an individualized intervention should prove more effective in
remediating reading difficulties than a standardized intervention. Yet both treatment
groups did make more gains than the comparison group who received no interventions,
which in itself bothers me as this group also consisted of struggling readers and was
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
38
receiving no remediation. Results indicated at least in comprehension measures, the
individualized intervention group made significant gains compared to the standardized
group. It appears from this study that a combination of individualized and standardized
interventions would be effective reading remediation, but future replication of this study
would be beneficial. I would also look more closely at teacher integrity and the amount or
lacks of training teachers receive to conduct a study of this nature. Teacher feedback
should also be incorporated into the study.
Conclusion
In conclusion the literature suggests the following reading interventions provide
the most efficacy and benefit to students:
• Repeated Readings with the Phrase Drill Error Correction to improve
fluency, from the Begeny et al. (2006) study;
• Experimental analysis study consisting of TP (listen to tape preview of
story) + EC (Error Correction for missed words with teacher modeling) +
CR (Choral Reading (where all students read together) to increase fluency
and vocabulary acquisition (from Bonfiglio et al. (2006);
• Reciprocal Teaching, which consists of teacher modeling of question
generating, summarizing, clarifying and predicting with narrative and
expository texts to increase comprehension skills (from Wanzek et al.
(2010).
Additionally, the literature suggests that certain reading strategies have a higher
likelihood of providing greater comprehension. These include:
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
39
• Using the Component Model of Reading from Aaron et al. (2008) to
pinpoint specific reading deficits. This model is designed to guide
instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension and vocabulary
skill;
• Using Peer Tutoring (Dufrene et al., 2010), which can be an effective
strategy to use with numerous reading deficit skills. PT also provides the
teacher with more instructional time in the classroom;
• Using the Reading Comprehension Strategy (RCS); setting a purpose;
previewing; self-questioning; summarizing and strategy monitoring with
or without Attribution Retraining; positive vs. negative thoughts; using
self-talk and attribution feedback (Berkeley et al, 2011) to instill the
comprehension strategies and encourage higher level thinking skills for
expository text;
• Using both the Standardized and Individualized interventions to improve
specific reading deficits (Vaughn et al., 2011).
It would seem that the topic of best reading practices for upper elementary and
middle school students still has many areas to study and research. Although I found
effective reading interventions and strategies, I still do not think one size fits all. Each
student who presents with reading deficits has unique needs. According to information
from local Intermediate School District personnel, Federal and State Special Education
regulations are pushing for special education teachers to determine a student’s specific
reading deficits and individualize instruction to remediate those deficits. Although many
educators may think this strategy is time consuming, one has to keep a student’s best
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
40
interests at heart. After all, is that not the reason teachers became teachers in the first
place to help their students become successful adults? The best way to help students to
become successful readers is to discover what is impeding their learning and use the best
reading interventions and strategies to help them overcome their deficits.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
41
References
Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment
of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to
the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Reading Disabilities, 41, 67-84.
doi:10.1177/0022219407310838
Begeny, J. C., Daly, E. J., III, & Valleley, R. J. (2006). Improving oral reading fluency
through response opportunities: A comparison of phrase drill error correction with
repeated readings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 229-235.
doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9028-4
Berkeley, S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2011). Reading comprehension
strategy instruction and attribution retraining for secondary students with learning
disabilities and other mild disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 18-32.
doi:10.1177/0022219410371677
Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly, E. J., III, Persampieri, M., & Andersen, M. (2006). An
experimental analysis of the effects of reading instruction in a small group reading
instruction context. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 93-109.
doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9009-7
Collins, A. (2010). Design-based Research Method adapted from. Learning Theories
Knowledgebase (2012, April). Design-Based Research Methods (DBR) at
Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved April 3rd, 2012 from http://www.learning-
theories.com/design-based-research-methods.html.
Duff, F. J., & Clarke, P. J. (2011). Practitioner review: Reading disorders: What are the
effective interventions and how should they be implemented and evaluated? The
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
42
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 3-12. doi:10.1111/j1469-
7610.2010.02310x
Dufrene, B. A., Reisener, C. D., Olmi, D. J., Zoder-Martell, K., McNutt, M. R., & Horn,
D. R. (2010). Peer tutoring for reading fluency as a feasible and effective
alternative in response to intervention systems. Journal of Behavioral Education,
19, 239-256. doi:10.1007/s10864-010-9111-8
Eckert, T. L., Dunn, E. K., & Ardoin S. P. (2006). The effects of alternate forms of
performance feedback on elementary-aged students’ oral reading fluency. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 15, 149-162. doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9018-6
Jitendra, A. K., Burgess, C., & Gajria, M. (2011). Cognitive strategy instruction for
improving expository text comprehension of students with learning disabilities:
The quality of evidence. Exceptional Children, 77, 135-159.
http://www.cec.sped.org
Joseph, L. M. & Eveleigh, E. L. (2011). A review of the effects of self-monitoring on
reading performance of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special
Education, 45, 43-53. doi:10.1177/0022466909349145
Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2011). Design-Based Research Methods (DBR) at
Learning-Theories.com. http://www.learning-theories.com/design-based-
research-methods.html
Martin, D., Martin, M., & Carvalho, K. (2008). Reading and learning-disabled children:
Understanding the problem. The Clearing House, 81, 113-118.
doi:10.3200/TCHS.81.3.113-118
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
43
Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and
Writing, 22, 379-399. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2011). [IDEA’S definition
of learning disability]. Retrieved from http://nichy.org/disability/specific/ld
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for
students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37, 140-
147. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030301
Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Roberts, G., Barth, A. A., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A.,…Denton,
C. A. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle
school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 391-407.
http://www.cec.sped.org
Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Ciullo, S. (2010). Reading interventions for
struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of
research. Reading and Writing, 23, 889-912. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5
Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
READING INTERVENTION ON STUDENTS WITH LD
44
Appendix A: Reading Comprehension Strategies
Note: Reprinted from Berkeley et al. (2011). p. 24.
Recommended