EFFECTS OF READING INTERVENTIONS ON STUDENTS WITH … · with or without Attribution Retraining; ... commonly known as the discrepancy model, instead of their area of ... Another

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.


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


iii

References ......................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix A: Reading Comprehension Strategies ............................................................ 44

Appendix B: Reading Intervention Results ...................................................................... 45


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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;


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


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).


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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)


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


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


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


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.


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.


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:


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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:


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


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.


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


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


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.


44

Appendix A: Reading Comprehension Strategies

Note: Reprinted from Berkeley et al. (2011). p. 24.


45

Appendix B: Reading Intervention Results


46


47

Note. Reprinted from Wanzek et al. (2010). P. 896-901.

Documents

EFFECTS OF READING INTERVENTIONS ON STUDENTS WITH … · with or without Attribution Retraining; ... commonly known as the discrepancy model, instead of their area of ... Another