Evaluating the Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers

© 2006 INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION (pp. 180–189) doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.3.2

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 0 : 3 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6180

Douglas Fisher, Gay Ivey

Evaluating the interventions for strugglingadolescent readers

Evaluating the interventions for strugglingadolescent readers

The authors assess current reading

interventions for struggling readers

and offer five guidelines for choosing

an effective program.

Literacy educators across the grade levelsare often asked for their opinions onthe quality of particular reading pro-grams. However, for researchers andteacher educators who study adolescentliteracy, these questions are now coming more fre-quently and more urgently. The recent flood of in-formation on later reading difficulties has receivedmuch attention in the United States and has cre-ated a sense of crisis in adolescent literacy that begsfor immediate solutions. For instance, the UnitedStates Department of Education reports that morethan 8 million students in grades 4–12 are strug-gling readers (Grigg, Daane, Jin, & Campbell,2003). National Assessment of EducationalProgress data from 2002 indicate that 33% of the8th-grade students and 36% of the 12th-grade stu-dents who were tested performed at or above a“proficient” level. These data mean that nearly70% of the 8th graders tested could not describethe purpose of a practical passage and supporttheir views with examples and details. We are alsoreminded that poor readers are at significant risk for dropping out of high school (Snow &Biancarosa, 2003). Over 3,000 students drop out of high school every school day (Alliance forExcellent Education, 2003).

The federal government has responded to thisissue by focusing funds on a “Striving Readers” ini-tiative. According to the White House website atwww.whitehouse.gov/infocus/education,

The President’s Striving Readers initiativeprovides a focus on improving the readingskills of high school students who read belowgrade level. This Presidential initiative, firstfunded in 2005, builds on the No Child LeftBehind elementary school reading initiatives.The President’s [fiscal year] 2006 budget willprovide $200 million, an increase of $175million, eight times the 2005 level to im-

prove the reading skills of these high school students.(press release dated January 12, 2005)

Along with this federal focus, states areresponding with funds for reading interventionprograms for middle and high school students.For example, in California, funds are availablefor schools to adopt intervention programs. Thepurpose of the current middle school reading in-tervention, for example, is “to provide a compre-hensive, intensive, accelerated reading/languagearts program designed for students in gradesfour through eight whose reading achievement issignificantly below grade level,” as described onthe Department of Education’s website (www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/im/documents/ri.rtf).

Although we agree that far too many stu-dents do not read well and that reading and writ-ing interventions are necessary to move studentsto proficient and advanced levels, we worry thatmiddle and high schools eager to see changes in

Fisher teaches at San DiegoState University. He may becontacted at 4283 El Cajon

Boulevard, #100, San Diego,CA 92105, USA. E-mail

[email protected]. Iveyteaches at James Madison

University.

achievement may overlook the most fundamentalconditions for meeting the needs of strugglingreaders. Few independent research studies havebeen conducted on popular commercial readingprograms, but the use of such programs in sec-ondary schools is burgeoning, and No Child LeftBehind legislation threatens to seep into the uppergrades. The merits and pitfalls of particular pro-grams have been debated elsewhere (e.g., Biggers,2001; Mallette, Henk, & Melnick, 2004; Pavonetti,Brimmer, & Cipielewski, 2002/2003).

When is interventionnecessary?Our purpose in this article is to suggest some research-based principles for developing andevaluating instructional frameworks that can beused by literacy educators and secondary-leveladministrators faced with difficult but crucialdecisions about how to help students in criticalneed.

Before describing these principles we wouldlike to consider two assumptions about schoolsseeking an intervention involving “special” read-ing instruction for students. First, we assume thatschools looking for intervention programs to sup-plement their efforts already provide studentswith significant opportunities for wide reading. Bythis, we mean that students have access to a sub-stantial number of readable, interesting books thatfocus on the content they are studying. We alsomean that students are provided the opportunityto “just read” books of their own choosing (Fisher,2004; Worthy, Broaddus, & Ivey, 2001). The powerof addressing such a fundamental condition forliteracy development can be seen in the changesexperienced by students and teachers at MountainView High School (Brozo & Hargis, 2003).Assessments indicated that nearly 35% of all stu-dents at the school were reading one or moregrade levels below their placement, so the schoolimplemented four initiatives aimed at increasingthe quantity and quality of wide reading for allstudents: sustained silent reading, reading young

adult novels in content classrooms, offering alter-native texts to struggling readers and advancedreaders in content classrooms, and buddy readingwith elementary-grade students. These initiativesalone yielded notable increases in students’achievement and motivation to read.

Second, we assume that the entire school isfocused on literacy achievement and that teachersuse content literacy approaches to ensure thattheir students are engaged in meaningful curricu-lum. By this, we mean that the history, science,math, English, art, music, and other teachers en-sure that students are developing strategic readingskills as they read for information (Fisher & Frey,2004; Ivey, 2004). For instance, Tubman HighSchool in San Diego (Fisher, 2001) experienced a12% overall gain in statewide achievement testsover a two-year period as three trends took shapein classrooms across content areas. First, staff de-velopment for all teachers focused on specific in-structional strategies (e.g., K–W–L [Ogle, 1986],writing to learn, concept mapping, reciprocalteaching) that students experienced consistentlyfrom content area to content area. Second, a dailyindependent reading time was created, and largequantities of books were purchased specifically forthis initiative. Third, block scheduling was imple-mented to allow teachers substantial amounts oftime to provide reading and writing opportunitiesand instruction across all content area classes.

Without these two nonnegotiable features ofthe learning environment—access to high-quality,readable texts and instruction in strategies to readand write across the school day—it is doubtfulthat a specific, limited intervention will makemuch of a difference. If a school has already madethese fundamental changes and there are still stu-dents who struggle to read, it is likely that an in-tervention program or initiative is necessary (Ivey& Fisher, 2006). Although there are many pro-grams that can be considered, we suggest that thepeople who have the power to purchase, imple-ment, or develop a program consider the follow-ing five guidelines.

Evaluating the interventions for struggling adolescent readers

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 0 : 3 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 181

1. The teacher should play a criticalrole in assessment and instructionA key component in case studies of strugglingreaders who became better readers is lots of timespent with an expert teacher (e.g., McCormick,1994; Morris, Ervin, & Conrad, 1996). In fact, it isdifficult to find success stories that do not featureteacher involvement in a major way. When we re-fer to teacher involvement, we are suggestingsomething that extends far beyond the general no-tion of individualization. There are many pro-grams that differentiate materials and assignmentsfor students, but that does not mean instruction ispersonalized.

We know of many commercial programsthat advertise individualized learning, but whatdoes that mean? It might mean that students gettexts at different levels, that they work alone at acomputer at their own pace, or that they aregrouped according to ability levels. But what isdifferent about the teaching, and how is that con-nected to individual students? It is highly unlikelythat a computer, for example, could accuratelyevaluate a student’s strengths and needs or tend tothe complexity of adolescents’ motivations forreading and writing (Alvermann & Rush, 2004).Only expert teachers can make split-second deci-sions that facilitate students’ understandings fromtext and knowledge about literacy processes(Johnston, 1987).

Consider 10th-grader Michael (studentnames are pseudonyms) during a one-to-one tu-toring session with his teacher. Michael reads atroughly a first-grade level, and even at age 16, hestill enjoys Dr. Seuss books. As he read I Am NotGoing to Get Up Today! (Seuss, 1987), he cameacross the phrase “You are wasting your time” (p.15). He became stuck on wasting and stoppedreading, with no apparent strategies for movingon. His teacher advised that sometimes she skipsthe word, reads the next several words, and thenmakes a guess about the word in question usingthe meaning of the sentence and the first coupleof letters of the unknown word. Before she could

finish the explanation, Michael exclaimed,“Wasting!” They used this strategy successfully afew more times with this same passage. Withoutthe teacher present and participating, it would beimpossible to know where Michael is gettingstumped and what needs to be explained to him(e.g., Duffy, 2003). When we implement programsthat do not prominently feature the teacher’s ex-pertise, we are likely leaving students’ learning upto chance.

2. The intervention should reflect acomprehensive approach to readingand writing We see an either/or theme in reactions to lowreading achievement among older students. Acommon assumption is that persistent readingproblems are either the result of deficiencies inword-level skills or deficiencies in comprehensionskills. Certainly, we know of students with obviousproblems in word recognition and others who canread every word but seem not to remember or un-derstand what they read. If the reality were thatsimple, though, we would have solved the prob-lem of persistent reading problems long ago, be-cause for decades there has existed a plethora ofprograms aimed at “fixing” specific reading diffi-culties. Still, such programs seem to be rising intheir popularity, despite a lack of solid evidencethat they make much of a difference. Programsthat focus on phonemic awareness and phonicsinstruction are particularly problematic becausethere is little reason to believe that emphasizingthese fundamental skills would have any signifi-cant benefits for secondary students (Ivey &Baker, 2004).

One belief underlying the skill-by-skill ap-proach to learning to read is that once studentslearn all the necessary skills for reading and writ-ing, they will magically put it all together. You canfind research showing that teaching a particularskill increases your aptitude with that skill, butdoes that make you a better or more motivatedreader? Older students need to “see the big pic-



ture” when it comes to reading and writing, andgood interventions should begin with reading,writing, listening to, and thinking about meaning-ful texts. Instruction in the processes of readingand writing (e.g., word recognition, comprehen-sion strategies, vocabulary, fluency) ought to helpfacilitate student engagement and understandingwith real texts rather than take center stage in theprogram.

3. Reading and writing in theintervention should be engagingIt is easy to find a reading program for which evenstruggling or resistant students will sit still. Afterall, most programs are designed to offer instruc-tion and materials that are much easier thangrade-level, whole-class types of assignments, andfor students who consistently struggle with mostschool reading and writing experiences, this is awelcome relief. In other words, some reading pro-grams get students who might be noncompliantin regular classroom activities to suddenly appearcompliant. To see this kind of change in studentsmay falsely lead an observer to believe that the in-tervention must be working and that students arelearning.

In order to see gains in achievement andmotivation outside of the intervention, instruc-tion and materials need to be engaging, as Guthrie(1996) cautioned us:

When children read merely to complete an assign-ment, with no sense of involvement or curiosity, theyare being compliant. They conform to the demands ofthe situation irrespective of their personal goals.Compliant students are not likely to become lifelonglearners. (p. 433)

When we inundate older struggling readerswith superficial and lifeless reading and writingtasks that bear no resemblance to the readingand writing they encounter in the real world, weensure their status as outsiders to the real literatecommunity. We have a hard time finding studiesof adolescent literacy these days that do not

highlight the critical role of engagement and par-

ticularly the importance of using interesting

reading materials (e.g., Ivey & Broaddus, 2001;

Worthy, Moorman, & Turner, 1999). Effective in-

struction for all adolescents focuses on their per-

sonal interests and incorporates diverse reading

materials such as trade books and the digital

texts they read on their own (Alvermann, 2002),

and this is no less true for inexperienced older

readers and writers.

4. Interventions should be driven byuseful and relevant assessmentsHow can we determine what students need from

an intervention? Often, standardized tests are

used to place students in special reading pro-

grams. Then, with commercial intervention pro-

grams, one of two scenarios may be encountered.

The first is that the program is designed so that

everyone starts at the same level, with an initial

focus on fundamental skills followed by a pro-

gression toward more sophisticated skills. The

second scenario is that the program comes with

an assessment that places each student in a par-

ticular strand or level within it. Unfortunately,

neither of these scenarios helps us to determine

what students need to progress in real reading

and writing.

Research studies and individual student de-

scriptions of recent years (e.g., Alvermann, 2001;

Ivey, 1999; Knobel, 2001; Rubenstein-Avila,

2003/2004) leave us with an instructional chal-

lenge that is difficult to ignore: Older struggling

readers are extremely complex, and to meet their

needs we must take a closer and more sophisticat-

ed look at their literate strengths, needs, and pref-

erences. This means that in addition to good

initial assessments (e.g., an informal reading in-

ventory, spelling inventory, writing samples, inter-

views, observations), ongoing assessments will be

necessary to determine students’ purposes for

reading and writing, what they already do, and

where they could use some help.



To fully understand the needs of studentswithin an intervention, we have to see them en-gaging in literate tasks in a variety of contexts,including diverse print and electronic readingmaterials, and for a variety of purposes, includingreasons for reading and writing outside of school.It is doubtful that paying close and deliberate at-tention to students will result in the simplisticconclusion that students are simply poor de-coders or poor comprehenders. In fact, purchas-ing, adopting, or designing an interventionwithout this kind of information would likely bea waste of teacher energy, student time, and fiscalresources.

5. The intervention should includesignificant opportunities for authenticreading and writing We do not know of any cases of older strugglingreaders who became better readers by not read-ing. On the other hand, we have strong evidenceto suggest that time spent reading separates goodreaders from poor readers (Allington, 2001). Ifwe want low-achieving readers to become morelike successful readers, any intervention ought toinclude many opportunities for students to actu-ally read. In fact, it should be the focal point ofthe instructional time. Unfortunately, many mid-dle and high school students who are still strug-gling may have been assigned to special readingprograms in the elementary grades that focusedon skill-and-drill activities to the exclusion ofauthentic reading and writing (Johnston &Allington, 1991).

Working on skills and strategies should fa-cilitate real reading and writing. It should takeplace in the context of activities where studentsactually need to know how to use the skills andstrategies and have purposes for using them.Furthermore, the amount of time studentsspend reading and writing (and here we meanengaged in reading and writing) ought to sub-stantially outweigh the amount of time studentsspend considering skills and strategies related to

literacy. For instance, during a 45-minute ses-sion, we imagine a student spending at least 30minutes actually reading.

Examining the guidelines incontextTo help consider how these guidelines for inter-vention might apply in a real classroom, we offertwo glimpses of instruction with students whoseexperiences and profiles probably resemble thoseof many struggling readers in secondary pro-grams. Our first scenario demonstrates an inter-vention that likely has little productive impact onthe student receiving it, while the second scenarioincludes characteristics of interventions that makea difference.

The case of AnthonyAnthony is an African American male who attendsa large urban school. He is 16 years old and hasfailed ninth grade. He has no identified disabilities.This high school is the third he has attended; he hasattended a total of 12 schools between first andninth grade. He lives with his mother and five sib-lings in a one-bedroom apartment. He saw his fa-ther get shot on the street during a drug-relatedtransaction. Anthony consistently performs at thefourth-grade level on reading assessments. Hewrites sentence fragments and does not spell well.In fact, he often misspells common sight wordssuch as when, there, and once.

The school Anthony attends has purchased acomputerized reading intervention program andAnthony is scheduled into the computer room forintervention one period per day. He also has anEnglish class in addition to his content area classes.The school provides 20 minutes per day of self-selected reading, and Anthony can often be foundreading the sports page of the newspaper or one of the many sports magazines in the room. Usingthe five criteria outlined above as talking points,Anthony, the reading specialist, and an administra-tor discussed the reading intervention program.



The reading specialist noted that the web-based computer program did not require any sup-port or time from an adult, but instead that“students just sit down at the computer and beginworking.” The administrator asked how the spe-cialist knew Anthony was being challenged andhow lessons were planned based on his skills. Thereading specialist replied that there was a series of lessons through which all students had toprogress.

Observing Anthony confirmed the reportsfrom the school staff. He was engaged with thecomputer program and said, “Reading is easy.”The computer program introduced him to threesight words—I, you, and was. He clicked on eachword as the computer said that word, then hemoved on to sentences. There were blank lines inthe sentences and Anthony was asked to identifythe missing word. The first sentence was “The cubgets a rug.” The second sentence was “The cat getsa nap.” The third sentence was “Ron has a dip inthe _________.” His choices were van, fox, andtub. We asked Anthony to select the wrong answer.He chose van. The computer said, “Nope, that’snot it,” and read the sentence again. We did this 11more times. The computer offered no assistanceor guidance. The same sentence, with the samechoices, was offered to Anthony over and overagain. He would have to use process of elimina-tion, and not reading, if he were to answer cor-rectly and move on. The program did not requireAnthony to use the sight words that were present-ed in the sentences he was reading.

Back in the office, we continued our conver-sation and our evaluation of this program. Whilewe agreed that the text selections were not veryengaging, the graphics, music, and voice on thisparticular program were very engaging for adoles-cents. Our conversation focused on the fact thatstudents progress through the program in thesame sequence, regardless of their current level ofperformance. Anthony’s assessments indicatedthat he read at approximately the fourth-gradelevel but wrote very poorly. The intervention ac-

tivities we observed were nowhere near his in-structional level.

The reading specialist confirmed that the in-tervention was not driven by assessment data andthat the program could not provide the instruc-tional support Anthony needed when he did notanswer correctly. She also noted that he was notrequired to read any authentic texts as part of thisprogram.

Given this assessment of the interventionprogram, we had to ask ourselves what to do.While Anthony enjoyed his time on the computerand felt successful, we did not have any evidencethat he was reading better or more as a result. Thereading specialist noted that she would have tostart by adding independent reading time to theclass as well as providing some individual instruc-tion in writing for Anthony. Clearly, much morethought would need to go into effective interven-tion for Anthony and his classmates.

The case of RaquelRaquel is a seventh grader who reads far belowgrade level. She has been in the United States sinceshe was 6 years old, after crossing the border ille-gally. She has yet to be redesignated as fluentEnglish proficient and has been identified as “in-termediate” in her language proficiency for severalyears. She lives with her brother and his wife, asher parents did not make it across the border. Shehas attended two middle schools and four ele-mentary schools thus far in her schooling experi-ence. Her current middle school educates over1,200 students in grades 6–8. The school operateson a 4X4 block schedule with each class lasting 90minutes. This term, Raquel has English/genre, sci-ence, English language development, and math.She attends an after-school program funded bythe U.S. Department of Education. The first 90minutes of the after-school program focus on tu-toring and homework assistance and the remain-ing two hours are designated for social andrecreational activities. Raquel regularly selects mu-sic and art for her activities following tutoring.



Raquel receives 20–30 minutes per day of in-dividualized instruction as part of her after-schoolprogram. In addition, she reads for 20–30 minutesof the period and completes center activities andtasks with a small group of students for the re-maining time. During each school day, Raquelparticipates in 15 minutes of Silent SustainedReading (SSR). Raquel likes to read series booksand is currently on the fourth Series of Unfor-tunate Events book. She talks with her peers aboutthese books and was overheard telling Zenaidathat she practices reading the books at school sothat she can read them at night at home.

In addition to the SSR time, part of Raquel’sintervention time is devoted to independent read-ing. In both SSR and independent reading, stu-dents read books on their own. The difference isin the book selection. During SSR time, Raquel se-lects any reading material she wants. During inde-pendent reading, the teacher narrows the choicesto texts that are at Raquel’s independent readinglevel and that are based on the topics that Raquelis reading during her intervention. The books thatRaquel reads during the after-school reading in-tervention program are often shorter and can beread in a single sitting. Looking through the bookbin at titles that have been set aside for Raquel, itis easy to see that she enjoys music and art. Thebooks include Lives of the Artists (Krull, 1995),Lives of the Musicians (Krull, 1993), Frida (Winter,2002), My Name is Georgia (Winter, 1998), andWhen Marian Sang (Ryan, 2002). As Raquel statedwhen asked about the number of books chosenfor her, “I didn’t know they had so many girlartists...I didn’t read books in my other school,only these papers the teacher gave us.”

According to her intervention teacher, thecenter activities add to Raquel’s understanding oflanguage and focus on “the structure and functionof the English language.” This is part of the fo-cused English-language development curriculumfor the school (Dutro & Moran, 2003). There are anumber of centers in the room, including wordsorts, listening stations with books on CDs, andgrammar games. As we entered the room, we no-

ticed that Raquel was at a table with three other

students. They were each reading picture books

with Role, Audience, Format, Topic (RAFT) writ-

ing prompts written on the inside. RAFT writing

prompts help writers take perspective and write

to different audiences (Santa & Havens, 1995).

Raquel was working on a RAFT that is written in-

side the wordless picture book You Can’t Take a

Balloon Into the Metropolitan Museum (Weitzman

& Glasser, 1998) and read:

R - balloon

A - tourists

F - postcard

T - why you should visit the Metropolitan

Raquel worked busily, trying to fit her ideas

into the space of a postcard. She rewrote her sen-

tences to be as concise as possible until she was

called by the teacher for her individualized in-

struction.

During the individualized reading interven-

tion, Raquel practiced her part in a Readers

Theatre script. Repeated readings, an integral part

of the Readers Theatre experience, are an effective

and purposeful means for building reading fluency

(Worthy & Broaddus, 2001/2002). During this

particular week, Raquel and a group of her class-

mates in the after-school program were preparing

to present a portion of Zin! Zin! Zin! A Violin

(Moss, 1995) to the other students and teachers.

In this rhyming picture book, 10 instruments are

introduced one by one in a musical performance.

The performance will begin with one voice—the

trombone—and a new voice will be added as the

next instrument is described.

Before Raquel practiced her part, her

teacher reads the entire book to her, modeling

fluency and appropriate expression. Afterward,

they talk about unfamiliar vocabulary (e.g.,

valves, bleating, mournful). In a second journey

through the book, Raquel and her teacher take

turns reading. Then they read the book in unison.



During each successive reading, Raquel’s confi-dence and fluency improve.

As Raquel began to practice her assignedpart for the Readers Theatre, her teacher notedsome ways she could read the passage to make itmore engaging and comprehensible to the audi-ence. For example, Raquel had to read, “Now, amellow friend, the cello, neck extended, bows ahello” (p. 7). In her initial reading, Raquel read cel-lo and hello with similar intonation. Her teacherpointed out to her that it would be more effectiveto read hello as if she were actually using it in aconversational greeting, with an emphasis on thefinal o. Raquel agreed and incorporated this intoher performance.

Following our observation of the class andthe systems of support provided to Raquel, wemet with the school’s reading specialist. While nota “perfect” intervention, the support provided toRaquel required significant teacher involvement—from selecting texts, to modeling, to providingfeedback, to gradually releasing responsibility inreading to the student. Raquel received many op-portunities for real reading and writing, and thetexts used for instruction clearly interested Raqueland were often connected by subject. Initial andongoing assessments helped Raquel’s teacher findmaterials that made sense to Raquel. Also, to alarge degree, what we typically think of as “com-ponents” of the reading process were addressedwithin the context of more substantial, purpose-ful, and connected reading and writing experi-ences (e.g., fluency practice was embedded withina Readers Theatre activity).

Although it is likely that Raquel will needeven more explanations and modeling from theteacher regarding vocabulary, fluency, and com-prehension within the context of reading andwriting, this time after school is well spent. Thedifferences between Anthony’s experiences andRaquel’s experiences are substantial, and it is pos-sible to predict that Raquel will make greaterstrides in literacy in terms of achievement andmotivation.

Keeping an eye on qualitycontrolHaving extra time set aside to focus on literacy istruly beneficial for older struggling readers andtheir teachers. Interventions that are antitheoreti-cal or ineffective, however, may do more harmthan good. When adolescents still learning to readand write show no real progress with program af-ter program, it is tempting for us to sigh, “We’vetried everything,” and move on to students whoseem more “teachable.” Furthermore, studentswho experience no identifiable changes in theirreading and writing despite the school’s efforts be-gin to feel hopeless about becoming more literate(Kos, 1991).

In middle and high schools, we have some-what of a “Catch-22.” We know that when itcomes to improving literacy, teachers—not meth-ods or materials—make the most difference(Duffy & Hoffman, 1999). But how often do sec-ondary teachers really get an opportunity to learnabout supporting literacy development? Buildingteacher expertise is our most formidable long-term challenge, and that should be an ongoingprocess for schools.

As we think about our current students,however, good interventions can make a differ-ence. If your school is presently looking to imple-ment programs or frameworks for instruction, wehope you will consider the guiding principles weshared in this article as well as the rubric found inFigure 1. If you are currently using a program or ifyou must select from an approved list of pro-grams, use the principles for assessment and de-cide what kind of instruction you will need inaddition to what you already have.

In our experiences as teachers of older strug-gling readers and as researchers, we have not yetcome across students who absolutely could notgrow as readers and writers. We are also certainthat we have not “tried everything,” as we contin-ue to grow as teachers and as we encounter newadolescent learners who cause us to be more re-flective and responsive.



REFERENCESAlliance for Excellent Education. (2003). Progress report on

American high schools. Washington, DC: Author.Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers:

Designing research-based programs. New York: Longman.

Alvermann, D.E. (2001). Reading adolescents’ reading identities:

Looking back to see ahead. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 44, 676–690.

Alvermann, D.E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for ado-

lescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 189–208.



F i g u r e 1 I n t e r v e n t i o n a n d s u p p o r t f o r s t r u g g l i n g r e a d e r s

Do the intervention initiatives cause students to read more and better?

5 4 3 2 1

Source: Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2006). Creating literacy-rich schools for adolescents. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

4.1 Level of teacherinvolvement

4.2 Interventionreflects a com-prehensive approachto reading and writing

4.3 Interventionreading and writing isengaging

4.4 Interventioninstruction is drivenby useful and relevantassessments

4.5 Interventionincludes significantopportunities forauthentic reading andwriting

Significant teacher

involvement in the

design and delivery of

the intervention

Intervention is

comprehensive and

integrated such that

students experience

reading and writing as a

cohesive whole

Authentic children’s and

adolescent literature

(fiction and nonfiction)

are at the core of the

intervention

Teacher-administered

assessments are ongoing

and are used to tailor

individual instruction;

writing samples and

text-based discussions

are one type of assess-

ment used

The majority of

intervention time is

devoted to authentic

reading and writing

Some teacher oversight

but the majority of the

program is delivered

by volunteers or

paraprofessionals

Intervention includes

important components

of the reading processes

but addresses them sep-

arately (e.g., 15 minutes

of word study followed

by an unrelated compre-

hension activity); either

reading or writing are

addressed, but not both

Isolated paragraphs on

topics selected by

intervention program

Uniform assessments

are used for placement,

program entry, and

program exit

Periodic opportunities

are provided for stu-

dents to read or write

Limited or no teacher

involvement; intervention

is delivered in the

absence of a teacher (e.g.,

computer-only programs

or take-home workbooks)

Intervention focuses on

an isolated skill (e.g.,

topic sentence) or

singular aspect of literacy

development (e.g., phon-

ics, phonemic awareness,

fluency, vocabulary,

comprehension)

Artificial text; no

connected text; skills

work

All students start at the

same point and move

through the intervention

components regardless

of their individual

performance

No connected reading

and writing is provided

or required (e.g., sole

focus on word-level

activities or skills

worksheets)

Alvermann, D.E., & Rush, L.S. (2004). Literacy interventionprograms at the middle and high school levels. In T.L.Jetton & J.A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research andpractice (pp. 210–227). New York: Guilford.

Biggers, D. (2001). The argument against Accelerated Reader.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 72–75.

Brozo, W.G., & Hargis, C.H. (2003). Taking seriously the ideaof reform: One high school’s efforts to make reading moreresponsive to all students. Journal of Adolescent & AdultLiteracy, 47, 14–23.

Duffy, G.G. (2003). Explaining reading. New York: Guilford.Duffy, G.G., & Hoffman, J.V. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion:

The flawed search for a perfect method. The ReadingTeacher, 53, 10–16.

Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English languageinstruction: An architectural approach. In G.G. Garcia(Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of Englishliteracy (pp. 227–258). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Fisher, D. (2001). “We’re moving on up”: Creating a school-wide literacy effort in an urban high school. Journal ofAdolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 92–101.

Fisher, D. (2004). Setting the “opportunity to read” standard:Resuscitating the SSR program in an urban high school.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 138–150.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Improving adolescent literacy:Strategies at work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Grigg, W.S., Daane, M.C., Jin, Y., & Campbell, J.R. (2003).The Nation’s report card 2002. Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Educational Statistics.

Guthrie, J.T. (1996). Educational contexts for engagement inliteracy. The Reading Teacher, 49, 432–445.

Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school:Complexities among young adolescent readers. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 34, 172–192.

Ivey, G. (2004). Content counts with urban struggling readers.In D. Lapp, C.C. Block, E.J. Cooper, J. Flood, N. Roser, &J.V. Tinajero (Eds.), Teaching all the children: Strategies fordeveloping literacy in an urban setting (pp. 316–326). NewYork: Guilford.

Ivey, G., & Baker, M.I. (2004). Phonics instruction for olderreaders? Just say no. Educational Leadership, 61, 35–39.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A surveyof what makes students want to read in middle schoolclassrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–371.

Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2006). Creating literacy-rich schools foradolescents. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

Johnston, P.H. (1987). Teachers as evaluation experts. TheReading Teacher, 40, 744–748.

Johnston, P.H., & Allington, R.L. (1991). Remediation. In R.Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 984–1012). NewYork: Longman.

Knobel, M. (2001). “I’m not a pencil man”: How one studentchallenges our notions of literacy “failure” in school.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 404–414.

Kos, R. (1991). Persistence of reading disabilities: The voicesof four middle school students. American EducationalResearch Journal, 28, 785–895.

Krull, K. (1993). Lives of the musicians: Good times, bad times(and what the neighbors thought). San Diego, CA:Harcourt.

Krull, K. (1995). Lives of the artists: Masterpieces, messes (andwhat the neighbors thought). San Diego, CA: Harcourt.

Mallette, M.H., Henk, W.A., & Melnick, S.A. (2004). The in-fluence of Accelerated Reader on the affective literacy ori-entations of intermediate grade students. Journal ofLiteracy Research, 36, 73–84.

McCormick, S. (1994). A nonreader becomes a reader: A casestudy of literacy acquisition by a severely disabled reader.Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 157–176.

Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (1996). A case study ofmiddle school reading disability. The Reading Teacher, 49,368–377.

Moss, L. (1995). Zin! Zin! Zin! A violin. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Ogle, D. (1986). K–W–L: A teaching model that develops ac-tive reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39,564–570.

Pavonetti, L.M., Brimmer, K.M., & Cipielewski, J.F.(2002/2003). Accelerated Reader: What are the lasting ef-fects on the reading habits of middle school students ex-posed to Accelerated Reader in elementary grades? Journalof Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 300–311.

Rubenstein-Avila, E. (2003/2004). Conversing with Miguel:An adolescent English language learner struggling with lat-er literacy development. Journal of Adolescent & AdultLiteracy, 47, 290–301.

Ryan, P.M. (2002). When Marian sang. New York: Scholastic.Santa, C., & Havens, L. (1995). Creating independence through

student-owned strategies: Project CRISS. Dubuque, IA:Kendall/Hunt.

Seuss, Dr. (1987). I am not going to get up today! New York:Random House.

Snow, C.E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy andthe achievement gap: What do we know and where do we gofrom here? New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Weitzman, J.P., & Glasser, R.P. (1998). You can’t take a bal-loon into the Metropolitan Museum. New York: Dial Booksfor Young Readers.

Winter, J. (1998). My name is Georgia. San Diego, CA:Harcourt.

Winter, J. (2002). Frida. New York: Arthur A. Levine Books.Worthy, J., & Broaddus, K. (2001/2002). Fluency beyond the

primary grades: From group performance to silent, inde-pendent reading. The Reading Teacher, 55, 334–343.

Worthy, J., Broaddus, K., & Ivey, G. (2001). Pathways to inde-pendence: Reading, writing, and learning in grades 3–8. NewYork: Guilford.

Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). WhatJohnny likes to read is hard to find in school. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 34, 12–27.



Documents

Evaluating the Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers