hkrugksumed.weebly.com · Web viewIn impoverished or struggling environments, the majority of this support comes from within the school system. Commonly used support methods include

THE EFFECT OF READING SPECIALISTS 1

The Effect of Reading Specialists on Struggling Readers

Hannah Krug

Kennesaw State University


ABSTRACT

Elementary school curriculum provides the backbone of all essential educational

components students need to succeed. The primary aspect of this pedagogical foundation is

reading. Reading comprehension is utilized in all other aspects of curricular content.

Undeveloped readers need all the support and strategies they can acquire.

In impoverished or struggling environments, the majority of this support comes from

within the school system. Commonly used support methods include Reading Recovery, self-

contained class settings, Early Intervention Programs, and Reading Specialists. This study

examines the aforementioned methods, focusing on the implementation of Reading Specialists.

Two types of assessments (DRAs and summative tests) are given to participants to evaluate the

potential impact of Reading Specialists.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………..2

1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….......5

Context and Background of Struggling Readers………………………………….5

School Context………………………………………………………………....….5

Demographics…………………………………………………………………4

Parental Involvement………………………………………………………….6

Statement of the Problem & Research Question………………………………….7

Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………….8

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE……………………………………………....10

Introduction………………………………………………………………………10

Literature Review………………………………………………………………..11

Importance of Parental Involvement…………………………………………….11

Types of Parental Involvement………………………………………………11

Challenges of Parental Involvement…………………………………………13

Reading Programs and Interventions…………………………………………….16

Reading Recovery…………………………………………………………….16

Response to Intervention (RTI)………………………………………………18

Self-Contained EIP (Early Intervention Program) Classrooms………………21

Reading Specialists……………………………………………………………22


Reading Assessments…………………………………………………..………….24

CHAPTER PAGE

2

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)………………………………..…24

Running Records...........................................................................................…...25

Summative Assessments………………………………………………………..25

3 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………26

Design…………………………………………………………………………...…...26

Demographics……………………………………………………………………….27

Participants…………………………………………………………………………..28

4 RESULTS……………………………………………………………………..……30

DRAs………………………………………………………………………………..30

Summative Assessments……………………………………………………………32

Limitations………………………………………………………………………….33

Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………………………34

Implication and Recommendations…………………………………………………35

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………....36

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………41


CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Context and Background of Struggling Readers

Immerging readers face many challenges. These challenges are increased in transient

Title 1 schools where parental involvement with regards to academics is potentially at a

minimum. Parents in these environments have many stressors, and sometimes reading with their

child becomes a minute priority. When students struggle without success in reading, their

motivation and self-confidence plummet.

School Context

Demographics

Over the course of this study, I taught at a low-income suburban school in a large

southeast county. This school is 1 of 45 Title 1 schools in this particular county, with 90.3% of

families at an economic disadvantage. Title 1 is the largest Federal Assistance Program in the

United States, which aims at providing excellent education for all students, and strives to meet

the needs of students who need extra help.

As of March 24th, 2016, there were 584 students enrolled at this school in grades K-5.

The student population consists of the following races/ethnic groups: African-American 60.5%,

Hispanic 25.9%, Caucasian 9.2%, and all other ethnic groups 3.5%. There is an almost equal

amount of male and female students at this particular school. There are 51% male students, and

49% female. This is very similar compared to the average gender percentage in Georgia schools,


which is 52 % male and 48% female. (“www.startclass.com ,” n.d. ). The majority of teachers and

staff are female, with only 4 male staff members.

My first grade class consisted of seven males and nine females for a total of sixteen

students. Of these students, eight were African-American, five Hispanic, and three Caucasian.

All five Hispanic students participated in our school’s ESOL program. All of my students were

EIP Reading, and five students were on RTI Tier 2 or above. Two students in my class received

speech services.

Parental Involvement

Our school has a plan for shared student achievement. Last Spring, parents were invited

to attend our annual School Forum to revise the parental involvement policy, in addition to

reviewing and revising our schoolwide plan and school-parent compacts. By providing parents

with an opportunity to take part in decision making for how they can get involved, we aimed to

increase the number of parents participating in important school programs and functions such as

our PTA.

The school is dedicated to serving the needs of our students as well as assisting their

families in any way possible. We provide workshops, such as New Parent Orientation and

Literacy Nights. Our school’s social worker provides parents and guardians with resources that

help students’ needs be met at home. We also provide meetings during as well as outside school

hours to meet the scheduling needs of our parents. We hope that by being approachable and

providing resources, we can increase our parental involvement.

Currently, we have minimal parental involvement at our school, with only 10% of parents

enlisted in the PTA. The President of our PTA is a teacher within our school, and 90% of

http://www.startclass.com/


members are also teachers. We have a 40.5% transiency rate. Students come and go throughout

the school year, which can greatly affect their academic potential. Due to frequent relocations

and differing work schedules, some parents have difficulty becoming involved.

Over the three year span I have worked at this school, I have had very few parents

volunteer in my classroom. Many parents do not check their child’s folder daily, and homework

is often incomplete. Parents appear inconsistent with their involvement. At times, they seem to

be working on a regular basis with their child. At other times, they will not communicate with

the classroom teacher. Many students have told me that no one reads with or to them at home.

During the year of my study, parental involvement in my classroom was higher than the

past years. Many parents wanted to know about their child’s progress or behavior. The biggest

challenge was the county’s policy which states that we are only allowed to share information

with the child’s enrolling parent/guardian. This can be challenging in this particular school

because many students end up residing with a different guardian over the course of the year.

Statement of the Problem and Research Questions

In my experience, parental involvement and students’ reading levels are related. This was

my third year teaching self-contained EIP first grade students, and there is a noticeable

difference in parental participation during school events when compared with their general

education classmates. When struggling students are not getting the amount of literacy practice

they need at home, it is my job to figure out how to implement additional instructional

opportunities to meet their needs. If students cannot read and comprehend new information, this

struggle will affect all other areas of their academics.


Reading with a mentor is one approach for emerging readers to observe engaging reading

in action. While all students in my class receive instruction through guided reading groups, there

is little time allotted to read with students individually other than when being assessed with a

Running Record. Friedland and Truesdell (2004) state, “Because of the current emphasis in the

United States on students reaching standards and the pressure to spend class time preparing for

state assessments, these teachers find it difficult to foster a love of reading.” Integrating a reading

specialist as part of my weekly curriculum provides students with extra support, as well as the

skills they need to read independently. It is my belief that if students enjoy reading, they will

read more often, resulting in increased comprehension, fluency, and reading levels.

A vital component in ensuring our students’ academic success is preventing reading

failure in primary grades. Reading specialists serve as additional reading practice for scholars by

focusing primarily on the students. Teachers who work alongside reading specialists and

consistently monitor students’ progress are equipped to engage students toward more challenging

reading levels. Therefore, my research question is: Will implementing a reading specialist with

struggling readers help increase reading comprehension and reading levels?

Definition of Key Terms

Terms associated with this study are defined as follows:

Developmental Reading Assessments (DRAs) are assessments administered individually to

evaluate a child’s reading capabilities. DRAs are based on a numerical system, and are one way

to determine a child’s independent reading level.


English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) refers to students who speak English as a

second language. Students participating in the ESOL program receive individualized strategies to

help them adjust to English instruction.

Guided reading is small group instruction in which students are grouped based upon their

independent reading level. During guided reading, students are given a new text, and reading

strategies are taught to assist them in reading the given text. Difficulty of the text increases as

students progress throughout reading levels.

Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention program which provides individual instruction for

first graders struggling in the areas of reading and writing.

Reading Specialist refers to a certified teacher who is responsible for instructing and assessing

students’ reading. The specific duties of a reading specialist vary based on an individual school’s

needs.

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-tiered approach to identify and support students who

appear to have unsatisfied learning and/or behavioral needs.

Running Records are reading comprehension assessments used to place students in different

reading levels based on their displayed reading behaviors.

Summative Assessments refer to assessments given to measure the outcome of a particular

program. In this case, assessments are given to measure reading comprehension at the beginning

and ending of each academic quarter.


CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

A child’s reading comprehension can certainly impact their academic success. Allington

(2002), makes an almost insultingly obvious point when he states, “You can’t learn much from

books you don’t read.” The reading skills students acquire in primary grades are the building

blocks that guide them in all of their scholastic endeavors. As educators, it is our responsibility to

navigate students towards reading for meaning so that they can gain every ounce of knowledge

they are capable of absorbing.

Reading specialists are becoming more commonly integrated in schools. Poglinco &

Bach (2004) observe, “With the current focus on early reading interventions, the role of the

reading specialist in improving school wide efforts for prevention and intervention of reading

risk has received increased emphasis.” Reading specialists serve as an aid in supporting

homeroom teachers in schools. While some might think that a reading specialist serves in

providing teachers with professional development, Helf & Cooke (2011) inform us that, “66%

of reading specialists actually spend the majority of the instructional day (i.e., 75%) directly

providing reading instruction to students. This suggests that reading specialists’ focus is on the

instruction of students, not on the instruction and support of teachers.”


In this review of the literature, I discuss many components that affect students’ reading

cognizance. Research on teacher instruction as well as parental involvement are examined. I then

evaluate different programs and resources that are currently being used to improve student

reading apperception, such as Reading Recovery, Early Intervention Programs, and most

specifically, the implementation of reading specialists.

Literature Review

The focus of reading is much more complex than verbalizing words. Proficient readers

are able to interpret and understand the meaning of the text that they read. In primary grades,

students are learning to read. Once they have reached this point, the goal of reading is to learn

new information. This process of moving students from learning to read into reading to learn will

provide them with skills needed throughout their academic advancement.

Importance of Parental Involvement

This section displays research to support the significance of parental involvement and

how it relates to student success. It is initiated by discussing different types of parental

involvement. Next, I discuss research on challenges facing parental involvement.

Types of Parental Involvement

Ideally, children should be getting read to from the moment they enter this world.

Parental involvement plays a pivotal aspect in a student’s reading progression. In their 2013

report, Susan R. Sy, Allen W. Gottfried, and Adele Eskeles Gottfried deducted that there are two

components of parental involvement that impact a child’s academic outcomes. The first

component is academic instruction, which they defined as, “one-on-one interactions between


parent and child that target the development of specific academic skills.” (Sy, Gottfried, &

Gottfried, 2013). Examples of academic instruction are reading to/with children and sculpting

children’s academic skills. The other component, academic socialization, focuses on the parents’

ennoblement of scholarly ideals, beliefs, and apprehensions. This consists of parents providing

their child with academic supplies, maintaining a stimulating climate at home, setting clear and

high expectations, and consistently communicating with their child about their school day.

It would behoove all families to place an equal emphasis on both of these factors. A

child’s impression of the importance of education starts with what they are exposed to at home.

Parents who are regularly involved in their child’s life, both emotionally and academically, will

have children who have a more optimistic outlook on education, and are eager and motivated to

absorb new knowledge.

Sy, Gottfried, & Gottfried (2013) examined children’s reading achievement through

parental academic instruction and academic socialization. Data in their study was collected from

participants between 3 and 17 years of age. The results of their studies found that:

All significant direct effects of parental involvement on children’s achievement were

positive. More specifically, both types of parental involvement in early childhood

significantly predicted children’s emergent reading, and middle childhood academic

socialization predicted children’s reading achievement in adolescence. (Sy, Gottfried, &

Gottfried, 2013)

Nurit Toren, of the University of Haifa in Israel, shared a similar hypothesis to that of Sy,

Gottfried, & Gottfried (2013). Toren hypothesized that parents’ educational involvement is

positively related to two indicators of school-functioning. The two indicators Toren examined


were academic self-competence and academic achievement. These indicators were evaluated

when considering both home and school-based parental involvement. Home-based parental

involvement includes any academic activities conducted at home, while school-based parental

involvement refers to parental participation in volunteer activities at school, parent/teacher

communication, and involvement in school governance such as PTA programs. After conducting

her research, Toren concluded that there was indeed a positive effect of scholastic competence

on academic achievement for both male and female students.

Challenges of Parental Involvement

When parental involvement decreases, students’ academic progress can decrease as well.

The majority of Title 1 schools suffer from a lack of parental involvement. This is by no means a

result of uncaring parents. Families in Title 1 schools face many challenges outside of the

classroom. When families are struggling to make ends meet and provide for the basic needs of

their children, reading with their child may pale in comparison.

With so much research affirming a direct connection between parental involvement and

positive student achievement outcomes, why does parental involvement continue to be such a

struggle in so many schools nation-wide? Aside from the aforementioned challenge of priorities,

there are a variety of other factors that need to be considered. There seems to be a differing in

opinion of parental involvement between parents and teachers. Contrasts between parent and

teacher cultures greatly contribute to these differences in opinions.

In the year 2000, racial and ethnic minorities comprised approximately 28% of America’s

population. By 2010, the United States Census reported that 36.3% of the population belonged to

these minorities (Malone, 2015). This increase in diversity of public schools has resulted in an


increase in the challenges parents and educators face concerning parental involvement. While

the diversity in culture among parents and students has increased, the majority of teacher

population has remained homogenous (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).

Although some trainings have been offered to help better prepare teachers and

administrators for the changing demographics, many educators feel unprepared to effectively

communicate with families of diverse minorities and/or cultures. This lack of preparation means

that many teachers may struggle to recognize different cultures’ forms of parental involvement.

Joyce Epstein states that parental involvement should include communication with educators,

fostering learning at home, volunteering at school, engaging in academic decision-making, and

participating in school and community partnerships (Epstein, 2002).

Fortunately, the motivation of immigrant students when compared to that of their native

counterparts is high. While immigrant students may receive lower scores than native students,

this appears to have no correlation to their interest in school. A phenomenon referred to as

immigrant optimism provides hope for the challenge of parental involvement in differing

cultures. Parental support may be both skill-related and motivational (Villiger, Wandeler, &

Niggli, 2014). In their research, Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, and Holbein (2005) concluded that

there is a positive relationship between parent involvement and the following factors: school

commitment, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, goal orientation, and motivation to read.

Poverty is a struggle all its’ own. Poverty creates an endless list of burdens on the

families it effects. Community poverty has the potential to hinder parents from effectively

influencing adolescents’ to achieve developmental milestones (Levanthal & Brooks-Gunn,

2000). There are few available studies that have examined the role of community poverty on the


association between school-related parental involvement and adolescent academic achievement

(Gordon & Cui, 2014).

In their 2014 study, Gordon and Cui investigated specifically how community poverty

affects school-related parental involvement and academic success. They hypothesized that

school-related parental involvement and its effect on student achievement would be weaker in

areas of poverty when compared to more affluent areas. Results of their research demonstrated

that:

A significant and positive interaction coefficient was found between school-

related parental involvement and community poverty on grade. School-related

parental involvement was less effective for adolescents who lived in communities

with high poverty and, as such, had lower academic achievement (Gordon & Cui,

2014).

The lack of parental involvement potentially places an increased burden on classroom

teachers. Students fall farther behind, and it is the responsibility of the teacher to provide

instruction which will stimulate academic growth. Teachers take advantage of every opportunity

they have to read with their students. Many times, this does not feel like enough due to the other

obligations teachers encounter. Luckily, additional interventions are in place to help students

proceed in the right direction. Examples of interventions provided to help struggling readers are

Reading Recovery, RTI (Response to Intervention), Early Intervention Programs (EIP’s), and the

implementation of reading specialists.


Reading Programs and Interventions

In the following passages, I discuss different programs and interventions which are

currently used in the public school system to meet the needs of struggling readers. I begin by

presenting the definition of the program or intervention. I next discuss previously conducted

research as well as other expertly shared definitions of each program.

Reading Recovery

A variety of programs exist today to aid in early literacy intervention. The county in

which this study is conducted provides Reading Recovery to the lowest achieving first grade

students. These are students who struggle with reading on grade level as well as in writing. The

Reading Recovery program implemented in this county lasts from twelve to twenty weeks, and

has been used in schools across the county since 1993. There are twenty-two Reading Recovery

teachers in this county, working at fourteen different locations. Thirteen out of these twenty sites

are Title 1 schools. (“www.cobbk12.org,” 2015)

During the Reading Recovery program in this county, students are pulled on a daily basis

and receive individualized one-on-one instruction. This instruction includes reading books on

their reading level and daily writing activities. Students are assessed weekly by running records,

and weekly student updates are provided to the child’s homeroom teacher as well as their

parents.

Reading Recovery is designed to temporarily lift the pace of learning, permanently lift

students’ levels of achievement and to build a solid foundation for subsequent literacy learning

(Clay, 2001). While there are plenty of studies which provide evidence about the positive

http://www.cobbk12.org/


outcome of Reading Recovery programs, there is minimal evidence displaying whether or not

students who have participated in these programs maintain these skills and stamina over time.

Rebecca Jesson and Libby Limbrick of the Faculty of Education at the University of

Auckland conducted a two-phase study in which they investigated whether reading achievement

was maintained over a 2-4 year period in comparison with cohort expectations. The second phase

served to identify any factors which contributed to the sustainability of these outcomes. While

some studies support the long-term effects of skills acquired during Reading Recovery, many

others present contrasting results. The majority of the students in their study continued to display

on or above grade level results years after leaving the Reading Recovery program (Jesson &

Limbrick, 2014).

An important factor of establishing continued student reading success post Reading

Recovery is school-wide collaboration and communication. Effective and consistent

communication between homeroom and Reading Recovery teachers ensures that all teachers are

aware of necessary components which contribute to prolonged academic success. In addition,

systematic and consistent progress monitoring will ensure that students who continue to struggle

remain on every teacher’s radar.

Perhaps the most essential factor attributed to future student success goes directly back to

parent and teacher communication. In their 2014 study, Jesson & Limbrick found that:

Finally, it was also apparent that these schools shared a belief in the importance of

strong partnerships with families and community. They identified approaches that

helped parents, many of whom were new immigrants and did not have English as


a home language, to become more involved in school. This was especially true in

the two low-SES schools that we interviewed. (Jesson & Limbrick, 2014, p. 112)

Providing parents with resources and strategies to help their struggling readers serves as an extra

element for prolonged success even after students have spent their allotment in the Reading

Recovery program. While Reading Recovery clearly benefits all students during its term, the true

challenge is maintaining a level of independent student success for the remainder of the student’s

academic endeavors.

Response to Intervention (RTI)

An individualized intervention program for struggling readers is RTI (Response to

Intervention). RTI is a program that was initialized in 2004 by the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act (IDIEA), and enables schools to provide the level and type of early

intervention necessary to meet the needs of students with early academic risk (Simmons, Kim, et.

al., 2015). RTI with regards to reading focuses on differentiating the acceleration of reading

based on a specific struggling child’s needs.

Students on RTI are given specific strategies to focus on in order to meet a customized

learning goal or objective. Common components of RTI include: (a) providing all-encompassing

top notch classroom instruction, (b) screening all students to determine those who are at risk for

future reading struggles, (c) utilizing evidence-based supplemental intervention for students who

need increased support, and (d) intensifying the level of support for students who do not respond

to supplemental intervention based on progress monitoring data (Bradley, Danielson, &

Doolittle, 2005).


Every student is initially considered to be on Tier 1. Students who need individualized

attention are placed on Tier 2 in order to better assist their unique needs. Students can be placed

on Tier 2 in reading for a variety of reasons. Students who are below grade level in reading

should be promptly assessed to see if RTI would benefit them. An example of a reading Tier 2

strategy I have personally used with students in my school is to increase sight word knowledge to

boost reading fluency and comprehension. A typical goal for this type of tier would involve

having the students learn five new sight words each week until it brought them on or above grade

level.

In my county, RTI Tier 2 meetings are held with grade level teams every six weeks to

monitor student progress. During these meetings, teachers collaborate about successful strategies

and share ideas about ways to better assess individual student needs. If a strategy is not working

with a student after the six week period, the strategy can be changed, or the teacher may decide

to move the student up to Tier 3. Students who meet or exceed tier goals can be placed back on

Tier 1.

As with any program, it is crucial that teachers reflect on their instruction and are

provided with timely feedback. In a fairly recent study, Felicia Castro-Villareal, along with Billie

Jo Rodriguez and Staci Moore inform us that:

To effectively deliver appropriate supports, schools need regular data to provide

feedback on how the system (i.e., school or grade level) is functioning as well as

how individual students are responding to the coordinated support. To this end,

screening and progress monitoring procedures ensure students with needs are

readily identified to prevent problems from becoming more robust. Evidence-


based practices are implemented to best meet students' needs and maximize

school resources in the most efficient manner. Leadership and on-going

professional development are the final two critical features for implementing

school-wide models of support. (Castro-Villareal, Rodriguez, & Moore, 2014).

During their study, Castro-Villareal, Rodriguez, and Moore (2014) examined teachers’

perceptions of and attitudes about Response to Intervention. Qualitative data was collected from

potential participants in a large urban city in the Southwestern United States. These teachers

were given a list of six open-ended questions regarding the RTI program, which are as follows:

1.) Please provide your definition/description of RTI in 3-5 sentences.

2.) Please explain what aspects of RTI are confusing.

3.) List a few barriers to RTI in your classroom.

4.) Name some things that would make RTI more efficient.

5.) Please name 3 things that can improve RTI in your school.

6.) Please describe what would make RTI requirements easier.

While 93% of participants provided a definition of RTI, only 19% of participants included key

concepts of the actual definition, and 78% of participants received a “poor” rating for their

definition. This concludes that many teachers today still have misconceptions about the purpose

of RTI. When interviewed about RTI paperwork, many teachers claimed that documentation was

difficult to keep up with and that paperwork involved is unmanageable (Castro-Villareal,

Rodriguez, & Moore, 2014). While the RTI program creates additional work for classroom

teachers, it is one of many helpful ways to meet students’ educational demands.


Self-Contained EIP (Early Intervention Program) Classrooms

Students who are struggling or below grade level greatly need individualized instruction.

These students require more frequent assistance and monitoring from teachers to ensure that they

are absorbing the material that they are presented. One way to assist these children is to place

them in classes with a smaller number of students. This enables teachers to create smaller guided

groups and provide more direct attention.

Parents often misunderstand the definition and implications of a self-contained EIP

classroom. Self-contained EIP classrooms are commonly mistaken for Special Education classes.

Students who are in Special Education classrooms have already been diagnosed as having a

disability (learning, emotional, behavioral, physical, developmental, etc.). Students are

determined as eligible for placement in self-contained EIP classrooms by a number of factors

which are determined by that county’s individual policies. These students generally have not yet

been labeled as having any type of disability.

In my particular county, students receive eligibility to be placed in a self-contained EIP

class as determined by their reading level, as well as a variety of summative and formative tests.

Documentation must be provided to the county to authenticate all participants’ eligibility. The

Georgia Department of Education (2015) explains the Early Intervention Program by stating:

Children start school at a designated chronological age, but differ greatly in their

intellectual development and experience base. The Early Intervention Program

(EIP) is designed to serve students who are at risk of not reaching or maintaining

academic grade level. The purpose of the Early Intervention Program is to provide

additional instructional resources to help students who are performing below


grade level obtain the necessary academic skills to reach grade level performance

in the shortest possible time. (Georgia Department of Education, 2015)

Self-contained EIP classrooms are particularly powerful during the primary years.

Reynolds, Wheldall, and Madelaine claim that, “while interventions can be implemented to

overcome initial difficulties in reading accuracy, once a student has missed out on reading

significant amounts of text for two to three years, it is difficult to catch up.” (As cited in

Torgesen, 2005) Reynolds (2005), strengthens her argument by claiming, “There appear, then, to

be clear reasons to focus on interventions that include instruction to develop accuracy and

fluency in word identification for students in the first two to three years of schooling.”

Reading Specialists

Reading specialists have been around for decades. The initial role of reading

specialists was to work with small groups of struggling readers. Currently, in addition to working

with remedial groups, the International Reading Association (IRA) holds reading specialists

accountable for, “providing expert instruction, assessment, and leadership for the reading

program.” (Selvaggi, 2014)

Implementing a reading specialist in the classroom is an adjustment for the classroom

teacher and reading specialist alike. If both parties are not aware of the responsibilities and role

of the reading specialist, altercations may occur. Rita M. Bonk (1998) conducted a study in

which she hypothesized that teachers in an urban K-4 school district would not take full

advantage of a reading specialist due to lack of awareness or understanding. Teachers as well as

reading specialists were given a survey to demonstrate their current knowledge of the role of a

reading specialist. While her research suggested that viewpoints on reading specialists’ most


essential responsibilities differed, the findings suggested that, “Teachers do know the role of the

reading specialist and do use the suggestions and strategies recommended to them thereby,

refuting the hypothesis.” (Bonk, 1998)

Perhaps one reason for the growing use of reading specialists is efficiently stated by

Galloway & Lesaux (2014), who note:

Unlike decades past, when the emphasis was on remediating individual students’ reading

difficulties, today’s reading reform efforts, such as the CCSS, emphasize both preventing

reading difficulties and maximizing all students’ opportunities to learn. With this has

come a strong push to look at patterns in aggregated student data, within and across

groups, to shed light on how readers are performing and to guide improvement efforts

aimed at reducing the overall numbers of struggling readers. (Galloway & Lesaux, 2014)

Conceivably, the concise role(s) of reading specialists is frequently questioned. Galloway

and Lesaux had three major themes in their knowledge of reading specialists. Their first belief

was that reading specialists have an array of duties, and their level of comfortableness with these

assignments varies. Next, Galloway and Lesaux (2014) deducted that different stakeholders

would possess different perceptions of what should be expected from reading specialists. Third,

they claim that certain contextual factors exist which can influence how the role of a reading

specialist is enacted.

It is the role of administration to make sure that any staff member affiliated with reading

specialists has a clear understanding of all professional expectations. This prevents any

miscommunications or displaced feelings that could potentially get in the way of successful

collaboration. Additional contextual factors that can impact the success of implementing a


reading specialist include the type of school (elementary, secondary), school performance, and

the level of professionalism within the school. The consideration of all three of these themes will

help all professionals to work more productively at meeting the needs of struggling readers.

Reading Assessments

The next section presents differing forms of assessments that are used to measure

students’ reading abilities. These assessments are used by teachers to regulate and update

students’ reading levels and guided groups. The research displayed shares definitions and

opinions of DRA’s (Developmental Reading Assessments), Running Records and summative

assessments.

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)

Developmental Reading Assessments are one of two commonly used assessments to

evaluate students’ reading fluency and comprehension. Both DRA’s and running records are

administered individually to students. Once evaluated, teachers can determine a student’s

independent reading level. They are also able to use this reading level for instructional guided

reading planning purposes.

Developed in 1986, Developmental Reading Assessments analyze nine components of

reading behavior and six types of literate errors. This assessment was developed by educators for

educators, and was most recently revised in 2003. Developmental Reading Assessments are

timed once a student gets past a certain numeric level. Students are scored with DRA’s based on

their time, accuracy, and comprehension. (“www.scholastic.com,” 2015)

http://www.scholastic.com/


Running Records

It is imperative that teachers employ consistently used assessments to monitor their

students’ progress. A very commonly used assessment of student reading ability is the running

record. Running records test the use of student strategies and reading accuracy. Contrary to

DRA’s, or Developmental Reading Assessment levels, there is no limit on time. Clay (1993)

states that, “Running records are a widely used reading-assessment process developed originally

for children’s Reading Recovery programs.” More recently, running records have been used by

teachers to monitor all of their students’ progress in reading.

Running records provide teachers with an opportunity to evaluate students’ strengths and

weaknesses when reading independently. By regularly monitoring and diagnosing students’

reading abilities, student achievement in reading is improved. Pressley and colleagues (2001)

reported that:

The most effective primary-grade teachers conducted running record assessments as

described in Reading Recovery during student reading instruction (Clay, 1993). Teachers

who were aware of running record information dealing with students’ contextual reading

were more likely to use these data to match students to appropriate interventions and

instruction-level texts.

Summative Assessments

Summative assessments are given across all content areas. These assessments evaluate

student progress and learning at the end of a given period of time. Common examples of


summative assessments include: questionnaires, surveys, testing, projects, and observations. The

most common form of summative assessment I give my students is a pre and post-test across

subject areas in a given school quarter.

In a 2013 study on how teachers can use summative assessments formatively, Nancy R.

Hoover and Lisa M. Abrams investigated the extent to which teachers use summative data to

formatively adjust instruction. “For instance, the use of assessment data to make instructional or

evidence-based decisions has become an increasingly important part of the teaching and learning

process.” (Hoover & Abrams, 2013)

Hoover and Abrams also discuss the importance of using data collaboratively when they

state, “Assessment data is better examined in a collaborative culture. It is through collaboration

with colleagues that teachers exchange effective instructional strategies and interventions.”

(Hoover & Abrams, 2013) All summative assessments at my school are created collaboratively

by grade-level teams. Summative reading assessments measure student reading comprehension

by instructing students to answer questions based on passages they have just read.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Design

Quantitative data were collected by considering a group comparison design. Summative

assessments and DRA’s of four below grade level students from my 2014 – 2015 school year

(students 1 – 4; subgroup A) are compared to the summative assessments and DRA’s of four

below grade level students from my 2015 – 2016 school year (students 5 – 8; subgroup B).


Subgroup A students were in the same class setting as Subgroup B. The variable group

(Subgroup B) spent the entire school year receiving additional support from our class reading

specialist. The control group (Subgroup A) did not work with a reading specialist. Both

subgroups of students were first graders in a self-contained EIP classroom setting.

Demographics

The elementary school participants attended is nestled in a suburb of a large County in

the southeastern United States. This high transiency school enrolls between 500 and 600

students. As of 2015, the transiency rate is 40.5 percent. African-American students represent the

majority of the school, at 60.5% of the population. Hispanic students are the second largest

population, making up 25.9% of the student body. There is a 9.2 percentage of Caucasian

students, and 3.5% represent all other ethnicities.

Being a qualified Title 1 school, 90.3% of students and their families are considered to be

at an economic disadvantage. Any child at a Title 1 school has the ability to purchase a meal

through the National School Lunch Program. Families with “incomes between 130 % and 185 %

of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no

more than 40 cents. Children from families with incomes at or below 130% of the poverty level

are eligible for free meals.” (“www.startclass.com,” 2015) 29.5% of adult residents in this area

had a Bachelor’s Degree or higher as of the most recent 2013 data (“www.census.gov,” 2013). A

college degree is an additional factor that can greatly impact the amount of income a family

collects annually.

http://www.census.gov/



Participants

The participants in this study are from two separate years in a self-contained EIP

first grade classroom. I instructed all students in the study in all core content areas. Subgroup A

consists of students from my 2014 – 2015 school year, in which no reading specialist was

utilized. These four students came from a class consisting of twelve students. There were seven

girls and five boys in this class. Eight of the twelve students identified as African – American,

two were Hispanic (ESOL), and two were Caucasian.

The four students considered for subgroup A are two males and two females who were

identified at the start of the school year as being EIP due to below grade level DRA’s. Both

males and one female were African American. The other female was Caucasian. All four of these

students were initially listed as Tier 2 on the RTI spectrum, suggesting that they needed

additional reading strategies to assist them.

Similarly to subgroup A, subgroup B consists of two male and two female students.

These students were under my instruction for the 2015-2016 school year, and all started below

grade level in reading as suggested by their August DRA levels. These students were in a class of

sixteen students. Eight out of sixteen students are African-American, five are Hispanic (ESOL),

and three are Caucasian. Both of the females identified as African-American. One of the males is

listed as African-American, while the other is Hispanic. The African-American male is listed as

Tier 2 for academics, Tier 3 for behavior, and he is also Tier 3 for Speech on the RTI spectrum.

There are several strategies in a self-contained EIP classroom structure that serve to

benefit struggling readers. A reduced class size aims to provide students with more frequent

interactions with the teacher in smaller groups for more individualized attention. The Reading


Recovery program is also utilized for the lowest readers in the classroom. Students participating

in Reading Recovery get pulled daily by the Reading Recovery teacher to receive one-on-one

instruction. The reading specialist during the 2015 – 2016 served as additional support for these

struggling readers.

Students in both subgroups met weekly to participate in guided reading groups with me.

Students in subgroup B also met weekly with the reading specialist to participate in her guided

reading groups. The reading specialist served my class all day every Monday and Tuesday. A

running record was completed on every student on a weekly basis to determine if they were

eligible to move up a reading level. The reading specialist conducted similar research. During the

2015 – 2016 year, I updated the reading specialist weekly on any students who were moving up

levels, and she adjusted her plans considering.

Based on the County report card standards at the beginning of the school year, students

needed to be reading on a level D to be considered on grade level. By the end of the year, this

expectation increases to level I. This would equate to a level 16 on the DRA (Developmental

Reading Assessment) scale. To receive the highest ranking of 3 on a 3, 2, 1 scale in summative

assessments, students must receive an 85 % or higher grade on the assessment completed. To

assess students’ progress, DRA’s and summative assessments were taken quarterly. Subgroup

A’s data was then compared to subgroup B’s data to see if there was a significant difference in

range of improvement.

The main objective of this research was to investigate the effect that implementing a

reading specialist in students’ weekly curriculum could have on their reading motivation, in turn

affecting their reading levels and comprehension. Reading levels are a direct representation of


students’ reading comprehension. This comprehension is essential for students to advance as

academic and divergent learners.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

DRAs

DRAs (Developmental Reading Assessments) are given to students on a quarterly basis,

with the first assessment given at the start of the school year. Grade level measurements increase

with each quarter of the school year based on the Cobb County report card. In the fall, a level D

(6) is on-level. In the winter, this increases to a level E (8). Spring DRAs are ideally taken at the

end of the school year, which would require a level I (16) to be on level. Due to time restraints,

Spring DRAs for Subgroup B were taken in March of 2016.

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 40

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Subgroup A 2014-2015 DRA Levels

DRA Fall DRA Winter DRA Spring


Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 80

5

10

15

20

25

30

Subgroup B 2015-2016 DRA Levels

DRA Fall DRA Winter DRA Spring

The bar graphs above measure students’ individual DRA progression in both Subgroup A

and Subgroup B. The first two students in each subgroup are female, and the second two students

in the subgroups are male. All students in both subgroups started off the school year below grade

level.

The data shows that in both school years, the two females reached higher reading levels

than the two males. In Subgroup A, only one student was on or above grade level for their Spring

DRA. In Subgroup B, two students were on or above grade level for the Spring DRA. Student 6

was four levels above grade-level which is represented in her spring DRA.

While every student showed growth, students in Subgroup B showed a higher growth rate

due to the amount of students on or above grade level in reading. These DRA results show a

positive correlation that implementing a reading specialist had on struggling readers. 25% of the

students assessed in Subgroup A were on or above graded level on Spring DRA’s while, 50% of

the students assessed in Subgroup B were on or above Spring DRA grade level.


Summative Assessments

Similarly to DRAs, comprehension summative assessments are given to students

quarterly. However, while DRAs are given once each quarter, summative assessments are given

bi-quarterly. Students take the same summative assessment type at the beginning and end of each

quarter. The graphs below display the percent of students in each subgroup who received a

passing summative score on post-summative testing. A passing score would be considered a 2

(progressing toward standard) or a 3 (meets standard) on the Cobb County grading scale.

1st Qtr

2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr

4th Qtr

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent of Students with Passing Summative Scores - Subgroup A (2014 - 2016)

Percent of Students with Passing Summative Scores - Subgroup A (2014 - 2016)

1st Qtr

2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr

4th Qtr

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Percent of Students with Passing Summative Scores - Subgroup B (2015 - 2016)

Percent of Students with Passing Summative Scores - Subgroup B (2015 - 2016)


The results show that students in Subgroup A performed lower on post-summative testing

in the first quarter, with only one student progressing towards the standards. Subgroup A made

and maintained a 50 % increase in quarters 2 and 3, then regressed in the 4th quarter, with only

two students who met the standards.

Participants in Subgroup B all met or exceeded the standards in the first quarter’s

summative assessment. This trend continued for Subgroup B in the second quarter. In the third

quarter, one less student received a passing summative score. Fourth quarter assessments

measured that all students received a passing score.

Similarly to the given DRAs, the summative assessments appear to suggest that

implementing a reading specialist aided in improving reading comprehension. The majority of

students made quarterly improvements, with the strongest improvements among Subgroup B.

Limitations

Several significant limitations must be considered upon reflection of comparing separate

students within separate school years. During the 2014-2015 school year, the class structure of

self-contained EIP classrooms was evenly dispersed. The 2015-2016 school year changed this

formatting entirely. Instead of three randomly scattered EIP class lists, the EIP classes were

separated into three different classrooms based on ability. The students in my 2015-2016 class

were comprised of the lowest performing students based on their kindergarten data.

In addition, while Subgroup A’s DRA’s were taken in May, Subgroup B’s DRA levels

were taken in March. It is conceivable that students in Subgroup B will be at an even higher

DRA level by the end of the school year, which would impact the effectiveness of the data

measured.


Discussion and Conclusion

The study was conducted to assess the effects of implementing a reading specialist with

struggling readers. Student reading levels were analyzed and measured using Developmental

Reading Assessments. Reading comprehension was evaluated using quarterly summative

assessments which contained multiple reading passages and corresponding questions.

Potential challenging factors for the school studied include transiency, attendance,

behavior, and parental involvement. Out of the 584 students enrolled, 58 parents participated in

the PTA program, representing approximately 10% of those involved. Within the 2015-2016

school year, I lost two students but gained two more.

The data collected in DRAs supports a positive correlation that working with a Reading

Specialist had on students’ reading levels and comprehension. One student was on or above

grade level in Subgroup A, while two of the students in Subgroup B were on or above grade

level.

Furthermore, the results of quarterly summative comprehension tests also support the

notion that Reading Specialists positively impact students’ reading comprehension. All four

students in Subgroup A received passing summative scores for 50% of the year, while all four

students in Subgroup B received passing summative scores for 75% of the school year. The

lowest percent of students passing summative assessments for Subgroup A was 25%, while the

lowest percent of students passing summative assessments for Subgroup B was 75%. The

increased percentage of passing scores in Subgroup B would suggest that Reading Specialists in

addition to regular classroom instruction improve reading comprehension.


Implications and Recommendations

The effectiveness of Reading Specialists is contingent upon teacher collaboration in

addition to student participation. Upon integrating the specialists in classrooms this year, neither

the specialists nor homeroom teachers had any preparation for working with Reading Specialists

in place. Future preparation and professional learning might increase productivity and

effectiveness of Reading Specialists within the classroom. While the data suggests a positive

effect of implementing Reading Specialists, this effect could be even stronger with an increase in

professional learning.


References

Allington, R.L. (2002). You Can’t Learn Much From Books You Can’t Read. Leadership, 60 (3),

16-19.

Bonk, R. M. (1998, May 1). The Effects of a Reading Specialist in a K-4 School.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 38, 485–486.

Castro-Villarreal, F., Rodriguez, B. J., & Moore, S. (2014). Teachers' perceptions and attitudes

about Response to Intervention (RTI) in their schools: A qualitative analysis. Teaching And

Teacher Education, 40, 104-112.

Clay, M. M. (1993). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Auckland, N.Z.:

Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann, 1993.

Clay, M.M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Auckland: Heinemann.

“Cobb County School Disctrict.” Retrieved from www.cobbk12.org, October 24, 2015.

Epstein, J., Sanders, M., Simon, B., Salinas, K.,Jansorn, N., 8C Van Voorhis, F. (2002). School,

family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Fawson, P. C., Ludlow, B. C., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., & Smith, J. A. (2006). Examining

the Reliability of Running Records: Attaining Generalizable Results. Journal Of Educational

Research, 100(2), 113-126.

http://www.cobbk12.org/


Friedland, E.S., & Truesdell, K.S. (2004). Kids reading together: Ensuring the success of a

buddy reading program, 76-83.

“GaDOE Georgia Department of Education.” Retrieved from

https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-

Instruction/Pages/Early-Intervention-Program.aspx, October 26th, 2015.

Galloway, E. P., & Lesaux, N. K. (2014). Leader, Teacher, Diagnostician, Colleague, and

Change Agent. Reading Teacher, 67(7), 517-526.

Gonzalez-DeHass, A.R., Willems, P.P., Holbein, M.F.D. (2005). Examining the Relationship

between Parental Involvement and Student Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17

(2) (2005), 99–123.

Gordon, M., & Cui, M. (2014). School-Related Parental Involvement and Adolescent Academic

Achievement: The Role of Community Poverty. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary

Journal Of Applied Family Studies, 63 (5), 616-626.

Helf, S., & Cooke, N. L. (2011). Reading Specialist: Key to a Systematic Schoolwide Reading

Model. Preventing School Failure, 55(3), 140-147.

Hoover, N. R., & Abrams, L. M. (2013). Teachers' Instructional Use of Summative Student

Assessment Data. Applied Measurement In Education, 26(3), 219-231.

Jesson, R. L. (2014). Can gains from early literacy interventions be sustained? The case of

https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Instruction/Pages/Early-Intervention-Program.aspx

https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Instruction/Pages/Early-Intervention-Program.aspx


Reading Recovery. Journal Of Research In Reading, 37(1), 102-117.

Kaplan Toren, N. (2013). MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND

ITS LINKS TO YOUNG ADOLESCENT SELF-EVALUATION AND ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT. Psychology In The Schools, 50(6), 634-649

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of

neighborhood residence upon child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126,

309 – 337.

Malone, D. (2015). Culture: A Potential Challenge for Parental Involvement in Schools. Delta

Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82(1), 14-18.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010, March). Essential components of RTI—A

closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.

Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/resourcetype/essential-components-rti-closer-

lookresponse-intervention, October 26th, 2015.

Poglinco, S. M., & Bach, A. J. (2004, January). The heart of the matter: Coaching as a vehicle

for professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 298–400.

Pressley. M., Wharton-McDonald, R.. Allington, R., Block. C. C, Morrow, L., Tracey, D., et al.

(2001). A study of effective first grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Raiding, 5{ 1),

http://www.rti4success.org/resourcetype/essential-components-rti-closer-lookresponse-intervention

http://www.rti4success.org/resourcetype/essential-components-rti-closer-lookresponse-intervention


35—5

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2011). What Recent Reviews Tell Us About the

Efficacy of Reading Interventions for Struggling Readers in the Early Years of Schooling.

International Journal Of Disability, Development & Education, 58(3), 257-286.

“Scholastic.” Retrieved from www.scholastic.com, October 27th, 2015.

Selvaggi, T. (2014). Roles of Reading Professionals: The Literacy Coach and the Reading

Specialist. New Mexico Journal Of Reading, 34(2), 26.

Simmons, D.C., Kim, M., Kwok, O., Coyne, M.D., Simmons, L.E., Oslund, E., Forgarty, M.,

Hagan-Burke, S., Little, M.E., & Rawlinson, D. (2015). Examining the Effects of Linking

Student Performance and Progression in a Tier 2 Kindergarten Reading Intervention. Journal

Of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), 255-270.

“Startclass.” Retrieved from www.startclass.com, October 29th, 2015.

Sy, S. R., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (2013). A Transactional Model of Parental

Involvement and Children's Achievement from Early Childhood through Adolescence.

Parenting: Science & Practice, 13(2), 133-152 20p.

Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent Discoveries from Research in Remedial Interventions for

Children with Dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The Science of Reading: A

Handbook (pp. 521–537). Oxford: Blackwell.


http://www.scholastic.com/


“United States Census Bureau.” Retrieved from www.census.gov, October 29th, 2015

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS), Public School Teacher Data File, 2011-12. Washington, DC:

Author.

Villiger, C., Wandeler, C., & Niggli, A. (2014). Explaining differences in reading motivation

between immigrant and native students: The role of parental involvement. International

Journal of Educational Research. 64, 12-25.

Wickrama, K. A. S., & Bryant, C. M. (2003). Community contexts of social resources and

adolescent mental health. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

65, 850 – 866.

Wickrama, K. S., Noh, S., & Bryant, C. M. (2005). Racial differences in adolescent distress:

Differential effects of the family and community for blacks and whites. Journal of

Community Psychology, 33, 261 – 282.

http://www.census.gov/


APPENDICES

Sample DRA assessment (displayed above)

Documents

hkrugksumed.weebly.com · Web viewIn impoverished or struggling environments, the majority of this support comes from within the school system. Commonly used support methods include