Abstract from Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005, April/May/June). The Effects of Theoretically Different Instruction and Student Characteristics on the Skills of Struggling Readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2
This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on academic outcomes and whether children's characteristics were differentially related to an instructional intervention. One intervention (Proactive Reading) was aligned with behavioral theory and was derived from the model of Direct Instruction. The other intervention (Responsive Reading) was aligned with a cognitive theory and was derived from a cognitive-apprenticeship model. These interventions were provided to small groups of first-grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Students were assessed on various reading and reading-related measures associated with success in beginning reading. Results indicated that (a) first-grade students who were at risk for reading failure and who received supplemental instruction in the Responsive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures of reading and reading-related skills than students who received only enhanced classroom instruction, (b) enhanced classroom instruction appeared to promote high levels of reading growth for many children at risk for reading failure, (c) the two interventions were essentially equally effective even though they reflected different theoretical perspectives, and (d) children's characteristics did not differentially predict the effectiveness of an intervention.
The problem is without effective early instruction, which may require supplemental instruction, initial reading difficulties may eventually be compounded as students fall further and further behind their peers and continue with ineffective strategies for coping with reading failure. With a continued use of these strategies students may be learning to be disabled. The children who were in this study were six United States schools in a large urban Texas school district. The school's were selected based on their high proficiency rating in reading by the Texas Department of education and the school district. The kindergartners who were used were based on the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI). A strength of the study is that it determined that high-quality classroom instruction is a primary factor in determining success. A weakness of the research is is still not clear how much instruction must occur, how contextualized skills instruction needs to be, and the level of intensity at which it must occur in order for struggling readers to succeed. The implications for this are that it affirms the value of providing early intervention to struggling readers. The most important finding is that supplemental intervention from different theoretical perspectives were both effective. There is no best approach or one right way every it is important to take a proactive and responsive approach that is relevant to each individual child.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Article #6 Research on Reading/Learning Disability Interventions
0Abstract of Allington, R.L. (2002).Research on Reading/Learning Disability Interventions.In A.E. Farstrup, & S. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 261-290). Newark, DE: International Reading Association
The author points out that definitions of “reading disability” and “learning disability” are remarkably inconsistent and, in the United States, have shifted significantly over the years, largely due to political considerations. Despite the ambiguities in definitions, however, there is research on interventions that may prove effective with children who, for a variety of reasons, struggle to learn to read. The chapter summarizes research on preventive designs, acceleration designs, and more systemic, longer term approaches, concluding that a reconceptualizing of reading/learning disability is needed to achieve the desired goal of improved reading achievement for all children.
The Problem is that often there are not clear definitions between what can be considered a reading or learning disability. The research came from the records of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the shift to how research standards are set to distinguish achievement based on prior performance. The researchers found not all children learn to read and write the same way and at the same achievement level. Teachers should not segregate and label students who are experiencing difficulty and are struggling to become literate. The school system as a whole needs to resturcture the instructional program and produce more accurate intervention designs as well as developing more accurate litereacy instruction. A strenghth of the research states that when a program has sufficient results in literacy development the instructional method and curriculum are usually the predinating factors. A weaknesses of the research states that althought the methods and materails are one answer they are not the only answer, acheiving these standards set by policy makers will require additional funding and unfortunately funding is unlikely due to low budgets. The implications for this research says that all achildren should be reading by grade 4, there are criteria for grade-level reading achievement for promotion tot he next grade. There needs to be political and professional attention based on literacy funding to design a program that answers the problem.
The author points out that definitions of “reading disability” and “learning disability” are remarkably inconsistent and, in the United States, have shifted significantly over the years, largely due to political considerations. Despite the ambiguities in definitions, however, there is research on interventions that may prove effective with children who, for a variety of reasons, struggle to learn to read. The chapter summarizes research on preventive designs, acceleration designs, and more systemic, longer term approaches, concluding that a reconceptualizing of reading/learning disability is needed to achieve the desired goal of improved reading achievement for all children.
The Problem is that often there are not clear definitions between what can be considered a reading or learning disability. The research came from the records of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the shift to how research standards are set to distinguish achievement based on prior performance. The researchers found not all children learn to read and write the same way and at the same achievement level. Teachers should not segregate and label students who are experiencing difficulty and are struggling to become literate. The school system as a whole needs to resturcture the instructional program and produce more accurate intervention designs as well as developing more accurate litereacy instruction. A strenghth of the research states that when a program has sufficient results in literacy development the instructional method and curriculum are usually the predinating factors. A weaknesses of the research states that althought the methods and materails are one answer they are not the only answer, acheiving these standards set by policy makers will require additional funding and unfortunately funding is unlikely due to low budgets. The implications for this research says that all achildren should be reading by grade 4, there are criteria for grade-level reading achievement for promotion tot he next grade. There needs to be political and professional attention based on literacy funding to design a program that answers the problem.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Article #5 Struggling Readers A Child's Response to Intervention Requires a Responsive Teacher of Reading
Abstract from Lose, M.K. (2007, November). A Child's Response to Intervention Requires a Responsive Teacher of Reading. The Reading Teacher, 61(3), 276–279. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.3.9
There are a number of principles that teachers of reading and administrators need to keep in mind to ensure that Response to Intervention (RTI) enables struggling literacy learners to achieve success within the provisions of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). The author argues for evidence-based RTI approaches that emphasize teacher expertise and sustained teacher development, that are scalable, and that can be implemented immediately by education systems.
The Problem is that state education agencies may establish the criteria needed to identify children with disabilities, but the local agencies choose the RTI model. So the studies above are trying to identify what models work the best. The best evidence-based interventions from What Works Clearinghouse, founded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute for Educational Sciences. There were 20 models of which one was a Reading Recovery program. The Reading Recovery scored the highest and only three of the remaining nineteen were positive interventions.
The criteria for an appropriate RTI program are Ensure Early Identification for all children struggling with literacy learning and provide a way to correctly identify children who are LD.
early Intervention Services should include effective, intensive, evidence based services. The school should document and provident evidence of adequate yearly progress to a team of highly qualified professionals who support comprehensive literacy developments. The principles of a successful program include: a child learning to red is an individual, the child should respond successfully, the most struggling child requires the most successful teacher, and teachers should maintain high-quality professional development.
The strengths are the research came ot the following conclusions: A child, not a group needs to read. The only valid RTI approach is one in which the child responds in a positive way. In order to be successful even the child that struggles the most needs a trained professional who is an expert and is able to make moment-by-moment decisions. The research also covered beginning reading programs in the four key domains: alphabetic, reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. A weakness of the 20 interventions reviewed by the What Works Clearing House was that only one of the interventions were a Reading Recovery model. This model scored the highest and it would have been beneficial to have more than one approach of a positive model of this type.
Implications of the article are that teachers have a responsibility to implement highly-rated evidence -based approaches by a skilled, responsive teacher. Reading professionals have enough information from existing positive programs to give struggling students appropriate, and timely responses to the challenges of RTI. The lowest performing students must be identified early so that appropriate interventions and tiers of support can be provided within a comprehensive approach at the first indication of difficulty.
There are a number of principles that teachers of reading and administrators need to keep in mind to ensure that Response to Intervention (RTI) enables struggling literacy learners to achieve success within the provisions of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). The author argues for evidence-based RTI approaches that emphasize teacher expertise and sustained teacher development, that are scalable, and that can be implemented immediately by education systems.
The Problem is that state education agencies may establish the criteria needed to identify children with disabilities, but the local agencies choose the RTI model. So the studies above are trying to identify what models work the best. The best evidence-based interventions from What Works Clearinghouse, founded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute for Educational Sciences. There were 20 models of which one was a Reading Recovery program. The Reading Recovery scored the highest and only three of the remaining nineteen were positive interventions.
The criteria for an appropriate RTI program are Ensure Early Identification for all children struggling with literacy learning and provide a way to correctly identify children who are LD.
early Intervention Services should include effective, intensive, evidence based services. The school should document and provident evidence of adequate yearly progress to a team of highly qualified professionals who support comprehensive literacy developments. The principles of a successful program include: a child learning to red is an individual, the child should respond successfully, the most struggling child requires the most successful teacher, and teachers should maintain high-quality professional development.
The strengths are the research came ot the following conclusions: A child, not a group needs to read. The only valid RTI approach is one in which the child responds in a positive way. In order to be successful even the child that struggles the most needs a trained professional who is an expert and is able to make moment-by-moment decisions. The research also covered beginning reading programs in the four key domains: alphabetic, reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. A weakness of the 20 interventions reviewed by the What Works Clearing House was that only one of the interventions were a Reading Recovery model. This model scored the highest and it would have been beneficial to have more than one approach of a positive model of this type.
Implications of the article are that teachers have a responsibility to implement highly-rated evidence -based approaches by a skilled, responsive teacher. Reading professionals have enough information from existing positive programs to give struggling students appropriate, and timely responses to the challenges of RTI. The lowest performing students must be identified early so that appropriate interventions and tiers of support can be provided within a comprehensive approach at the first indication of difficulty.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
