Soar to Success: an Instructional Inquiry on a Reading Comprehension Curriculum for Students

Soar to Success: An Instructional Inquiry on a Reading Comprehension Curriculum for Students

with Significant Reading Deficits

Tina Buhlman, B.M.E.

Otterbein University

2017

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Arts in Education degree.

Dr. Erica Womack ______

Advisor Signature Date

Dr. Adele Weiss ______

Second Reader Signature Date

Dr. Diane Ross ______

Third Reader Signature Date SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Tina Buhlman

2017

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my husband, David, for not only understanding my need

for solitude during parts of this process, but also for being my conscience and kicking me in the

pants on days when I didn’t want to work.

Additionally, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Erica Womack, for her thoughtful advice and

input throughout my writing.

Also, many thanks to my friend, Kaylyn Armstrong, for keeping me honest, and offering her

support for the duration of this project.

iii

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Vita

Teaching Experience

2015 - Present Intervention Specialist

Pleasant View Middle School

South-Western City School District

Grove City, Ohio

2014-2015 Long Term Sub- Intervention Specialist

Sells Middle School

Dublin City Schools

Dublin, Ohio

2012-2014 Substitute Teacher- Multiple Subjects/Grades

Multiple districts around the city

Columbus, Ohio

2010-2011 General Music Teacher

Hutchings Elementary School

Howell Public Schools

Howell, Michigan

2009-2010 General Music Teacher

Hillside and Longacre Elementary Schools

Farmington Public Schools

Farmington Hills, Michigan

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Education

2017 Master of Arts in Education

Special Education

Otterbein University

Westerville, Ohio

2009 Bachelor of Music Education

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

VITA iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF FIGURES viii

ABSTRACT 1

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 2

Introduction 2

Research Question 4

SECTION TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

Reading Comprehension 4

Struggling Readers 11

Intellectual Disabilities 14

Reciprocal Teaching 18

SECTION THREE: METHODOLOGY 24

Background 24

Setting and Materials 27

Participants 29

Procedures 33

SECTION FOUR: RESULTS 37

Narrative Summary Discussion 38

Baseline 1 38

Intervention 1 Procedures 39

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Intervention 1 Analysis 40

Baseline 2 44

Intervention 2 Analysis 45

Informational Summary Discussion 49

Baseline 1 49

Intervention 1 Procedures 50

Intervention 1 Analysis 51

Baseline 2 54

Intervention 2 Analysis 55

STAR Reading Assessment Discussion 57

SECTION FIVE: LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 60

Limitations of the Study 60

Implications 63

REFERENCES 65

vii

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Rubric for Informational Summary Method 35

Figure 2: Rubric for SWBST Summary Method 36

Figure 3: Narrative Summary Baseline 1 Data Graph 38

Figure 4: Student 5 Intervention 2 Narrative Summary 42

Figure 5: Intervention 1 Narrative Summary Data Graph 43

Figure 6: Baseline 2 Narrative Summary Data Graph 44

Figure 7: Student 2 Intervention 2 Narrative Summary 46

Figure 8: Student 3 Intervention 2 Narrative Summary 47

Figure 9: Intervention 2 Narrative Summary Data Graph 48

Figure 10: Overall Narrative Summary Data Graph 49

Figure 11: Baseline 1 Informational Summary Data Graph 50

Figure 12: KWL Chart for Informational Text 52

Figure 13: Intervention 1 Informational Summary Data Graph 53

Figure 14: Baseline 2 Informational Summary Data Graph 54

Figure 15: Intervention 2 Informational Summary Data Graph 56

Figure 16: Overall Informational Summary Data Graph 57

Figure 17: STAR Reading GE Data Graph 58

viii

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Abstract

This Capstone was an instructional inquiry to determine the efficacy of the Soar to Success curriculum by, Houghton Mifflin, when used to instruct students with intellectual disabilities

(ID). Participants in the study included five students in grades seven and eight identified as students with ID, two of whom spoke English as a second language. Additionally, two participants were female and three were male. Qualitative data were collected through student summaries of both narrative and informational texts, and quantitative data were collected in the form of computerized assessment data from a program titled STAR Reading and rubric scores from student written summaries. Data were analyzed and it was determined that through use of this curriculum, students with ID showed growth in the area of reading comprehension. Efficacy of the curriculum will be shared with reading specialists, other teachers in the district using the same curriculum, and other relevant parties in the school district.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Section One: Introduction

Introduction

Reading comprehension is quite possibly the most detrimental area in which to have a disability. This impairment can stem from an intellectual disability or another area such as a specific learning disability or autism. Without the ability to comprehend what one is reading, one’s life becomes infinitely more difficult. Deficiencies in comprehension can impact a person not only during their elementary and secondary schooling, but can also prevent that person from obtaining gainful employment later in life. This lack has been long documented and improvements to reading instruction have been made for decades.

Over the years, reading instruction has had many different faces. When the American education system first came into being, reading interventions did not exist. Students each used a primer book and were taught using one method of instruction. During the mid 1930s, for example, the Dick and Jane books used repetition of sight words to help students more quickly learn to read. A push for content area reading sprung up during World War II, when it became known that many soldiers could not read well enough to understand the instructional manuals required for their deployments. Following this discovery, a large emphasis was placed on phonics and decoding as a path to reading comprehension (Vogt & Shearer, 2011).

During this time, interventions in reading instruction were based upon not only the type of reading instruction, but also the teacher. Basically, teachers either thought teaching phonics was “the” answer to teaching reading, or they thought the traditional comprehension methods were the way to go. In addition to this, the teacher in the room was ultimately responsible for designing and using their own interventions to reach their struggling readers (Vogt & Shearer,

2011).

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Reading instruction needs to be improved nationwide, based on information from recent, standardized testing. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), on standardized tests in 2015, only 34% of eighth grade students nationwide performed at or above the level of proficiency in reading with an average scaled score of 264 (NAEP, 2015). Among students with disabilities, the average scaled score was 203, which falls into the limited range of ability (NAEP, 2015). According to these results, the entirety of the documented special education population is falling below that benchmark, although there may have been outlier students with disabilities who tested as proficient in reading. In this context, the special education population includes all students who receive services through an Individualized

Educational Plan (IEP) as reported by each school district in the state. It is clear from these results that effective, evidence-based instruction methods must be consistently employed in order to promote growth in reading, especially in populations of students who qualify for special education services.

One curriculum specifically designed to teach reading to struggling readers is called Soar to Success (STS), published by Houghton Mifflin (Cooper & Chard, 2008). The mixed method study and associated research that is the topic of this Capstone was developed to determine the efficacy of the STS curriculum in instructing middle school students with the primary disability of intellectual disabilities in the area of reading comprehension, as documented in their IEP. The

American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities defines an intellectual disability as “a disability characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior…” (“Definition of Intellectual,” n.d.).

During this study, intervention through STS was administered through explicit use of reciprocal teaching, as demonstrated by Palincsar and Brown in their 1983 studies. This teaching

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION method includes four specific reading strategies: predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing (Palincsar & Brown, 1983). Scripted lessons were taught through direct use of the provided Soar to Success Level 6 Teacher’s Manual (Cooper & Chard, 2008). Qualitative data in the form of student summaries were used. Additionally, quantitative data provided by the computerized STAR Reading Assessment in the form of Grade Level Equivalents (GEs) were used to determine growth in the area of reading comprehension. Finally, quantitative data in the form of rubric scores on student created summaries were used to determine student comprehension of a text.

Research Question

1. Does the Soar to Success curriculum (Cooper & Chard, 2008) work as advertised with

students with intellectual disabilities in a small group classroom of twelve or fewer

students when implemented as scripted in the Soar to Success Level 6 Teacher’s Manual?

Section Two: Literature Review

Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension combines multiple aspects of reading a text such as decoding, use of vocabulary, and several higher level thinking processes. These processes include determining the purpose of reading, annotating the text, or making connections to the text to decipher its meaning (Pressley, 2000). Once a reader has the basic reading requirements of decoding and the beginnings of a vocabulary, the reader can then begin to relate the text to their background knowledge. The level of prior knowledge a reader has on a topic will directly affect their ability to comprehend a text on that particular topic. The more prior knowledge the reader

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION has, the better their comprehension of the text will be. Additionally, it was discussed by Pressley that having conscious control of the processing of a text, including understanding the purpose of the text, and the purpose one has in reading that text, play a direct role in how deeply the reader comprehends (Pressley, 2000).

Other researchers have similar thoughts on the processes required for reading comprehension, though they may describe these processes in different ways. According to

Kintsch and Rawson (2005), the first level of reading comprehension is the linguistic level. Akin to decoding, the linguistic level is where the reader looks at the letters on the page and associates them with sounds, which then are combined into words. The next level is the semantic level, in which the reader determines the meaning of the words. Once the meaning of the word has been determined, the reader then uses those words to form “idea units” and create a microstructure of the text. As the reader continues to construct meaning from the text, a macrostructure begins to emerge from the combination of the microstructures. Upon emergence of the macrostructure, it is then combined with the microstructures to create a textbase. This textbase represents the meaning expressed by the text (Kintsch & Rawson, 2005). In other words, Kintsch and Rawson’s description differs from Pressley’s because it breaks down comprehension to the level of determining letter sounds and does not include steps for annotation or making connections.

In yet another model of text comprehension, Kucan & Palincsar (2013) discussed the

Construction-Integration model of text comprehension. This model explains that a vital step in text comprehension is the construction of a mental representation of the text, which is created by combining the newly constructed ideas one has gleaned from a text with the preexisting ideas one has regarding the topic on which one is reading. From this mental representation, the reader can then go on to create either a textbase or a situational model. A textbase is created from the

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

“immediate sense making of the words and phrases in the text itself” and a situational model is a combination of the textbase and prior knowledge of the reader (Kucan & Palincsar, 2013).

According to Kucan and Palincsar, creating a situational model is of utmost importance to reading comprehension, as it is one of the best ways to gain knowledge through interaction with a text. When a reader learns in this way from a text, they have built a stronger foundation on which they can continue to learn, which in turn supports comprehension of new texts (Kucan &

Palincsar, 2013).

In general, reading comprehension starts early, in what is called the emergent reader stage. At this stage, readers are able to begin comprehending that printed letters carry a message, can distinguish the directionality of reading as top to bottom and left to right, and are able to recognize a few high frequency words such as their own name. After the emergent reader stage, readers progress through the other stages at different rates, depending on the quality and amount of their instruction, their ability, and the environment in which they are learning. Following the emergent stage is the early reader stage, and then the transitional reader stage. The final two stages include the self-extending reader stage and the advanced reader stage, or derivational stage. During each stage, the ability of the reader becomes more refined, word recognition becomes more automatic, and vocabulary becomes more content specific. Once a reader reaches the advanced reader stage, they are able to quickly and fluidly use information from all types of texts in many different ways (Hundley & Powell, 1999).

The ability to comprehend what one has read translates into all other aspects of one’s life.

A comprehensive study called the Workplace Readiness Report Card was conducted by The

Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Partnership for 21st Century

Skills (Cassner-Lotto & Benner, 2006). This study thoroughly examined the workforce readiness

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION of new employees by their level of academic achievement in relation to corporate applications.

Ability levels of new employees were rated using the terms “deficient,” “adequate,” or

“excellent,” while the importance of basic skills were rated using the terms “not important,”

“important,” or “very important,” (Cassner-Lotto & Benner, 2006). It included interviews with

Human Resources individuals, as well as senior executives in different corporate positions, and was conducted in April and May of 2006. The results indicated that for high school graduates,

62.5% of employers rate Reading Comprehension as “very important.” Additionally, it found that 38.4% of employers stated that their high school graduate employees were “deficient” in this area (Cassner-Lotto & Benner, 2006). This indicates that over one third of high school graduates are lacking in necessary reading comprehension skills when they begin in the workforce.

From this study, it is easy to understand why reading comprehension is of vital importance throughout a child’s education. Not only does reading comprehension play a part in the language arts classroom, with the advent of the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS), reading comprehension has become a cross-curricular hurdle for many students. For example, there are ten CCSS that relate to literacy for the History/Social Studies curriculum. These standards are listed almost verbatim from the English/Language Arts CCSS, the only difference being the content area listed at the end of the standard (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief of State School Officers, 2010). This means that social studies teachers are now required to teach nonfiction literacy skills in their classes in addition to teaching students their required history curriculum. Unless teachers are dual certified in social studies and language arts, they may not have had intensive, explicit methods of literacy instruction as part of their pre-service teacher training. As a result, these social studies teachers

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION may feel unprepared for teaching their students literacy skills, which can lead to further gaps in reading comprehension, especially for struggling readers (Evans & Clark, 2015).

Over the years, many different types of reading comprehension strategies and their efficacy have been implemented, studied, and discussed by parents, teachers, and researchers.

Several different studies discussed below, however, suggest that many of these comprehension strategies do not support students’ metacognition during the act of reading. Metacognition is the awareness and understanding of one’s thinking. In other words, a student needs to recognize what they are thinking about a text, and then analyze their thoughts to understand their thinking processes. In order for students to make significant gains in the area of reading comprehension, they need to analyze and reflect on their approach to reading using the process of metacognition.

In a mixed method study by Hong-Nam, Leavell, and Maher (2014), the relationship between metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, reported use of reading strategies, and reading achievement was studied in 2,789 high school students. This study combined both qualitative survey information and the quantitative results of standardized tests as measures. The first instrument used for data collection was an Individual Background Questionnaire (IBQ), which was created by the authors of this study to collect participants’ demographic information.

A question on the IBQ asked students to rate their reading ability as 1 (Not So Great), 2 (Okay),

3 (Good), or 4 (Great) (Hong-Nam, Leavell, & Maher, 2014). The second instrument used for data collection was the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI), which required respondents to self-report the strategies they used while reading academic materials. The MARSI included questions in three distinct groups: Global Reading Strategies, which are metacognitive and used for monitoring or managing reading, Problem Solving

Strategies/Reading Process Strategies, which are cognitive and work directly with the text, and

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Support Reading Strategies/Text Based Strategies, which utilize basic study techniques like underlining or highlighting important information. The final instrument used was the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), which is a mandatory standardized test created by the state of Texas (Hong-Nam, Leavell, & Maher, 2014).

Results from the Hong-Nam et al. (2014) study show that 27% of students involved indicated high use of metacognitive strategies while reading, 58% reported medium strategy use, and 15% reported low strategy use. Additionally, student participants who scored in the

“advanced” or “met standards” groups on the TAKS were also students who self-reported higher strategy use than those who fell “below standard.” Most students in this study, regardless of achievement level, reported using Reading Process Strategies (cognitive strategies that work directly with the text) most often. Students with higher scores, however, also self-reported higher use of Global Reading Strategies, which are metacognitive in nature. This implies that teaching metacognitive reading strategies, in addition to teaching students to be aware of the use of reading strategies, might help reading comprehension (Hong-Nam et al., 2014).

In a quasi-experimental study by Othman, Mahamud and Jaidi (2014), 60 average performing students from a government school in Malaysia were divided into a treatment group and a control group. Students in the treatment group received explicit lessons on the metacognitive reading strategies during reading comprehension lessons of expository text. The metacognitive strategy employed during these lessons supported students in methodical thinking about their reading and thinking processes before reading, during reading, and after reading.

Lessons were taught through use of five separate expository texts, and the experimental group received the metacognitive strategy instruction as well. Data were collected in a qualitative manner, in the form of written tests and questionnaires given to both the treatment and control

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION groups. Their results indicated that, while both groups showed improvement in the area of reading comprehension, the treatment group showed a significant increase in reading comprehension after being taught a metacognitive strategy. This implies that use of higher level thinking processes while reading can stimulate better comprehension of a text (Othman,

Mahamud & Jaidi, 2014).

Nash-Ditzel (2010) conducted a multiple subject case study of five college students on the use of metacognitive reading strategies and their impact on self-regulation. Data were collected through qualitative means such as interviews, think aloud protocol, informal observations, and analysis of documents. The results of this case study found that use of metacognitive reading strategies can increase knowledge of reading strategies, that the ability to use metacognitive reading strategies can successfully change overall reading behavior and that use of metacognitive reading strategies can increase the understanding of the value of reading strategies (Nash-Ditzel, 2010). Each of these findings contributed to the ability of the participants to self-regulate while reading and implies that, with explicit instruction of metacognitive reading strategies, students may be better able to self-regulate while reading. This, in turn, leads to the conclusion that students with better self-regulation during reading can become better readers, who have higher levels of comprehension (Nash-Ditzel, 2010).

Reading comprehension is a complex task with many factors. The combination of these factors may come quite easily for some individuals, while others may struggle immensely. The implications for those who struggle with comprehension are far-reaching, as lack of comprehension skills impacts multiple areas of one’s life. Struggling readers come in all varieties. Some are people with academic disabilities, while others are simply “resistive” readers, who are capable of reading, but do not often practice the skill or read often.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Struggling Readers

Many readers struggle with reading comprehension for a multitude of different reasons.

Often, teachers have posed questions as to why there are so many struggling readers in middle schools and high schools. According to Tovani (2000), there is not one specific reason, as struggling readers present a complex problem to educators at all levels. A common misconception held by many students is the belief that reading is simply sounding out words. In this simplification of the process of reading, one is completely disregarding all of the complex thought processes involved in comprehending what a decoded word says, what it means in context, and what that context means in overarching context of the paragraph, chapter, or text.

This also disregards the fact that once students reach fourth or fifth grade, they are no longer taught specifically to read, but are instead expected to read to learn. As a result, many struggling readers will continue to struggle through middle school and high school due to a lack of instruction on reading comprehension strategies (Tovani, 2000).

According to Tovani (2000), there are two types of struggling readers that are most common in school settings, which do not necessarily include students with disabilities. The first type are labeled “resistive readers,” and the second are referred to as “word callers.” Resistive readers are those readers who are capable of reading, but are simply choosing not to for a variety of reasons. These may be students who prefer to read only choice materials, or students who simply do not enjoy reading. In the cases highlighted in Chapter Two of Tovani’s book, I Read It

But I Don’t Get It (2000), these students have determined that if they wait long enough, the teacher will tell them the information from the text that they need to know. Students who fall under the category of “word callers” have a different struggle. These readers are able to decode with high rates of fluency, and often choose to read for themselves or out loud in class. The

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION struggle these students face is the fact that they have not associated reading with thinking. These readers can become frustrated and give up when they realize they do not understand, or do not remember what they have read. Word callers are often fairly good students, however, they struggle with tasks that require them to use a text in a way that requires higher level thought processes than simply identifying the words (Tovani, 2000).

Whether a resistive reader or a word caller, struggling readers do not often choose to participate in discussions about reading during class. Often, the discussions over the reading can seem daunting to struggling readers. In the case of the resistive reader, they may be waiting to hear another student state the answers they need. In the case of the word caller, they may even volunteer to read aloud to avoid being called on to participate in discussion. Discussing reading, however, may be an intervention that could allow these struggling readers to take a step in the direction of better reading comprehension abilities.

In a qualitative study by Pittman and Honchell (2014), the researchers focused on 16 struggling readers at a Title I rural school to determine the effects of literature discussion on these readers. Data were collected through use of pre- and post-reading interest surveys, student work samples, audio recordings of student conversations, and interviews, as well as researcher observations. During this study, students were explicitly taught about the concept of discussion groups, where groups of students discuss specific parts of a common text. Students were split into different groups based on different factors that included diversity in language and ethnicity.

The 16 struggling readers were split into different groups that included at least one higher-level reader per group. In the end, a total of 28 students were split into seven groups of four students each. Students were given three days of guided practice with their discussion group, then were given a passage to read and discuss on their own. Results of the study indicated that all students

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION enjoyed reading more when they were engaged in literature discussion about the text.

Additionally, reading comprehension was greatly increased in the struggling readers after discussing the text than before intervention. Implications from the study include that students should be given more time to talk in a structured setting about text, in this case literature. Though this study did not include non-fiction text, from the results one can assume that discussion of non-fiction text may yield similar results, including increased reading comprehension of struggling readers (Pittman & Honchell, 2014).

While many struggling readers are capable of reading and choose not to, such as the resistive readers, or can read fluently but do not comprehend, such as word callers, many students who struggle with reading comprehension are labeled with some type of disability.

These students are often in need of more intensive interventions than those given to more capable struggling readers.

In a literature review by Alnahdi (2015), the author collected 15 studies and one literature review published after 2000, which focused on teaching reading to students with intellectual disabilities (ID). In this review, there was a positive correlation between the reading comprehension of students with ID and the intensity of the strategy used. Some of these more intensive strategies included comprehensive comprehension instruction, the application of text comprehension strategies (e.g., summarizing, questioning, and clarifying), and use of a specific comprehension curriculum. Each of these interventions was implemented over a period of time no less than one school year (Alnahdi, 2015). Each of these strategies for reading comprehension instruction requires much more time on the part of both the teacher and the student. Additionally, many of the strategies discussed in this review were, in fact, entire curricula designed to help with reading comprehension of students with ID (Alnahdi, 2015).

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

As evidenced above, struggling readers require more support to comprehend grade level text than their typically developing peers for multiple different reasons. While the resistive readers and word callers may be able to slide through school with minimal support, or without giving teachers many outward indicators of their struggle, students with disabilities require far more time and attention. Of those students with disabilities, those with intellectual disabilities specifically may be the group that requires the most resources.

Intellectual Disability

According to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

(AAIDD), an intellectual disability (ID) is “a disability characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior, ” (“Definition of Intellectual,” n.d.). This type of disability manifests before the age of 18. Typically, a person with an intelligence quotient

(IQ) of 70 or below would be considered to have a significant limitation in intellectual functioning. Adaptive behavior refers to the ability of a person in the areas of conceptual skills, social skills, and practical skills. If one has a limitation in adaptive behavior, they may struggle with concepts such as money or time. They may be extremely gullible or naive, have low interpersonal skills, or be unable to avoid victimization. Additionally, a person with limited adaptive skills may struggle with personal care, traveling, personal safety, use of money, or use of a telephone (“Definition of Intellectual,” n.d.).

Throughout the years, the terminology used to identify this disability has changed. Up until recently, ID was known as cognitive disability (CD). Before that, the term used was mental retardation (MR). While the reason behind the recent change in terminology from CD to ID is unclear, the term “mental retardation” was replaced with CD due to the negative stigma attached to the term (Parmenter, 2011). Although other disabilities such as Down’s syndrome or Fragile X

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION syndrome also have associated limitations in intellectual functioning, the term intellectual disability refers strictly to individuals who do not qualify under any other disability categorization.

An individual with ID is affected by this disability in many ways. As stated in the definition, this disability presents with significant limitations in intellectual functioning

(“Definition of Intellectual,” n.d.). Up until 1992, the severity of the intellectual limitation of a person with ID was categorized as mild, moderate, severe, and profound, and was based upon their IQ score. After that time, it became common practice to categorize those with ID based upon the intensity of support needed, but the limitations of each individual will vary, even within the same category of severity. For instance, two students labeled with moderate ID can function at two different levels of performance, both academic and adaptive (Parmenter, 2011).

Maulik, Mascarenhas, Mathers, Dua and Saxena (2011), performed a meta-analysis of fifty-two studies to determine the prevalence of ID throughout much of the world. Their study analyzed data in multiple areas, trying to determine which variables might contribute to higher populations of persons with ID. Their study found that countries with the highest prevalence of

ID were also countries with the lowest income levels. An additional variable they studied was the type of population such as rural, urban, urban slum/mixed rural-urban, regional/provincial, and national. It was found that the highest prevalence rate of ID is found in the urban slum/mixed rural-urban areas. These lower income areas were also areas that had less organized and less efficient health care. The study found that this lack of health care led to higher rates of diseases, as well as lower standards of care for pregnant women (Maulik, Mascarenhas, Mathers, Dua &

Saxena, 2011). Implications of these results indicate that in lower income areas of the United

States, schools will have a higher population of students identified with ID. This can put a strain

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION on educational funding, requiring more special education teachers in districts with lower income levels than districts in more affluent areas.

ID has a prevalence rate of about 1% in the United States. While this seems low, this type of disability affects not only the individual, but also those around them including their family and their community. It is estimated that the lifetime cost associated with a person with ID born in the year 2000 will be $51.2 billion, an estimate which includes health care, educational costs, as well as other associated costs (Maulik et al., 2011). ID can impact families in other ways as well.

In addition to the associated negative stigma, there have also been studies that indicate that siblings of people with ID can be significantly impacted as well. In a meta-analysis, Rossiter and

Sharpe (2001) found multiple studies which provided evidence that having a sibling with ID can affect one’s psychological well-being, including higher prevalence of depression, loneliness, behavior problems, and low self-esteem. Most articles analyzed in this meta-analysis indicated that siblings of people with ID most often choose solitary activities, and may have difficulty with peer interactions. While some positive behaviors were also found to be associated in siblings of those with ID, the negatives far outweighed the positives in most cases (Rossiter & Sharpe,

2001).

Another area in which ID can have a significant impact is in the academic abilities of the individual. Reading, both comprehension and fluency, can be greatly influenced by the intellectual ability or disability of an individual. Information from the Special Education

Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) indicated that typical students at age seventeen with ID have a mean word identification score of 61.7 and a mean passage comprehension score of 62.4.

These scores are lower than those of students in other disability categories, whose scores in these areas are at least twenty points higher (SRI International, 2002).

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Despite these reading difficulties, multiple studies have been conducted which have shown that individuals with ID can and do make progress in the area of reading. Allor, Mathes,

Roberts, Jones, and Champlin (2010) conducted an experimental study, which determined that through use of a comprehensive, phonics-based direct instruction reading intervention, students with moderate ID were able to make significant progress in certain areas. The intervention was administered to the treatment group as a small group of no more than four students, or individual instruction for approximately 40 minutes at a time over the course of one to one and a half years.

At the end of the study, the results showed significant increases in most areas in which intervention occurred, including phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension

(Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Jones & Champlin, 2010).

In a similar longitudinal experimental study by several of the same researchers, Allor,

Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham and Al Otaiba (2014) explored the use of specific reading interventions with students with ID. This study also administered the intervention to the treatment group in a small group of no more than four students or an individual setting. The intervention implemented was a systematic, explicit, and comprehensive research based intervention, which used the direct instruction teaching method called Early Intervention in

Reading. In this program, the lessons were fast paced to help with engagement and motivation of students. Additionally, all skills taught were also modeled for the student, and cumulative reviews were frequent. The intervention was administered in 40 to 50 minute sessions each day over the course of one to four academic years. Results of this study also indicated that significant progress was made in the treatment group (Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham & Al Otaiba,

2014).

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Results from both Allor et al. (2010) and Allor et al. (2014) also indicate that students with ID are capable of making progress in the area of reading. Instruction and interventions provided for these students must be specific and comprehensive, and must be administered consistently over an extended period of time. This indicates that with appropriate interventions, individuals with ID can make progress in reading. By making progress in reading these students may then open up educational opportunities in other areas as well. One intervention that meets those criteria is reciprocal teaching, as introduced by Palincsar and Brown (1983). This intervention is comprehensive, specific, and requires engagement on the part of the student throughout instruction.

Reciprocal Teaching

The use of reciprocal teaching as a reading intervention strategy was first discussed by

Palincsar and Brown in their 1983 publication Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-

Monitoring Activities. Technical Report No. 269. While this type of teaching had been implemented prior to their writing, it was after their seminal research that reciprocal teaching emerged as a concept for teaching reading comprehension to struggling readers (Palincsar &

Brown, 1983).

Reciprocal teaching is a method in which the teacher and the student(s) take turns leading discussions about a text, while simultaneously utilizing four specific activities to promote comprehension. The four comprehension activities employed by this strategy are summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. While each of these activities can be used as an academic task in and of itself, by using all four together while reading, they can also provide opportunities for comprehension monitoring (Palincsar & Brown, 1983).

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

The use of summarizing as a reading comprehension strategy is possibly the easiest to justify. Summarizing a text involves the ability to put that text into one’s own words. When reading or listening to student summaries, it is quite simple to tell if a student is comprehending the text based on the information they include in their summary, and whether it includes major events/important information from the text (Palincsar & Brown, 1983).

The second comprehension activity is questioning, which involves asking questions about the text that not only explore the meaning of the text content, but are asked in an interpretive or predictive manner. The ability to ask these types of questions does not come easily to students with lower cognitive abilities. This strategy should be taught explicitly, particularly to students whose reading comprehension is lower than grade level average (Palincsar & Brown, 1983).

Clarifying as a reading comprehension activity can be used in several different ways.

Firstly, a reader can use clarifying for an idea or a concept they have read about that does not make sense to them. Secondly, it can be used to determine the meaning of unknown words, similar to using context clues. By utilizing this activity, the student is able to better comprehend that text (Palincsar & Brown, 1983).

The final activity used in the reciprocal teaching strategy is predicting. This strategy is typically the simplest for students, as most have been specifically taught predicting skills throughout their schooling experiences. In the reciprocal teaching strategy, prediction should be used multiple times throughout a reading experience. This will give a student multiple opportunities to predict based on knowledge of the text starting with just the title (Palincsar &

Brown, 1983).

Palincsar & Brown (1983) explored three studies that resulted in a set of findings that gave credibility to the strategy as a tool to support the comprehension of struggling readers. In

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION the first study, the researchers compared their reciprocal teaching strategy with another, which included locating information in a text to answer literal and inferential questions. This study focused on four seventh grade students who were recommended by teachers as adequate decoders who lacked comprehension skills. These four students were asked daily to read a passage of 400 words, which they were to read silently, after which they were to answer ten comprehension questions without access to the text. Intervention included specific instruction, which began with the finding information strategy. During this phase, when students answered a comprehension question incorrectly, they were shown in the text where the answer could be found. The next step included use of reciprocal teaching strategies, which took place between the researcher and the student. Results of the study indicated that the most successful intervention happened when the locating information intervention took place before the reciprocal teaching intervention. During maintenance and final intervention stages of this study, however, the reciprocal teaching intervention proved the most effective at supporting reading comprehension

(Palincsar & Brown, 1983).

The second study focused solely on the reciprocal teaching strategy. The second study included six students, grouped into pairs. The intervention timeline during this study was similar to the previous study, however, materials used were slightly longer than in the first to allow for more participation in the pair. In addition, all of the materials in this study were nonfiction.

Results of this study indicated that the reading comprehension of the students in this study considerably increased as a result of this reciprocal teaching intervention. Additionally, students were able to maintain their improved comprehension levels over time (Palincsar & Brown,

1983).

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

The final study also only used the reciprocal teaching intervention (Palincsar & Brown,

1983). This study, however, took place in the typical reading groups the students participated in within their own teacher’s classroom. Teachers whose students participated in this study had volunteered to learn and administer the intervention. In this study, a total of 21 students were included and spanned both seventh and eighth grades. The procedures in this study were identical to the procedures used in the second study, except they were administered by teachers instead of researchers. Results from this study also indicated that a significant gain was made in reading comprehension levels of students in this study (Palincsar & Brown, 1983). As the results from all three studies conducted by these researchers showed positive results, it can be assumed that the reciprocal teaching strategy is highly effective when used to assist students who struggle with reading comprehension.

Throughout the years, reciprocal teaching has been used successfully in many studies, including for students with intellectual disabilities (ID). Additionally, according to McAllum

(2014), the purpose of this strategy has developed over time to include three main purposes. The first is to provide a specific framework for a reading comprehension strategy through the use of four specific comprehension-boosting activities, as designed by Palincsar and Brown (1983). The second is the interactive engagement of students with a text, which has proven that learning is maintained long term and has cross-curricular generalizability. For example, the four different comprehension strategies used during reciprocal teaching, summarizing, predicting, questioning, and clarifying, can be used with all texts, not only those read in language arts classes. These strategies translate easily into social studies and science texts, though in science the prediction may turn into hypothesizing. The final purpose that has developed from this strategy is the inclusive teaching practice in which the strategy is most typically used. Inclusive teaching

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION practice implies that students with disabilities will be included in the general education classroom, often with the support of an intervention specialist (McAllum, 2014).

Choo, Eng, and Ahmad (2011), published a study on the use of reciprocal teaching with struggling readers in Malaysia. The study included 68 low-proficiency students and was set up as an experimental study using the pretest, intervention, posttest method. Intervention was administered over the course of nine reading lessons that were designed to use the reciprocal teaching strategies. During these reading lessons, students in both the control group and the treatment group studied the same texts, however the treatment group received instruction on these texts using the reciprocal teaching strategy and its components. The four specific comprehension pieces of summarizing, predicting, clarifying, and questioning were taught explicitly to students during the first intervention lesson. Results from the study showed that the groups that received the intervention had posttest scores that were significantly higher than the control group’s posttest scores. These results indicate that reciprocal teaching can be used as a successful intervention in short-term intervention periods (Choo, Eng & Ahmad, 2011).

In a quasi-experimental study conducted by van den Bos, Nakken, Nicolay and van

Houten (2007), 38 adults ranging in age from 20 to 72 with intellectual disabilities (ID) were split into a control group and a treatment group. The treatment group received intervention once a week for an hour at a time, over the course of three months, for a total of 15 intervention periods. Twelve of these intervention blocks focused specifically on the reciprocal teaching strategies of summarizing, clarifying, questioning, and predicting. These strategies were taught explicitly to participants during the first of the intervention blocks. Results from this study included a significant improvement in reading comprehension among those adults who participated in the treatment group. This implies that reciprocal teaching works well for people

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION with ID who have aged beyond participation in public schools (van den Bos, Nakken, Nicolay & van Houten, 2007).

In a Swedish quasi-experimental study conducted by Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013), a slightly different method was used. This study included two different treatment groups, one that received reciprocal teaching and one that received inference teaching. Inference teaching involves three specific types of questions: “right there,” meaning the information is explicitly mentioned in the text; “reflect and search,” in which a student must integrate information from the text with an inference; and “why-questions,” which require more complex inferential responses, often calling on a student’s background knowledge. The students in the reciprocal teaching group received explicit instruction on the four strategies during intervention. All 40 participants in the study had a mild intellectual disability. Results from the study indicated that, although there was no significant difference in the results based on which intervention students received, both groups showed growth in the area of reading comprehension. This implies that reciprocal teaching is a reading comprehension strategy that works well for students as well as adults with ID (Lundberg & Reichenberg, 2013).

It has clearly been proven that reciprocal teaching is a valid means of assisting those with reading comprehension difficulties in boosting their reading comprehension abilities. As evidenced, this strategy works with both adults, and with school-aged individuals. Additionally, it works well for those with disabilities, as well as those who qualify as struggling readers without having a documented academic disability. Many different curricula have been designed using this strategy since reciprocal teaching was proven effective by Palincsar and Brown in their

1983 studies. One of those curricula is Soar to Success (STS), published by Houghton Mifflin

(Cooper & Chard, 2008).

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

STS uses a combination of lower level reading material and the reciprocal teaching strategy and its components to boost the confidence and comprehension of students who are reading significantly below grade level. As of this writing, no studies existed which included this curriculum at all. One of the listed purposes of STS is to quickly bring struggling readers up to grade level through use of lower level texts and reciprocal teaching methods. Additionally, STS uses all four reciprocal teaching reading strategies: predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing (Cooper & Chard, 2008).

Section Three: Methodology

Background

I teach English Language Arts (ELA) in the Content Learning Classroom (CLC) setting

(formerly called Resource Room Language Arts) to both seventh and eighth grade students, in two sections for each grade level. A CLC in my school district is a small group learning setting comprised entirely of students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). In addition to this criterion, the students in these classes must also have academic abilities that are significantly below their grade level peers. In the context of ELA class, “significantly below grade level” means the student must be reading and writing at least three grade levels below their typically developing chronological grade level peers.

In addition to the students in my classes who were placed there due to their reading and writing abilities, I have a total of two students who were placed into my classroom who perform at higher reading and writing levels than is typical for other students in the CLC setting. They were placed into my classroom at the specific request of both the parent and the student, and are outliers in my classes, as they both read and write at higher levels than is typically required for

CLC placement. All of my students receive services through an IEP and, with the exception of 24

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION the two who were placed by parental request, each is reading and writing significantly below grade level. The maximum amount of students allowed in each section of these classes is twelve.

Of my 37 total students, my highest readers only comprehend text at an instructional reading level of fourth grade, not including my outlier students. Additionally, 11 read at an instructional reading level of first grade or lower. An instructional reading level is the reading level within a student’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). I also have several students in each grade level who are identified with intellectual disabilities (ID) and take the

Ohio Alternate Assessment for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (AASCD). Of my students identified with ID, all of them read and comprehended at or below a third grade instructional reading level before this study began. All of my students, regardless of their identified disability, struggle immensely when given text above their instructional reading levels, making it increasingly difficult for them to adapt to the demands of curriculum as they grow older.

Last year was my first year in this building. I was hired as the seventh grade CLC ELA teacher and my position was expanded to include both seventh and eighth grade CLC ELA this year. Upon my hire, administration told me the requirements of my position and sent me to a seventh grade ELA team meeting. At this meeting, I was informed that the team did not like the textbooks the district had been using for reading curriculum and that they only used a few texts and lessons from them. I was given little to no assistance regarding what I was supposed to teach my CLC students, or how I was supposed to teach it to my students.

I ended up teaching most of the same curriculum and texts as the traditional seventh grade ELA teachers with intensive modifications to allow my students to be successful. My method of modification seemed to work well with the writing curriculum, but not with the

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION reading curriculum. Our district had adopted a set curriculum for writing and was using it consistently in that area. Our district used the Lucy Calkins Writing curriculum (Calkins, Cruz,

Hohne, Taranto, Robb & Jones-Rooy 2014). This curriculum has scripted, targeted lessons, which cover narrative, informational, and argument writing. It is a workshop model, where the teacher teaches a mini-lesson, ten to 15 minutes in length, after which students are given time to work independently on their writing. This curriculum was very adaptable, and many of my students performed quite well on their writing assignments throughout the year. All of my students, however, struggled to make progress in reading throughout the course of the year. Part of that is likely attributed to our district focusing more on writing, and part of it was possibly due to a lack of a consistent curriculum for teaching reading.

I was approached this year about using a curriculum called Soar to Success (STS), which was new to me, to help support my students. STS was published by Houghton Mifflin (Cooper &

Chard, 2008) and focuses on teaching reading through the reciprocal teaching of different, complex reading strategies, as introduced by Palincsar and Brown in their 1983 seminal study, and uses grade level comprehension questions. The reading strategies students are reciprocally taught include prediction, clarification (sometimes called context clues), questioning, and summarizing. The comprehension questions for each text included in the curriculum require higher level thought processes, typical to those found in the general education seventh and eighth grade ELA curriculum (Cooper & Chard, 2008).

While the strategies used in this curriculum are as complex as those utilized in the general education curriculum at the middle school level, the texts used start four chronological grade levels below the level number of the curriculum. For example, the Level 6 STS curriculum starts with texts written at a second grade reading level. The idea behind this is simple. By

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION lowering the text complexity, students are better able to focus on the reading strategies being taught. The strategies, once learned, will then translate into different content areas and help students to better comprehend texts across the curriculum (Cooper & Chard, 2008). The complexity of the texts increases as the curriculum continues. By the end of the level six kit, students theoretically should be reading at a sixth grade level.

Setting and Materials

This mixed method study was conducted in one of the largest school districts in the state of Ohio. The district includes four high schools, a career center, five middle schools housing grades seven and eight, five intermediate schools housing grades five and six, and fifteen elementary schools housing kindergarten through fourth grades. Several of the schools in the district have been qualified as Title I schools. Title I is a program that “...provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). The research for this study was completed at one of the middle schools which was recently qualified as a Title I school. According to the

2015-2016 Ohio School Report Card, 71.8% of students were considered Economically

Disadvantaged, as determined by the amount of students in the building who qualified for free or reduced price lunches (Ohio Department of Education, 2017).

Student participants in this study were ranged across several class periods throughout the day of small group English Language Arts (ELA) classes composed entirely of students with

Individual Education Plans (IEPs), at both the seventh and eighth grade levels. The classroom setting for these ELA classes was a small, interior room with one window that opened to the hallway. The classroom housed 16 student desks arranged in two tables of eight, a projector on a 27

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION cart, a teacher desk, two filing cabinets and a small table by the teacher’s desk for student conferences. Due to the small size of the room and the amount of furniture in it, seating arrangements were inflexible and there was little room to navigate around seated students. The building was not air-conditioned, and the interior room did not regulate temperature well, which led to high temperatures a majority of the time regardless of the season or outside weather. This small group ELA course was taught by myself, an intervention specialist with Highly Qualified status in ELA. During the four ELA classes taught in this room, class sizes ranged from eight to

12.

The materials used in this study included the Soar to Success Level 6 Teacher’s Manual

(STS6TM), several of the texts included in the Soar to Success (STS) curriculum kit, and the questions and student responses listed in the STS6TM and student workbook (Cooper & Chard,

2008). Due to budget restrictions, the teacher created worksheets for all student responses similar, but not identical, to those included in the curriculum kit, as the district was unable to purchase the consumable student workbooks for all students enrolled in CLC classes throughout the district. Additionally, chart paper posters were created for each class of Know, Want to

Know, Learned (KWL) Charts for all informational texts in each intervention. Story map posters were created for each class for narrative texts as well. Information to be included on these posters was supplied to me by the students after reading during each intervention lesson.

The STAR Reading Assessment was used to document baseline and final Grade Level

Equivalents (GEs) for students participating in the study. This assessment is computerized and provides students with a stand-alone multiple-choice question or a short amount of text followed by a multiple-choice question. The assessment “learns” the ability level of the student and adjusts question difficulty based on student responses, and how long it takes students to respond

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION to each question. For example, if a student quickly answers a simple question correctly, the next question will be more difficult, either by having more text, or by presenting the student with a more challenging question. Questions are timed for the same reason. If a student runs out of time, the following question will have less text or simpler text.

I am interested in finding out if STS will increase reading levels of students with ID and if the reciprocal teaching method will increase their ability to write summaries of both informational and narrative texts.

Participants

Of my 37 students, the following five were selected to be participants in this study based on their special education identification in the category of intellectual disabilities (ID). In order to be identified with ID, a student must show significant cognitive deficits, including an IQ score two or more standard deviations below average, as well as deficits in adaptive behavior.

Adaptive behavior is the collective title for skills that fall into the social, conceptual or practical realms. When I was first approached about this curriculum, I was informed that a several students whose disability labels were ID would be in my class, and that STS was a curriculum that would specifically help them to grow in reading comprehension. I became curious to see if this statement was true. Each student selected for participation in this study has been enrolled in my class since the beginning of the school year, with the exception of Student 3, who was enrolled during the first quarter when she moved into the school district. All other students in my classes with the identification of ID have been transferred into my class only recently, and were not present for Baseline 1 data collection. As a result, those students were not selected for participation in this study.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Student 1 is a seventh grade Hispanic female whose primary home language is Spanish.

A Spanish interpreter is required when teachers want to contact her parents. She is 13 years old and attends all of her core academic classes in the Content Learning Classroom (CLC) setting.

She has attended school in this district since kindergarten. She was initially identified with intellectual disabilities in third grade. Her IEP includes a reading comprehension goal, which focuses on Ohio’s Academic Content Standards- Extended English Language Arts

(OACSEELA) (United States of America, Ohio Department of Education, Offices of Curriculum and Assessment, 2012). Recent computerized reading assessments place her Grade Level

Equivalent (GE) at 2.7, which is equivalent to second grade. This student has been receptive to the STS curriculum, despite the fact that the texts included appear to be written for much younger students. She participates fully during lessons and appears to enjoy the texts, both informational and narrative.

Student 2 is a seventh grade Somali male whose primary home language is Somali. A

Somali interpreter is required when teachers want to contact his parents. He is 13 years old and attends all of his core academic classes in the CLC setting. He has attended this school district since third grade. Before that, he attended another district in the state. He was initially evaluated for a disability on his arrival to this district in third grade. At that time it was determined that he qualified for services under the category of intellectual disabilities. Student 2 also has an IEP goal that is written for reading comprehension based on the OACSEELA (United States of

America, Ohio Department of Education, Offices of Curriculum and Assessment, 2012). A recent computerized reading assessment placed his GE at 2.7, which is equivalent to second grade. Student 2 participates fully in the STS curriculum during lessons, as he appears to enjoy reading the texts in the curriculum.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Student 3 is a seventh grade, white American female whose primary language is English.

She is 13 years old and has attended school in this district since the first semester of the current school year. She previously attended a large, urban school district within the state of Ohio. Her

IEP identifies her as a student who receives services under the category of ID, and has a reading comprehension goal based on the OACSEELA (United States of America, Ohio Department of

Education, Offices of Curriculum and Assessment, 2012). Her score on a recent computerized reading assessment indicates her GE is 3.8, which is equivalent to third grade. She attends ELA and math in the CLC setting, and science and social studies in the inclusion setting. The inclusion setting is one where a general education teacher and an intervention specialist work cooperatively to teach grade level content in their specific content area. While most students with the label of ID are typically placed into CLC settings for all four core content areas, this student came to us with an out of district IEP, which included her placement in inclusion classes. She has been successful in that setting so far, so her IEP was not amended when she arrived at our building. This student was hesitant at first about the curriculum, since the texts look like “little kid” books. As time has passed, however, she has grown to enjoy the books despite that and participates well during instructional time.

Student 4 is an eighth grade, English speaking, white American male. He is 14 years old.

He has attended school in this district since second grade, before which he attended another school in the state of Ohio. He was initially evaluated for a disability in his previous school district. That district determined that he qualified for special education services under the category of intellectual disabilities. This student also has a medical diagnosis of Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Since his mother works the morning shift, he is responsible for self-administering his ADHD medication and independently boarding the bus. As a result, he has

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION been frequently absent from school. This student also has an IEP goal that focuses on reading comprehension based on the OACSEELA (United States of America, Ohio Department of

Education, Offices of Curriculum and Assessment, 2012). A computerized reading assessment placed his GE at 1.6, which is equivalent to first grade. He attends all of his core academic classes in the CLC setting. This student has enjoyed the STS curriculum from the start. Since his reading level is significantly lower than many other students in class, it is not often that he has been given a class text that he is able to decode and comprehend. He participates as well as his

ADHD will allow during class time, meaning he will often lose focus, but can typically be brought back into the lesson with few prompts.

Student 5 is an eighth grade, English speaking, black American male. He is 14 years old and has attended this school district since fourth grade. He was initially evaluated for disabilities in his previous district and was found to qualify for services under the category of intellectual disabilities. He attends all of his core academic classes in the CLC setting. This student lives with his mother and two brothers. During the early part of the school year, the family lived in a homeless shelter, but has recently moved into an apartment. This student also has an IEP goal that focuses on reading comprehension based on the OACSEELA (United States of America,

Ohio Department of Education, Offices of Curriculum and Assessment, 2012). A recent computerized reading assessment placed his GE at 1.3, which is equivalent to the beginning of first grade. This student has had difficulty with his behavior throughout this school year, though he does not have any documented diagnosis that might be causing this issue. He frequently acts out during class and causes disruptions. He does not enjoy the STS curriculum, despite it being a text that he is able to decode and comprehend. Student 5 will complete his STS work, but often with many complaints about how he does not want to be reading “baby books.”

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Procedures

This mixed-method study was set up as follows: Baseline 1, Intervention 1, Baseline 2,

Intervention 2. This study was designed to include two intervention periods specifically to cater to the needs of my students with intellectual disabilities (ID). As indicated through research, students with ID process material at a significantly lower level of functioning than their typically developing peers. It was not likely that they would show progress through one intervention period, so a second was included.

During Baseline 1, students were asked to write a summary of a brief informational text over Martin Luther King Jr. written by myself, and a brief narrative text that was an adaptation of the nursery rhyme Jack and Jill, also written by myself. These summaries fit into the STS curriculum as part of the reciprocal teaching aspect. Summarizing is one of the specific reading comprehension strategies taught in the curriculum, which is practiced multiple times while reading each text. Creating a summary is an accurate measure of how much a student understands from a text because it requires them to synthesize all the information from the text and decide which is most important to include in their summary.

Immediately following Baseline 1, Intervention 1 took place. During this intervention, one narrative book and one informational book were read in each grade level. Lessons for each book were taught through explicit instruction from the STS6TM scripted lessons (Cooper &

Chard, 2008). According to the manual, as students progress through the curriculum, reading of the texts should go from being read aloud as a group to being read independently by each student. The time at which this transition occurs is determined by the teacher, and is based upon the ability and progress of the students in each class. As a result of this, during Intervention 1, all texts were read aloud for both grade levels. At the end of Intervention 1, data were collected in

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION the form of student summaries of the books they read. These summaries were scored using the seven point rubrics used in Baseline 1.

Following Intervention 1, a two week unit on figurative language was completed. Upon returning to reading curriculum, Baseline 2 data were collected by asking students to write a summary of a new informational text on monster goldfish titled, Goldfish Go Big, (Olson, 2017), and a new narrative text titled, Mortimer, (Munsch, 1992), after only a brief reminder of summaries. Intervention 2 was identical to Intervention 1, with the exception that different books were used, as dictated by the STS curriculum. Additionally, as indicated by the STS6TM, both eighth grade texts were read independently by students during this intervention, rather than as a whole group read aloud (Cooper & Chard, 2008). Seventh grade students, however, participated in a group read aloud of their texts during this intervention phase. Final data was collected from student summaries, and from the STAR Reading Assessment to determine if students’ GEs had increased after Intervention 2 had concluded.

Informational summaries throughout this study were scored out of seven points, including a point for the topic sentence, three detail sentences, and a concluding sentence, or a topic sentence and four detail sentences. The final two points were related to the ability of the student to use multiple complete sentences, and the ability of the student to put the information from the text into their own words. A rubric was created to help students to specifically understand each required part of the summary, and what the student needed to do to earn the point for each category.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Name: ______Total Points: ____/7__

1 point 0 points

Topic Student stated the topic/main idea of Student did not state the topic/main Sentence the text idea of the text

Detail 1 Student stated one important detail Student stated a detail that was off from the text topic or was a minor detail from the text OR detail 1 is missing

Detail 2 Student stated a different detail from Student stated a detail that was off the topic, was a minor detail, or was already stated OR detail 2 is missing

Detail 3 Student stated a third different detail Student stated a detail that was off from the text topic, was a minor detail, or was already stated OR detail 3 is missing

Detail 4 OR Student stated a fourth different Student stated a detail that was off Concluding detail from the text OR wrote a topic, was a minor detail, or was Sentence concluding sentence for the already stated paragraph OR detail 4 is missing OR concluding sentence is missing

Punctuation Student used complete sentences Student did not use complete sentences

Sentence Student put info from the story into Student did not use their own words construction their own words (copied from text)

Figure 1: Rubric for Informational Summary Method

Narrative summaries were scored using the Somebody Wanted But So Then (SWBST) strategy, awarding one point each for the five categories included in the summary. SWBST is a strategy used by the ELA teachers in our building for writing narrative summaries. The strategy lays out a simple way to summarize the main points of the story in a way that is easy for students to remember. In this strategy, the Somebody is the main character or main characters of the story. In the Wanted section, the student describes what the main character wanted, or what they 35

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION wanted to do. The But section is where the student lists the conflict and tells what is stopping the main character from doing what they want to do. The section titled So is where the student includes what the main character or someone else did to overcome the problem. Finally, in the

Then section, the student tells how the story ended. The final two points of this summary were awarded for use of multiple complete sentences and for the ability of the student to put the information from the text into their own words.

Student ______Total Points _____/7__

1 point 0 points

Somebody Student named main Student did not name main character/characters character/characters

Wanted Student stated what the main Student did not state what the main character wanted/wanted to do character wanted/wanted to do

But Student stated what stopped the Student did not state what stopped main character from doing what the main character from doing what they wanted (conflict) they wanted (conflict)

So Student stated what main character Student did not state what main (or someone else) did to get past the character (or someone else) did to get problem past the problem

Then Student stated how the story ended Student did not state how the story ended

Punctuation Student used complete sentences Student did not use complete sentences

Sentence Student put info from the story into Student did not use their own words construction their own words (copied from text)

Figure 2: Rubric for SWBST Summary Method

Data will be analyzed by comparing results of each student with each data collection method throughout the study. For example, Student 1’s data will be compared from Baseline 1 to

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Intervention 2 through narrative summary scores, informational summary scores, and STAR

Reading assessment scores. Overall data from all students will be used to inform my instruction for the remainder of the school year, and in future school years.

Section Four: Results

This chapter will contain a discussion of student results during this study. Qualitative data were collected in the form of student written summaries of both narrative and informational texts. Quantitative data were collected in the form of student scores on the aforementioned summaries, as well as through use of a computerized reading assessment program called STAR

Reading. The same texts were used for Baseline 1 and Baseline 2 in both grade levels. During the intervention sections, students read texts based on Soar to Success (STS) curriculum reading level benchmarks. Intervention materials were determined through use of the STS curriculum, as had been taught throughout the year.

Student performance in this section will be discussed based on the type of assessment method used. Narrative summaries will be discussed as a whole, as both grade levels showed similar trends in growth regardless of the text they read or their grade level. The same held true for the informational summaries. The STAR Reading assessment was used to determine Grade

Level Equivalents (GEs) for students during Baseline 1, then again after Intervention 2 had been completed. Typically, when assessing a student’s reading ability, educators use an Instructional

Reading Level (IRL) measure rather than a GE measure, since they are generally easier to understand and explain to parents. I am using GE measures in my study rather than IRLs because a GE is always measured in numbers, whereas IRLs can be measured in words if a student reads below a first grade reading level. Several of my students were reading at the pre-primer IRL when I began collecting data, which is impossible to include on a graph using only numbers. GEs

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION were used simply because they provide scores in numbers. The STAR Reading assessment not only measured students’ GEs, but also provided information regarding specific Common Core

State Standards, (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief of State School Officers, 2010), on which each student required more support.

Narrative Summary Discussion

Baseline 1.

All students read and summarized the same text during Baseline 1. The text was a short narrative written by the teacher, based on the nursery rhyme Jack and Jill. Students were given no reminders of how to create a summary from when it had been taught previously during the school year. The text was read aloud and students were asked to summarize the most important information in their own words, while using complete sentences.

Baseline 1 Narrative Summary Scores

0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Figure 3: Narrative Summary Baseline 1 Data Graph

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Intervention 1 procedures.

On completion of Baseline 1 data collection, Intervention 1 was administered through explicit instruction of scripted lessons from the STS6TM (Cooper & Chard, 2008). Students in each grade level read one narrative text and one informational text during each intervention cycle. Seventh grade students read a narrative titled, The Secret Room, (Shulevitz, 2007), during

Intervention 1. Eighth grade students read a narrative titled, Detective Donut and the Wild Goose

Chase, (Whatley & Smith, 2001). During instruction, I used chart paper to document a story map of important events throughout each book. During discussions of the text each day, the students told me which events were most important and needed to be included on this story map. When all of the lessons had been taught, students were asked to write a complete summary of the text using the Somebody Wanted But So Then (SWBST) summary strategy. SWBST is the summary strategy taught by language arts teachers in the building for writing a narrative summary. The story map for each class was left hanging in the front of the room. Students were encouraged to select the most important events off their class’s story map to include in their final summaries.

Student data were during collected through scoring of their summaries on a seven-point rubric. The first five points were awarded for content related to the SWBST summary strategy.

If the student did not include the specific words from the strategy (Somebody, Wanted, But, So,

Then) but included the relevant content for that section, they were awarded the point. Of the remaining two points, one was awarded for use of multiple complete sentences. The other was awarded for putting the text into the writer’s own words. Scores indicated that three of five students performed better on the baseline assessment than on the Intervention 1 assessment. One student scored the same on both assessments, and one student showed growth of three points.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

These scores and growth patterns indicate that Intervention 1 was less successful than anticipated.

Student 1 was a seventh grade, female Hispanic student who spoke Spanish at home. She participated in the Alternate Assessment for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities

(AASCD) and required extensive intervention in all academic areas to show growth. Student 2 was a seventh grade, male Somali student who spoke Somali at home. He also participated in the

AASCD and required intensive intervention in all academic areas to show growth. Student 3 was a seventh grade, white American female who transferred to our school during the first quarter.

She was able to participate in the typical standardized test most students take in our building.

While she required extensive support in reading, writing, and math, she was able to be successful in a larger, general education classroom with support from both the general education teacher and the intervention specialist.

Students 4 and 5 were my eighth grade students. Student 4 was a white, American male that I have in class for the second consecutive year. He took the AASCD and required significant interventions in all areas to show growth. This student was also diagnosed with ADHD and required multiple prompts per day to remain on task. He had shown limited progress in reading over the past year and half. Student 5 was a black American male, who was also in my class last year. He took the AASCD and also required extensive interventions to show growth in any area.

This student had also shown limited progress in reading over the time he has been in my class.

Intervention 1 Analysis.

Students 1, 2, and 3 were all seventh grade students, had read the same text, and all had decreased scores from Baseline 1 to Intervention 1. This could have been due to several factors.

Firstly, the narrative text used in Intervention 1 was longer and more complex than that used in

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Baseline 1. The Secret Room, (Shulevitz, 2007), was a story that had multiple characters students could have selected as their “Somebody” or main character. Students 1 and 2 were not able to identify the Old Man as the main character in the book. Additionally, while the strategy indicates that the writer needs to talk about what the main character wants, it does not have a word in the strategy to remind them to select the primary motivation of the main character. For example,

Student 2 indicated that the king wanted to go to his castle, which is technically correct, as it was an event that happened in the story. In actuality, the summary should have started with, “The Old

Man wanted to be nice/faithful/loyal to the king.” Student 5 did show growth of three points during this intervention. He missed half a point on his summary due to the fact that his entire summary was one run-on sentence, rather than multiple shorter sentences, as illustrated in Figure

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Figure 4: Student 5 Intervention 2 Narrative Summary

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Overall, Intervention 1 did not show as much growth as anticipated. The reason this study was set up with two intervention periods, however, was specifically due to the special needs of the students involved. Multiple articles found during research, as well as personal experiences, indicated that students identified with intellectual disabilities (ID) require significant, repeated intervention to be successful. While scores were lower than anticipated, it was expected that students would not instantly show growth based on only one intervention period.

Narrative Summary Data: Intervention 1

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Baseline 1 Intervention 1

Figure 5: Intervention 1 Narrative Summary Data Graph

Upon the completion of Intervention 1, students in both grades spent two weeks learning about figurative language. This was to simulate the way instruction is structured in this building.

All language arts teachers in the building structures their classes to follow a format of instruction that focuses on reading for a few weeks, then writing for a few weeks. Following this format,

Intervention 2 could not follow immediately upon the completion of Intervention 1. Once the

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION figurative language unit was completed, the study continued with Baseline 2 data collection, followed by Intervention 2.

Baseline 2.

The same procedures were used for Baseline 2 and Intervention 2 as were used in

Baseline 1 and Intervention 1, although the texts used for this portion of the study were different.

Different texts were chosen as this was a second baseline data collection point. If the same texts had been used as earlier in the study, results for this baseline could have been skewed based on what students recalled from earlier baseline assessment. Additionally, as noted above, the texts during Intervention 2 at the eighth grade level were read independently by the students, then discussed as a class each day. The text used for both grade levels for Baseline 2 was a picture book titled Mortimer, (Munsch, 1992). The narrative texts for Intervention 2 were as follows: seventh grade read a text titled Ruth Law Thrills A Nation, (Brown, 2007), and eighth grade read a text titled Nana Hannah’s Piano, (Bottner, 1990).

Baseline 2 Narrative Summary Scores

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Figure 6: Baseline 2 Narrative Summary Data Graph

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Intervention 2 analysis.

During Intervention 2, four of five students in the study showed growth in their rubric scores between the Baseline 2 and Intervention 2 assessments. Student 1 showed a decreased score between the two assessments. Student 1 missed a point for failing to include how the story ended, and for failing to use complete sentences, but was able to identify four of the five parts of the story required by the SWBST summary strategy. Several other students had similar successes in Intervention 2 as in Intervention 1. For example, both Student 2 and Student 3 were able to identify the main character in the story Ruth Law Thrills A Nation as Ruth Law, but failed to indicate her primary motivation, which was to fly from Chicago to New York City in one day as it had never been done before (Brown, 2007). As seen in Figure 7, Student 2 stated that she

“...try to go to new yourk…,” but did not include any reasoning as to why Ruth wanted to do so.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Figure 7: Student 2 Intervention 2 Narrative Summary

As seen in Figure 8, Student 3 neglected the same portion in her summary, stating, “...want to fly to NYC…”

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Figure 8: Student 3 Intervention 2 Narrative Summary

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Each student showed improvement from the Baseline 2 assessment to the Intervention 2 assessment, though in some cases only by half of one point. Student 5, again, showed improvement during this Intervention. He again missed only half a point on his Intervention 2 summary due to writing one run-on sentence instead of breaking his summary into multiple, complete sentences.

Narrative Summary Data: Intervention 2

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Baseline 2 Intervention 2

Figure 9: Intervention 2 Narrative Summary Data

Throughout the course of this study, only one student, Student 2, showed a decrease in scores from Baseline 1 to Intervention 2. Student 3 and Student 4 earned the same scores on assessments from Baseline 1 and Intervention 2. Students 1 and 5 showed growth from the beginning of baseline testing to the end of the second intervention period. While Student 1 showed growth of only one point, Student 5 showed growth of three points. Overall, the assessment scores of all students on narrative summary writing produced a T score of 0.648, which is not statistically significant. The sample size to produce this score, however, is quite small at only five students. Looking at student scores, it is clear to see that some growth was 48

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION made by some of the students involved in this study. Again, it was not expected that students would show significant growth in a short time, only that they might show some growth.

Overall Narrative Summary Data: Baseline 1 to Intervention 2

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Baseline 1 Intervention 2

Figure 10: Overall Narrative Summary Data Graph

Informational Summary Discussion

Baseline 1.

As discussed in the Narrative Summary Discussion, all students, regardless of grade level, read the same informational text for Baseline 1. The text selected was a short informational piece about Martin Luther King, Jr. that had been written by myself. Students were given no reminders of the strategy used to write an informational summary, as had been taught previously in the year. The text was read aloud to all students, and they were given reminders to use complete sentences, to select the most important information, and to put that information into their own words.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Baseline 1 Informational Summary Scores

0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Figure 11: Baseline 1 Informational Summary Data Graph

Intervention 1 procedures.

The day after Baseline 1 was completed during class, Intervention 1 began, as described in the Narrative Summary Discussion. The seventh grade students read an informational text titled, Chinese Giant Salamander: The World’s Biggest Amphibian, (Squire, 2007), and eighth grade students read a book titled, Amazing Snakes! (Thompson, 2007). Both books were part of the STS curriculum. In addition to text, each book contained multiple text features per page, such as headings, photographs, and captions. After all scripted lessons from the STS6TM had been taught for each text, (Cooper & Chard, 2008), students were asked to write a summary using the

Main Idea & Details strategy taught in the building by language arts teachers. This summary strategy requires students to include the main idea of the text as their topic sentence, and include either three important details and a concluding sentence, or four important details.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Intervention 1 analysis.

Student data were collected in a quantitative manner through use of a seven-point rubric created for this summary strategy. Five points were allotted to content and included the main idea and details of the text. Of the remaining two points, one was awarded for use of multiple complete sentences, and the other for putting the information into the writer’s own words. Data from Intervention Cycle 1 indicated that Students 1, 2, 3 and 5 showed growth on informational summaries, and Student 4 scored the same on both Baseline 1 and Intervention 1 informational summaries. This data indicates that Intervention Cycle 1 was more successful for informational text than for narrative text.

This general increase in ability with informational text over narrative during this intervention could be due to several factors. The first reason was discussed in the Narrative

Summary Discussion section as well. While the SWBST narrative strategy does specifically require students to use particular information in their summary, it fails to include a reminder that those pieces of information should be the most important pieces of information from the text for each part of the summary. Additionally, during the reading of the informational texts, a class created KWL (Know, Want to Know, Learned) chart was created and hung in the front of the room by the teacher for all students to view during instruction. This chart remained hanging while students wrote their summaries, and students were encouraged to select their important information from the Learned section to include in their summaries.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Figure 12: KWL Chart for Informational Text

Overall, while students did show more growth on informational summaries than narratives during Intervention 1, the amount of growth varied, and in the case of Student 4, did not change at all. These scores indicated that further intervention was required to show the true capabilities of these students when writing summaries of informational text. In general, students seemed better able to select appropriate, important information from the KWL chart created for 52

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION these informational texts than they were able to select appropriate, important events from the story maps used with the narrative summary texts. This may be attributed to the fact that all of the information included in informational text was purely fact, while narratives contain many smaller details that may or may not be relevant in the overall story arc. Most students only lost points on the details portion of their informational summaries if they forgot to include a detail, rather than because they included an unimportant detail.

Informational Summary Data: Intervention 1

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Baseline 1 Intervention 1

Figure 13: Intervention 1 Informational Summary Data Graph

Upon the completion of Intervention 1, students in both grades spent two weeks learning about figurative language. This was to simulate the way instruction is structured in this building.

All language arts teachers in the building structures their classes to follow a format of instruction that focuses on reading for a few weeks, then writing for a few weeks. Following this format,

Intervention 2 could not follow immediately upon the completion of Intervention 1. Once the

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION figurative language unit was completed, the study continued with Baseline 2 data collection, followed by Intervention 2.

Baseline 2.

As previously discussed, the procedures employed during Baseline 2 and Intervention 2 were identical to those used during Baseline 1 and Intervention 1, with the exception of the eighth grade students reading their texts independently rather than aloud as a group. The informational text used for both grade levels during Baseline 2 data collection was an informational text from Scholastic Action Magazine titled, Goldfish Go Big (Olson, 2017). The article was read aloud to students. Before reading, students were informed that they would be writing a summary of the text, and that they should use their pencil or a highlighter to annotate their text for the most important information. Students were also reminded that their summary should be written in complete sentences, include the most important information, and that the information they gathered from the text needed to be put into their own words.

Baseline 2 Informational Summary Scores

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Figure 14: Baseline 2 Informational Summary Data Graph 54

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Intervention 2 analysis.

During Intervention 2, the informational text read by the seventh grade students was,

Amazing Snakes! (Thompson, 2007) and the text read by the eighth grade students was, Chinese

Giant Salamanders: The World’s Biggest Amphibian, (Squire, 2007). As with Intervention 1, each book was taught through specific instruction of scripted lessons from the STS6TM, (Cooper

& Chard, 2008). Information from each text that students learned was documented by the teacher on a large KWL poster at the front of the room. Students were able to use this poster when writing their summaries to include the most important information.

Data collected from their scored summaries indicated that there was more growth during

Intervention 2 than Intervention 1. Not only was more growth documented, but student informational summaries written during Intervention 2 showed higher scores than those in

Intervention 1. With the exception of Student 1, all students showed higher scores in Intervention

2 than Intervention 1 informational summaries. These raised scores indicate that this intervention was successful.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Informational Summary Data: Intervention 2

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Baseline 2 Intervention 2

Figure 15: Intervention 2 Informational Summary Data Graph

Overall, data indicates that all five students in this study were able to create more successful informational summaries than narrative summaries. The scores earned by students were higher on their informational summaries than on their narrative summaries throughout the study. There could be several reasons for this discrepancy. First of all, information gathered from an informational text is strictly facts. Students did not need to determine which fact represented a

“main character” or the primary motivation of that character. They simply had to look at the list of facts and determine which would be most important in a summary. While there were facts that were less important than others gleaned from the informational texts in this study, students seemed better equipped to determine importance in informational texts than in narratives. The narrative texts were also filled with many details, some of which were relevant, others that were not. Many students struggled to determine which events in the narrative stories were the most relevant and should be included in their summaries.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Overall Informational Summary Data: Baseline 1 to Intervention 2

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Baseline 1 Intervention 2

Figure 16: Overall Informational Summary Data Graph

STAR Reading Assessment Discussion

The STAR Reading assessment is an online reading assessment that measures multiple aspects of the ability of a student to read. Included in the results of this assessment are

Instructional Reading Levels (IRLs), Grade Level Equivalents (GEs), Scaled Scores (SS), and

Lexile measures. Also, this assessment provides instructors with specific Common Core State

Standards (CCSS), (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of

Chief of State School Officers, 2010), that students need support in reaching through an

Instructional Planning Report. This assessment was used in this study to measure GEs of students before beginning the study, and to measure GEs on completion of the study. The

Instructional Planning Report for each student was also used to determine progress students had made through writing summaries. This assessment tool is used once per grading period, and as this study spanned the duration of a grading period, the assessment was going to be used anyway.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

STAR Data: Grade Level Equivalents

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Pre-Assessment Post-Assessment

Figure 17: STAR Reading GE Data Graph

Students 1, 2, 4, and 5 showed growth from the pre-assessment to the post-assessment using the STAR Reading tool. While Student 1 showed little growth, Students 2 and 4 showed impressive amounts of growth for such a short amount of time. Student 2 went from a GE of 2.7 to 3.7, which indicates about a year of growth. Student 4 grew from a GE of 1.6 to 2. While this is a less substantial jump than Student 2 showed, it is still impressive for a study that lasted only eight weeks. Additionally, Student 4 was a student I taught in class last year when he was in my seventh grade class. This is the first time he has scored higher than a pre-primer IRL, or 1.6 GE, on the STAR Assessment in either school year.

Results from this assessment can, unfortunately, be skewed by a number of factors. The most unpredictable factor is the student taking the assessment. A student can drastically change their scores from assessment to assessment simply by having a change in attitude, or focus for the day. For example, during her first assessment, Student 3 completed her assessment in 10 58

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION minutes and 50 seconds. On this assessment she scored a GE of 3.8. Her second assessment, however, she completed in six minutes and three seconds, and scored a GE of 1.4. This bumped her IRL from 3.8 down to the pre-primer (pre-kindergarten) level. This indicates that Student 3 was likely not as focused, or had some other factor affecting her test taking during her second assessment, as it is unlikely her ability to read regressed multiple grade levels in nine weeks. The student was asked to complete the assessment again the following week to attempt to obtain a more accurate score. On this third assessment, the student scored a GE of 2.1.

The Instructional Planning Reports for each of the four students who showed growth indicated that, although primarily focused on CCSS related to foundational skills, not a single student had “objective summary” listed as an area where support was required (National

Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief of State School Officers,

2010). The Instructional Planning Report for Student 3 was not taken at face value, given her lack of consistency in testing. The report indicates that she requires support in multiple areas related to identifying key elements and details in both informational and narrative text. Her summaries, while they do not show similar growth to the other students in the study, do not support the results from this assessment, as they do not indicate that she has regressed multiple grade levels in reading ability.

The Instructional Planning Report for Student 1 indicated that she is able to identify main ideas and details in informational text, as well as the main characters and all literary elements in a narrative text. Student 2’s report indicated similar findings to Student 1. Student 4’s report indicated that he requires instruction on describing the setting of a story using details. Student 5’s report indicates that he will need further support in the areas of describing main characters and settings of stories, as well as main idea and details in informational texts.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Overall, the STAR Reading assessment was an invaluable tool for not only determining growth through use of the GE scores of most students in this study, but also to indicate areas in which each student still requires support. Results of this assessment indicated that all students showed growth throughout this study, with the exception of Student 3.

Section Five: Limitations and Implications

Limitations of the Study

There were several limitations to this study, the first of which being the length of time I was able to collect data on my students. As noted in multiple articles reviewed during this study, students with ID require extensive support through an explicit, comprehensive, intervention curriculum in order to make progress in reading comprehension. While my study did show progress for most of my students in this area, it only lasted two months. In order to obtain more comprehensive results, my study could have lasted the duration of a school year, to show how my students with ID progressed over a longer period of time.

Another limitation was the assessment tools used, in the context that students were asked to write a summary to determine their reading comprehension. By using a written response, it brought students’ writing abilities into play, which may have led to some students earning lower rubric scores due to lower writing abilities. Additionally, the STAR Reading program was the only part of the study completed on a computer. If a student had lower than typical computer skills, or did not ask a question regarding the assessment interface, students’ final scores may have been lower than their actual reading comprehension levels.

A further limitation of this study was the population of students involved. Not only was the study size too small to yield any truly generalizable results with only five participants, two of

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION my five participants fell into the category of English Language Learners (ELLs). In addition to having an intellectual disability (ID), both of these students had the hurdle of reading and writing in a language that was not native to them. Their writing abilities were already measured as being significantly below their grade level peers, or they would not have been placed into my classes.

This lowered ability to write could have been due to their label of ID, or due to the fact that their grasp of English grammar and punctuation may have been lacking. Either way, their writing skills could have led to lowered scores on their written summaries, and therefore could have altered results.

An additional limitation to this study includes the fact that some of the materials used were teacher generated to be as similar to the curriculum standards as possible. As mentioned, I teach in a Title 1 school, which means our district does not always have the funding required to provide consumable student workbooks for each student for each adopted curriculum. The materials that were teacher generated were designed to be as close as possible in looks and function to those designed in the curriculum, but in some cases, it was obvious that these materials were not provided with the texts.

Use of the SWBST summary strategy was an additional limitation. While all teachers in our building use this strategy to teach summarizing, there were some difficulties in implementation that were not foreseen. The first difficulty includes the Wanted portion of this summary, in asking students to tell what the main character wanted, or wanted to do. As noted throughout my study, many of my students struggled with remembering to select the primary motivation of the main character, not a smaller detail from the story. Additionally, the Then section should be a brief statement about how the story ended. Frequently, students would

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION include details from the middle of the story, or close to the ending, but not from the actual ending.

The results from the STAR Reading assessment, particularly those for Student 3 could be considered an additional limitation. This assessment is typically used to determine Instructional

Reading Levels (IRLs) and Grade Level Equivalents (GEs) of students who take it. The results can be skewed quite easily if a student is lacking focus on a particular day. The assessment does track the amount of time it takes each student to complete the assessment, which can help the teacher to determine how focused the student was during testing. As the teacher is not allowed to assist the student in any way during this assessment, however, it is impossible to determine how much time a particular student will take until the entire 34 question assessment has been completed.

A final limitation during this study was the environment in which the lessons were taught. The classroom in which I teach is very small, and the amount of furniture in the room clutters the space to the point where it can be incredibly difficult to maneuver around seated students. Seating arrangements are limited, due to a lack of flexibility in seating, again due to a lack of space. The building I teach in is not air conditioned, and regardless of outside weather, my room is noticeably warmer than the hallway. Objects or events outside the window do not typically distract my students, since the only window present opens to the hallway, and is typically closed with a metal, roll-up garage door type closure. This does lead to a lack of airflow and circulation, however, and there is no way to truly cool the room off at all. My classroom also shares a wall with the gym, in which the teachers often play popular music for students to listen to while they work. This music can be heard clearly through the wall of my room and can be distracting for both the students and the teacher.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

These limitations may have skewed my results, though it is impossible to know how much the results may have varied. These limitations have led me to consider implications of this study, and how it will impact my future teaching, and potential future study in this area.

Implications

The results of this study create multiple implications for future research. Much research has been completed regarding how students with intellectual disabilities learn, and the supports they require to make progress in reading. Little research has been done, however, on the specific effectiveness of the Soar to Success curriculum for students with ID. Given the opportunity, and understanding the time limitation of my study, I would gladly complete further research on the effectiveness of this curriculum in my classroom. For future research to provide more comprehensive results, I would start collecting data upon implementation of the curriculum at the beginning of the school year on each student in my classroom labeled with ID. This would allow me to take several limitations of my study into account. Not only would I be able to collect data for a longer amount of time, but I would likely also be starting out with a larger sample size.

The implications of this study for the literacy instruction of those with ID can be seen in a positive light. Results from my study indicate that progress has been made by nearly all students involved in the intervention. That being said, this curriculum works to improve the instructional reading levels of students with ID. I would like to think that this curriculum will work to show growth with all students with ID in my classroom if given a longer amount of time to track the data of intervention. With only five students, it is difficult to say that this curriculum will work with all students with ID. T-scores were determined using the student summary rubric scores of both narrative and informational texts. These scores indicated that growth was not statistically significant, meaning no substantial growth was measured in either area. That being said,

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION however, my study only included five participants, and as such, these results should be taken with a grain of salt. With a larger sample size, it may be possible that this curriculum could show significant growth for students with ID.

Based on the results of this study, I will continue to use this curriculum in my classroom.

While this study only published data on students with ID, I did track the progress of each student in my room over the duration of this study. Not only did my students with ID show growth through this curriculum, most of my other students, with varying disability labels, showed growth as well. I plan to share my findings with my administrator, my co-teachers, and other teachers in the district who teach in the same position as I at other schools, whether they use this curriculum or not. I also plan to learn more about this curriculum from the reading specialists in my district, to ensure that I am implementing this curriculum to the best of my ability.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

References

Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Al Otaiba, S. (2014). Is

Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Effective for Students with Below-Average

IQs?. Exceptional Children, 80(3), 287-306.

Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Jones, F. G., & Champlin, T. M. (2010). Teaching

Students with Moderate Intellectual Disabilities to Read: An Experimental Examination

of a Comprehensive Reading Intervention. Education & Training In Autism &

Developmental Disabilities, 45(1), 3-22.

Alnahdi, G. H. (2015). Teaching Reading for Students with Intellectual Disabilities: A

Systematic Review. International Education Studies, 8(9), 79-87.

Bottner, B. (1990). Nana Hannah's Piano. Houghton Mifflin.

Brown, D. (2007). Ruth Law Thrills A Nation. Houghton Mifflin.

Calkins, L., Cruz, M. C., Hohne, K. B., Taranto, A., Robb, A. K., & Jones-Rooy, G. (2014).

Units of study in argument, information, and narrative writing. Portsmouth, NH:

FirstHand.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Casner-Lotto, J., & Benner, M.W. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’

perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century

U.S. Workforce. New York, NY: Conference Board; Washington, DC: Corperate Voices

for Working Families & Partnership for 21st Century Skills; Alexanderia, VA: Society

for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from

http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf

Choo, T. L., Eng, T. K., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of Reciprocal Teaching Strategies on

Reading Comprehension. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(2), 140-

149.

Cooper, J. D., & Chard, D. (2008). Soar to Success. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Definition of Intellectual Disability. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from

http://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition

Evans, M. B., & Clark, S. K. (2015). Finding a Place for CCSS Literacy Skills in the Middle

School Social Studies Curriculum. Clearing House, 88(1), 1-8.

doi:10.1080/00098655.2014.959460.

Hong-Nam, K., Leavell, A. G., & Maher, S. (2014). The Relationships among Reported Strategy

Use, Metacognitive Awareness, and Reading Achievement of High School Students.

Reading Psychology, 35(8), 762-790.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Hundley, S., & Powell, D. (1999). Investigating Letters and Words through shared reading. In I.

C. Fountas & G. S. Pinnell (Eds.), Voices on word matters: Learning about phonics and

spelling in the literacy classroom (pp. 155-170). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.),

The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209-226). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Kucan, L., & Palincsar, A. S. (2013). Comprehension and Comprehension instruction. In

Comprehension instruction through text-based discusions (pp. 3-14). Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Lundberg, I., & Reichenberg, M. (2013). Developing Reading Comprehension Among Students

With Mild Intellectual Disabilities: An Intervention Study. Scandinavian Journal Of

Educational Research, 57(1), 89-100. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.623179.

Maulik, P. K., Mascarenhas, M. N., Mathers, C. D., Dua, T., Saxena, S. (2011). Prevalence of

intellectual disability: A meta-analysis of population-based studies. Research in

Developmental Disabilities 32. 419-436.

McAllum, R. (2014). Reciprocal Teaching: Critical Reflection on Practice. Kairaranga, 15(1),

26-35.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Munsch, R. N. (1992). Mortimer. Toronto, Canada: Annick Press.

NAEP - 2015 Mathematics & Reading Assessments. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from

http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/groups?grade=8

Nash-Ditzel, S. (2010). Metacognitive Reading Strategies Can Improve Self-Regulation. Journal

Of College Reading And Learning, 40(2), 45-63.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief of State School

Officers, (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and literacy

in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC Authors.

Ohio Department of Education. (n.d.). Ohio School Report Cards. Retrieved January 21, 2017,

from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/School-Report.aspx?SchoolIRN=062182

Olson, T. (2017, February). Goldfish Go Big. Action Magazine, 22-23.

Othman, Y., Mahamud, Z., & Jaidi, N. (2014). The Effects of Metacognitive Strategy in Reading

Expository Text. International Education Studies, 7(13), 102-111.

Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., Illinois Univ., U. R., & Bolt, B. M. (1983). Reciprocal Teaching

of Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Technical Report No. 269.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Parmenter, T. R. (2011). What Is Intellectual Disability? How Is It Assessed and Classified?.

International Journal Of Disability, Development And Education, 58(3), 303-319.

Pittman, P., & Honchell, B. (2014). Literature Discussion: Encouraging Reading Interest and

Comprehension in Struggling Middle School Readers. Journal Of Language And

Literacy Education, 10(2), 118-133.

Pressley, M. (2000). What Should Comprehension Instruction Be the Instruction Of? In

Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Rossiter, L., & Sharpe, D. (2001). The Siblings of Individuals with Mental Retardation: A

Quantitative Integration of the Literature. Journal Of Child & Family Studies, 10(1), 65-

84.

Shulevitz, U. (2007). The Secret Room. Houghton Mifflin.

Squire, A. O. (2007). Chinese Giant Salamander: The World's Biggest Amphibian. Houghton

Mifflin.

SRI International. (2002). Special education elementary longitudinal study (SEELS) [Data tables

and reports]. Retrieved from http://www.seels.net/grindex.html

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Thompson, S. L. (2007). Amazing Snakes! Houghton Mifflin.

Tovani, C. (2000). The realities of reading. In I read it but i don't get it (pp. 13-21). Portland,

ME: Stenhouse.

United States of America, Ohio Department of Education, Offices of Curriculum and

Assessment. (2012). Ohio Academic Content Standards - Extended English Language

Arts. Columbus, OH. Retrieved January 21, 2017, from

http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Special-Education/Students-with-

Disabilities/Students-With-Disabilities-(1)/OACS-E-English-Language-Arts.pdf.aspx

U.S. Department of Education. (2015, October 05). Improving Basic Programs Operated by

Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A) . Retrieved January 21, 2017, from

https://ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

van den Bos, K. P., Nakken, H., Nicolay, P. G., & van Houten, E. J. (2007). Adults with mild

intellectual disabilities: can their reading comprehension ability be improved?. Journal

Of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(11), 835-849. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2788.2006.00921.x.

Vogt, M. J., & Shearer, B. A. (n.d.). Examining the Historical Context for Teaching Reading . In

Reading Specialists and Literacy Coaches in the Real World (3rd ed., pp. 1-26). Pearson.

SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING INTERVENTION

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Whatley, B., & Smith, R. (2001). Detective Donut and the Wild Goose Chase. Houghton Mifflin.