READING RECOVERY METHODOLOGY AS SPECIAL EDUCATION
LITERACY INTERVENTION
______!
A University Thesis Presented to the Faculty
of
California State University, East Bay
______
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Special Education
______
By
Robert Mead Chamberlin
September 2015
Table of Contents
List of Figures...... iv
Chapter One. Introduction...... 1 General Statement of the Problem...... 1 Literacy, Evidence Based Practices and Scientifically Based Research...... 1 Reading Recovery Research and Intervention...... 4
Chapter Two. Literature Review...... 6
Chapter Three. Methodology...... 22 Research Design...... 22 Participants...... 22 Student One: Ivan...... 24 Student Two: Duane...... 24 Student Three: Joseph...... 25 Measures: Dependent Variables...... 26 Procedures...... 29
Chapter Four. Results...... 31 Student One: Ivan...... 34 Student Two: Duane...... 37 Student Three: Joseph...... 39
Chapter Five. Discussion...... 43 Student Outcomes...... 43 Student One: Ivan...... 43 Student Two: Duane...... 45 Student Three: Joseph...... 47 Limitations...... 48 Importance of Outcomes to Existing Research...... 49 Implications for Further Research...... 51
Chapter Six. Summary...... 53
References...... 55
! """! List of Figures
Figure 1. Baseline and Ending Running Record Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph...... 31
Figure 2. Baseline and Ending Letter Identification Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph...... 32
Figure 3. Baseline and Ending Word Identification Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph...... 32
Figure 4. Baseline and Ending Concepts About Print scores for Ivan, Duane and Joseph...... 33
Figure 5. Baseline and Ending Running Record Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph...... 33
Figure 6. Baseline and Ending Hearing sounds in Words (HSIW) scores for Ivan, Duane and Joseph...... 34
Figure 7. Ivan’s weekly Running Record Levels...... 35
Figure 8. Ivan’s weekly reading accuracy percentages.....35
Figure 9. Ivan’s weekly count of known words...... 36
Figure 10. Duane’s weekly Running Record Levels...... 37
Figure 11. Duane’s weekly reading accuracy percentages...38
Figure 12. Duane’s weekly count of known words...... 38
Figure 13. Joseph’s weekly Running Record Levels...... 40
Figure 14. Joseph’s weekly reading accuracy percentages..41
Figure 15. Joseph’s weekly count of known words...... 41
! "#! ! "!
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
General Statement of the Problem
The present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery methodology in increasing the literacy skills of students with moderate to severe disabilities.
Literacy, Evidence Based Practices and Scientifically Based
Research.
While school districts, publishers, general education classroom teachers and school administrators scramble to address the literacy learning of the general education population in response to the new Common Core reading and writing standards, special education teachers continue to search for effective, evidence-based practices that will address the complex needs of their students with moderate to severe disabilities.
In 2000 the National Reading Panel concluded its exhaustive study of research based reading and published its recommendations of the most effective evidence-based methods for teaching children to read. Their analysis
! ! #!
made it clear that the best approach for teaching children to read included: explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, systematic phonics instruction, methods to improve fluency and vocabulary as well as ways to enhance comprehension, (National Reading Panel, 2000).
Shortly after the National Reading Panel (NRP) report was released the National Institute for Literacy published its summary of the findings of the NRP and included suggestions on how the findings can be translated into practice. Sections include phonemic awareness instruction, phonics instruction, vocabulary instruction, fluency instruction, and text comprehension instruction (National
Institute for Literacy, 2001).!
The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (IDEA) aligned IDEA closely to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. NCLB defined the term 'scientifically based research' as (A) meaning research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs. IDEA addresses scientifically based research in the following context:
! ! $!
“…Professional development activities for teachers and other school staff to enable such personnel to deliver scientifically based academic instructional and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction, where appropriate…providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction” [IDEA 2004 {(613(f)(2)(A)(B)}].
Over the course of the last decade this new knowledge about reading and a general push toward scientifically based literacy instruction has driven extensive research toward existing literacy programs which integrated these proven literacy practices and were found effective at increasing literacy for students with disabilities. Many literacy programs traditionally delivered to general education students had not been researched as a special education intervention. By reviewing and analyzing what scientific research studies existed researchers have been determining what comprehensive literacy instructional programs and interventions exist for students with disabilities.
While primarily focusing on literacy interventions for students with more significant disabilities, studies that address significant learning disabilities should be considered by those working in the field as relevant to
! ! %!
determining effective practices for students who are struggling to learn to read.
Reading Recovery Research and Intervention
The Reading Recovery program was developed in the
1970’s by New Zealand educator and researcher, Marie M.
Clay, and is designed as a short-term reading and writing intervention targeting first graders identified as having the lowest performance in their grade, through the standardized Observation Survey. Lessons are individualized to each individual student’s needs and delivered by teachers specifically trained to assess what the child knows and what they need to learn next, and to design lessons to teach that. Over the course of 12 to 20 weeks students will typically make rapid growth in their reading skills, with entering first grade students being the lowest in their grade and achieving an end of first grade reading level in order to be exited successfully from the program. As of July 2013, What Works Clearinghouse, established by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), found Reading Recovery to
“…have positive effects on general reading achievement and
! ! &!
potentially positive effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension for beginning readers” (p.1)
While there are 30 years of research describing the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery program as it is prescribed there seems to be little research around its use as a methodology to be used for students with moderate to severe disabilities. At the same time, there seem to be limitations in the variety of research surrounding evidence-based practices that are effective in teaching, reinforcing, and/or furthering the early literacy skills of students with moderate to severe disabilities. The studies cited and discussed in chapter two constitute much of the recent published research. At its core, the specific, individualized nature of the Reading Recovery Program seems ideal to meet the needs of special education students struggling with the reading process.
! ! '!
Chapter Two
LITERATURE REVIEW
In 2009, Browder, Gibbs, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade,
Mraz and Flowers published an article that proposed a conceptual foundation for early literacy instruction for students with severe developmental disabilities. These authors had examined the components of reading outlined by the National Reading Panel as well as research recommendations offered by No Child Left Behind and found that students with severe developmental disabilities were not part of the reformative movement in Literacy instruction. After conducting a review of evidence based research strategies and justifications for early literacy instruction for students with severe developmental disabilities Browder, Gibbs et al., (2009) were able to suggest two targeted outcomes for literacy instruction: increased access to literature and increased independence as a reader. Their model of instruction focuses on meaningful interactions with text through shared literature readings as well as increasing the student’s independence as a reader through direct instruction incorporating the recommendations of the NRP (Browder, Gibbs et al., 2009).
! ! (!
Allor and Chard (2011) looked at where struggling readers experienced the most difficulty and found that the complex relationship between fluency and comprehension can be adversely affected by poor decoding skills. The authors reviewed fundamental research around the foundations of learning to read and reading fluency, and then developed what they believed to be a comprehensive reading intervention to improve fluency. The authors described a number of principles for planning effective fluency instruction that include: attending closely to task, high levels of accuracy; motivation; intensity; appropriate level of difficulty, and practice that is meaningful to the student. These principles were followed by suggested methods for designing lessons and again, seemed to roughly follow the recommendations of the NRP. They included activities that emphasize phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, irregular/sight words, morphemes/multisyllabic words, and passage reading/comprehension (Allor & Chard, 2011).
Hudson, Browder and Wood’s 2013 study conducted a review of existing literature to determine what evidence- based practices were effective methods of instruction for
! ! )!
students with moderate to severe disabilities in inclusive settings. The criteria for inclusion in their review were based on 21 indicators and sub indicators involving: participants and setting; a dependent variable that included participant academics; engagement, measurement and data; an independent variable or intervention with at least
>80% fidelity; baseline procedures; experimental control and internal validity; external validity and social validity. The researchers then rated each study with a coding methodology and established rater consensus and inter-rater reliability on quality indicators (Hudson et al., 2013).
A total of 17 experimental studies were included with
12 meeting all 21 indicators. There were five instructional intervention programs: 10 embedded trial instructional programs; two using a system of least prompts; three using peer supports and one that used constant time delay. The researchers found that the embedded constant time delay instruction was used effectively across a number of settings and subjects including phonemic awareness.
While task analysis was discussed, it was only employed as part of a literacy intervention in two of the
! ! *!
studies they reviewed. Despite the broad range of years included in the research (1975-2012) only 17 research studies involved inclusive settings, and only a few of these were specifically focused on literacy.
Another literature review study by Spooner, Knight,
Browder, and Smith (2012) set out to determine what evidence-based practices were being utilized in the instruction of students with moderate to severe disabilities. The review focused on including only single- case research methodologies that met minimum criteria of experimental control, appeared in peer-reviewed journals, and involved a variety of researchers and locations. The specific practices were limited to discrete responses; task analysis and time delay were employed and studies included the subject areas of literacy, mathematics, and science.
To be included, the study had to involve at least one participant labeled as having a severe disability. Coding was used along with methods for establishing interrater reliability. In the end, 18 studies were included and encompassed over 50 students with diagnoses that included autism, mild or moderate intellectual disabilities, severe or multiple disabilities (Spooner et al., 2012).
! ! "+!
The researchers focused the results on comparing the use of task analysis with systematic prompting and feedback; the use of discrete response alone and the use of time delay to teach a set of discrete responses. They found that both task analysis and discrete response methodologies are evidence-based practices. One important limitation of the study was that a majority of the practices were implemented in special education settings and addressed only specific literacy skills (functional sight words, phonemic awareness) as opposed to comprehensive literacy instruction.
Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham, and Otaiba’s 2014 longitudinal study of scientifically-based reading intervention employed a randomized, quasi-experimental design to look at how students with below average to borderline measured intelligence quotients (I.Q. scores) from 40 to 80 responded over time to daily instruction using the Early Interventions in Reading program (EIR)
(Allor & Mathes, 2012) developed through Allor and Chard’s
2011 research. The research focused on two main questions:
(1) If a reading program has been proven effective with students diagnosed with learning disabilities, will it be effective with students diagnosed with intellectual
! ! ""!
disabilities (ID)? And, (2) How does the diagnosis of ID affect the rate of growth; and, would the growth
(comprehension vs. fluency) be balanced? (Allor et al.,
2014).
The study team utilized several standardized assessment tools to establish baseline and split the students into an intervention group (n = 76) and a contrast group (n = 65). The intervention group received small group instruction in the Early Interventions in Reading
(Allor & Mathes, 2012) curriculum that is comprehensive and addresses fluency, comprehension, word recognition and decoding. The contrast group received general education reading curriculum (Open Court, Bereiter et al., 2005) and/or typical special education interventions such as letter writing, sight word and oral language activities in their classrooms. Ongoing assessments measured progress regularly on a number of different literacy skills sets.
At the end of the four-year study the research team used a multi-level model to analyze the two questions posed at the onset. While the starting points of the participants matched, the intervention group’s growth was greater overall with a slower growth rate correlated with the extent of intellectual disability of the participant—
! ! "#!
this in both the intervention and two contrast groups. The results clearly demonstrated that through daily, structured, comprehensive reading instruction students with more significant disabilities could learn to read as demonstrated by increases in oral reading fluency, word reading and phonological awareness. It is important to also note that students with significant ID took much longer to demonstrate academic growth as compared to typically developing peers (years as compared to weeks).
Limitations to the study were mostly around health issues and the challenges a long-term study would involve including intervention variability and participants dropping out.
In 2013, Allor, Gifford, Otaiba, Miller, and Chetham modified the EIR to address the needs of three students who in the midst of the longitudinal study by Allor, Mathes, et al, had not responded to the initial use of the Early
Interventions in Reading (EIR) program (Allor & Mathes,
2012). Students in this multiple baseline, changing criteria scientific study ranged in age from eight to 12 years old with full-scale IQ scores of 52, 59, and 45. All three students faced challenges with letter-sound correspondence and segmenting of phonemes. Given that
! ! "$!
these sub skills are critical in the orchestration of good reading skills, the researchers designed a program that would address and respond to the individual needs of each of the students.
Each student received one-on-one instruction for 45 minutes daily over the course of 14 weeks. Lessons were structured in a way similar to Reading Recovery in that they involved a series of eight to ten brief activities focused on concepts about print, phonological and phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word recognition, fluency and comprehension. The students regularly engaged in picture walks, sight word practice, segmenting, spelling decodable words, and oral discussion and reading of storybooks. This study intended to look at individualizing interventions for students with ID. Results varied greatly among the three students but all made progress, demonstrating an overall upward trend in their word reading skills (Allor, Gifford et al., 2013).
! Wanzek, Vaughn, Roberts and Fletcher (2011) designed an experimental study that addressed the learning needs of middle school students who were identified with learning disabilities (LD) and who demonstrated reading problems.
The authors discussed a relative lack of research on
! ! "%!
Response to Intervention (RTI) based studies that addressed the literacy needs of middle school aged children and designed an intervention that followed the RTI framework.
A total of 120 sixth to eighth grade students completed the program. Students were split into a control group (n=55) and an intervention group (n=65). Students in the intervention group received a supplemental, daily remedial,
50 minute reading intervention in a separate class in addition to their daily special education and general education program. All of the teachers and staff involved in the training attended a six hour professional development session at the beginning of the school year on evidence based practices for teaching vocabulary and comprehension and also met monthly in study groups. Each intervention teacher was observed two to three times monthly and fidelity data were taken and monitored for consistency.
The intervention group participated in a three-phase lesson format that initially focused on word recognition, fluency, and phonemic awareness. As the classes gained mastery they would move to Phase two and Phase three, continuing the skills introduced in phase one but also increasing the focus on meaning and comprehension, and
! ! "&!
eventually on increasing independence and application of learned skills (Wanzek et al., 2011).
The intervention group demonstrated statistically significant improvement in sight word reading and small improvements in comprehension and phonemic decoding. The authors strongly suggested that the large group size (10 to
15 students) lowered the desired intensity of the lessons by not allowing individualization of the intervention program to meet the unique needs of each student, which could only be implemented in one-on-one or much smaller groups than used in the study (Wanzek, Vaughn, Roberts and
Fletcher, 2011).
The 2012 study by Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers and Baker compared the effectiveness of a multi-component early literacy program to a sight word program. Their research included 93 students with severe developmental disabilities in grades three through five. Students were split into statistically balanced control and treatment groups based on gender, IQ, verbal status, ethnicity, and weekly hours in general education classes. The study was conducted in a large urban school district over the course of three years.
! ! "'!
Students in the intervention group received intervention instruction in the Early Literacy Skills
Builder (ELSB; Browder, Gibbs, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, &
Lee, 2007), a multicomponent, two-part approach to literacy that begins with Building with Symbols, a scripted curriculum targeting vocabulary, comprehension, phonemic awareness, and early phonic skills including: segmenting; clapping syllables; letter-sound correspondence, and identifying first and last sounds in words. The design of the curriculum allows for responses to be made nonverbally if needed, such as pointing to an array or using an augmentative or assistive communication (AAC) device. The second part of the intervention, Building with Stories, focuses on skills related to interacting with books and listening comprehension.
Students in both the control and intervention groups received a majority of their instruction in special education classrooms. Students on both the control and intervention groups spent roughly an hour per week in general education classrooms. The intervention took place in the special education classrooms. Students in the control group were instructed in literacy skills using the
Edmark Program, a sight word based reading curriculum that
! ! "(!
introduces students to over 300 sight words over a course of lessons and trials (Austin & Boekman, 1990). Students are asked to point at introduced words in a massed trial format. A student is introduced a word, then that word is introduced within a group of words (e.g. “This is horse, find horse.”) There is Story Book lessons and comprehension activities as students move up in the levels of the program. Each activity in the Edmark program typically lasts five to 15 minutes. It is important to note that all students in the study took part in the
Building with Stories read-alouds and comprehension activities so that all students could apply developing skills.
Measurement of progress was based on the Nonverbal
Literacy Assessment (NVLA; Ahlgrim-Delzell, Browder,
Flowers and Baker, 2008) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test (PPVT III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) and focused on conventions of reading including interactions with books and listening comprehension as well as phonics skills including phonemic awareness and early phonics skills.
Concurrent validity was established by administering the
Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA 3).
! ! ")!
Results of the study showed statistically significant outcomes favoring the multicomponent approach ELSB curriculum. Basically, all the students in the intervention group had higher reading scores at the end of the study. One hundred percent of the students in the experimental condition made gains from pretest to posttest scores and most of the students (79%) mastered one or more of the multiple objective levels of the curriculum.
Students receiving instruction in Edmark demonstrated mastery of new words but did not demonstrate the increases in phonological awareness or decoding skills demonstrated by the intervention group. This finding emphasizes the need for higher expectations in reading for students with severe developmental disabilities and demonstrates the limitations of limiting literacy instruction to basic sight word instructional programs.
In some cases, researchers have integrated technology into the design and implementation of their literacy intervention. Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Zeph and Smith (2012) developed Literacy by Design (LBD), a technology based, universal design for learning (UDL) instructional approach and field tested the program with kindergarten through second grade students with significant intellectual
! ! "*!
disabilities. The LBD program incorporates the five areas of instruction identified by the National Reading Panel
(NRP, 2000) as critical for successful, balanced literacy instruction. Also, unique to this study was the integration of UDL and technology in order to meet the diverse needs of the learners and provide a variety of scaffolds and supports embedded throughout the curriculum.
The researchers wanted to know what effect this integration of UDL and technology would have with the reading skills of students with significant disabilities versus traditional reading instruction that addressed word level skills, vocabulary and comprehension. Sixteen students aged five to nine years old participated in the study and were evenly split between the intervention and control group. Students were also balanced between general education (inclusive) and substantially separate classrooms. Baselines were established using the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement
III (WCJ-III) to establish listening comprehension and basic reading skills and the Letter Identification (Clay,
2000a) and Concepts About Print (Clay, 2000b) to establish students’ alphabet and book knowledge. Lessons were 90 minutes daily with trained teachers and included context-
! ! #+!
based reading instruction, as well as time interacting with the software with direct teacher support.
On average, participants in the intervention group made higher gains than did the control group and the study again demonstrated that the implementation of a literacy program that incorporates the essential components recommended by the NRP and also adjusts to meet the needs of the individual student can be effective in helping students learn to read. Nevertheless, key limitations were that the sample size was small and the inherent learning curves and technology challenges associated with the software resulted in sporadic reporting of software use despite it being a key component to the instructional program (Coyn et al., 2012). While the researchers balanced the control and intervention groups equally between inclusive and separate classroom settings this potential variable was not discussed.
While much of this research has led to promising new curriculum and strategies incorporating proven ideas in literacy instruction for all students, there seem to be a lack of long standing, proven literacy interventions used with students with more significant disabilities. The
Reading Recovery methodology has not been used extensively
! ! #"!
as a reading intervention tool for students with significant disabilities. This study has been designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery methodology as reading intervention tool for students with significant disabilities.
! ! ##!
Chapter Three
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study utilized a single subject changing criteria design to evaluate the effect of the Reading Recovery methodology as a measurement and intervention tool for three students diagnosed with mild to moderate disabilities. After baseline reading levels were established in the Observation Survey, weekly running records were taken to establish ongoing reading levels and inform the instructor when the student might be ready to move up to the next level text. When the students read the current leveled text at 90% or greater accuracy they moved up to the next level text, and that became the next targeted level of intervention. Weekly records of observed known words were also kept in order to track words being read as well as written consistently.
Participants
Participants in this study involved three students who received special education services in an urban school district. Participants were students included in their
! ! #$!
first grade, fifth grade, and seventh grade general education classes with specialized supports as dictated by their Individual Education Plans (IEPs).
The researcher received Human Subjects approval from the California State University, East Bay’s Institutional
Review Board. As part of the IRB review process this study gained approval from both the elementary school and middle school principals. IRB approved consent forms were signed by the parents of the students in the study and assent forms were waived for the students with disabilities.
Parents were informed that there was no penalty or repercussions if they chose to withdraw their child from participation in the study. All names included in this document have been changed in order to ensure privacy.
The teacher-researcher implementing-delivering the lessons held a teaching credential in special education with an emphasis in moderate to severe disabilities and had been teaching students with disabilities in inclusive schools in the district for 11 years with a total of over
15 years of teaching experience. He had completed the
Reading Recovery training program the previous year.
! ! #%!
Student One: Ivan
Ivan is a six-year, six-month old, first grade male student who receives special education services under the eligibility category of Speech or Language Impairment
(SLI). He is enrolled in the full inclusion special education program where he receives speech and language support services, occupational therapy support services, and ongoing support from an instructional assistant in the general education classroom in order to address academic and behavioral needs. A special education teacher supervises the instructional assistant that supports Ivan.
Ivan has been in foster placement with the same family for over three years. At the time of this study he was also being evaluated for Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Ivan communicates verbally and his verbal language is generally easy to understand unless he is upset or angry.
Student Two: Duane
Duane is a nine-year, 0-month old fifth grade African-
American male student who receives special education services under the eligibility criteria of Autism. He receives speech and language support services, occupational therapy support services, as well as academic, social, and
! ! #&!
behavioral support through the special education full inclusion support team at his school. Duane is able to communicate verbally and is generally understandable by peers and adults alike. At times he will mumble or speak too quickly too understand but he responds to prompts to slow down or speak louder. Prior to his current placement
Duane was enrolled in a special day class from kindergarten through fourth grade.
Student Three: Joseph
Joseph is a 12-year, two-month old African American male student in the seventh grade who receives special education services under the eligibility criteria of
Autism. He receives speech and language support services, occupational therapy support services, as well as academic, social, and behavioral support through the special education full inclusion support team at his school.
Joseph is able to communicate verbally but his speech is often echolalic. While he generally is able to request items and make his needs known, Joseph also benefits from the use of symbol-based choice boards, visual schedules, and other visual cues and reminders.
! ! #'!
Measures: Dependent Variables
The baseline and final assessment method used in this study included the six subtests of An Observation Study of
Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2005). The latest edition of An Observation Survey provides a summary of reliability, validity and discrimination indices of these tasks (Clay, 2005). It is important to note that the
Observation Survey (OS) received the highest possible ratings on all five of the National Center for Response to
Intervention’s (NCRTI) technical standards: classification accuracy; generalizability; reliability; validity, and accuracy for subgroups, making it one of only three reading assessments that received the highest ratings in all categories (D’Agostino, 2012). The tasks that make up the
OS are intended to assess what reading and writing knowledge, skills, and strategies a student possesses as well as guide the instructor on where to begin literacy instruction (Clay, 2005).
The Running Record task provides an assessment of text reading by a student through the utilization of leveled texts. By watching and recording what readers said and did while reading continuous text the teacher can focus on what the reader attended to, overlooked and what they may
! ! #(!
already know about the reading process--letters, sounds and words (Clay 2005). The Running Records are also used to assess text difficulty and measure progress.
The Concepts About Print (CAP) task allows teachers to assess what an early learner notices and understands, rightly or wrongly, about written language around them in their environments and in books. The test comprises four specialized books to provide alternates and a set of standard procedures for administration. Throughout the assessment the student responds to questions or requests from the administrator related to directional behavior, punctuation, visual scanning and the orientation of letters and words (Clay, 2005).
The Letter Identification task asks the student to identify by letter name, sound or word beginning the 26 uppercase and 28 lowercase letter forms including additional two forms of a and g. The Ohio Word Test (OWT) measures the number of words read correctly from one of three 20 item lists of high-frequency words (Clay, 2005).
The Ohio Word Test (OWT) contains a 20-item list of high-frequency words. There are three alternate forms of the test and scoring is based on the number of words the
! ! #)!
student reads correctly. Students can score a maximum of
20 (Clay, 2005).
The final two tasks in the OS are writing tasks. The
Writing Vocabulary (WV) task, through a standard set of prompts, asks students to write as many words as they know on a blank sheet of paper. The Hearing and Recording
Sounds in Words (HRSW) task is another writing assessment that measures through the reading of one of five short passages, how well the student is able to listen to the sounds in words and to find letters to represent those sounds (Clay, 2005).
The six tasks of Clay’s (2005) OS assessment were used to establish baseline and as a measurement of progress at the end of the 20 week intervention. The special education teacher conducting the study conducted all assessments.
Running records were taken using books unfamiliar to the student—these are known as ‘cold reads.’
In addition to the initial and ending assessments, weekly running records are taken as well as an inventory of known words. The weekly running records are taken on a book that has been introduced to the student the day prior.
In some cases the book may have been introduced and read to the student more than once but typically, the student
! ! #*!
themselves read the book through during the introduction with support from the instructor. During weekly running records the student reads independently (out loud) to the instructor. The known word inventories are based on words the student has demonstrated the ability to read both in isolation and within connected text as well as write independently during the sentence/story portion of the lessons.
Procedures
All lessons were delivered in a one-to-one setting removed from distraction whenever possible, by establishing a consistent time and place free of interruptions, noises, and visual stimuli (windows, open doors, etc). Sessions were typically 30 minutes in length and occurred on a daily basis. Instruction followed the standard Reading Recovery format that starts with the initial 10 lessons known as
‘roaming around the known’ during which time the teacher and student interact with text and tasks that the student already knows how to do. These first ‘lessons’ allow the teacher to get to know the student (and vice versa) through non-instructional, interactive activities that provide the teacher additional observations including strengths the
! ! $+!
student may have and ways the student may respond to text that were missed during the assessment period (Clay,
2005a).
After these initial ten lessons, the remaining lessons follow the framework prescribed by Clay, (2005). Typical sessions include: the reading of two or more previously introduced familiar books; rereading the previous day’s introduced book and the collection of a running reading record; working with letters, clusters and words; composition and writing of a sentence/story that includes hearing sounds in words and reconstructing the cut-up sentence/story; listening to the introduction of the new book and attempting to read the new book (Clay, 2005a).
As part of the Reading Recovery framework the teacher creates clear ‘lesson records’ in addition to recording the running records. These records reflect the different activities of each lesson and help to inform the planning and instructional decisions for the next day (Clay 2005).
This ability to evaluate daily progress and address areas of weakness by making subtle changes in the activities or thoughtfully choosing what book to introduce allows the lessons to be individualized in order to meet the needs of each student.
! ! $"!
Chapter Four
RESULTS
The results of this research indicated that while one of the three students demonstrated significant growth in his reading and overall literacy skills, the other two students did not reflect similar success and one of those students made relatively little overall progress.
Running Records (OS)! #+!
"&! Baseline
! Reading Level! "+! Ending Reading
Levels &! Level!
+! Reading Recovery Ivan! Duane! Joseph!
Figure 1. Baseline and Ending Running Record Levels for
Ivan, Duane and Joseph.
! ! $#!
Letter Identification!
! '+!
&+! Baseline Letter %+! Identification ! $+! #+! Ending Letter Identification ! "+! +!
Letters Identified out of 54 possible Ivan! Duane! Joseph!
Figure 2. Baseline and Ending Letter Identification Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph.
Word Identification! ! #+! Baseline Word "&! Identification !
"+! Ending Word &! Identification ! +! Words Identified out of 20 possible Ivan! Duane! Joseph!
Figure 3. Baseline and Ending Word Identification Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph.
! ! $$!
Concepts About Print (CAP)! ! #&!
#+! Baseline CAP !
"&!
"+! Ending CAP! &!
Words Identified +! out of 20 possible Ivan! Duane! Joseph!
Figure 4. Baseline and Ending Concepts About Print scores for Ivan, Duane and Joseph.
Writing Vocabulary (OS)! $&!
! Baseline $+! Writing #&! Vocabulary! #+! Written "&! Ending "+! Writing Number of Words &! Vocabulary! +! Ivan! Duane! Joseph!
Figure 5. Baseline and Ending Running Record Levels for
Ivan, Duane and Joseph.
! ! $%!
Hearing sounds in Words (HSIW) ! %+! $&! ! $+! Baseline #&! HSIW! #+! "&! "+! Ending HSIW! &! Identified +! Number of Sounds Ivan! Duane! Joseph!
Figure 6. Baseline and Ending Hearing sounds in Words
(HSIW) scores for Ivan, Duane and Joseph.
Student One: Ivan
Ivan demonstrated minimal growth when compared to typically successful students without disabilities within the 20 weeks of intervention, entering with an Observation
Survey (OS) Running Record assessment score of Level 1 at
64% accuracy and ending with a Level 4 at 91% accuracy.
Nevertheless, he was able to demonstrate slow but steady improvement over the course of the lessons. Ivan was generally cooperative and enthusiastic with lessons, there was good rapport with the instructor, but he struggled with building a strong sight word vocabulary, moving from zero to only three known words on the ending Word
Identification. Nevertheless, Ivan was generating 23
! ! $&!
written words by the end of the intervention, he was able to identify 50 of 54 letters on the ending letter identification test, and the Hearing Sounds in Words assessment improved from a three to a 26 (out of 37). His
Concepts about Print (CAP) score improved from a 12 to 14
(out of 24).
Ivan's Weekly Running Record Levels ! (Level of Intervention) ! 6! 4! ! 2! 0!
Levels 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20! Weeks! Running Record
Figure 7. Ivan’s weekly Running Record Levels.
Ivan's weekly % Accuracy!
! 150!
100!
50!
% Accuracy 0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20! Weeks!
Figure 8. Ivan’s weekly reading accuracy percentages.
! ! $'!
Ivan's Known Words!
! 6! 4! 2! 0! Known Words 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20! Weeks!
Figure 9. Ivan’s weekly count of known words.
On the weekly assessment charts it is clear that despite Ivan’s inventory of known words steadily increasing from week five, his reading levels remained static, only moving from a level 3 to a level 4 with a typically successful student reaching at least level 16 by discontinuation. During the intervention sessions it was clear that Ivan struggled with coordinating the skills required to become a fluent reader. He was generating written language, building a strong sense of phonemic awareness and letter-sound knowledge, but was unable to bring meaning and context into his reading in order to build fluency reading connected texts.
! ! $(!
Student Two: Duane
Duane demonstrated the greatest increase of the three students in overall literacy skills in response to the intervention. His Running Record score on the OS began at a level 4 with 94% and ended at level 17 and 96% accuracy with a typically successful student reaching at least level
16 and 96% accuracy by discontinuation. His writing vocabulary improved from 13 to 32 words and his word identification assessment increased from 10 to 17 words
(out of 20 possible). Hearing Sounds in Words increased from 24 to 35 (out of 37 possible). It is important to note that Duane entered with the highest scores on the OS, already demonstrating a beginning HSIW score of 24 and ending with a 35 (out of 37) and ending with all 54 of his letters known (he started with a score of 52/54).
Duane's Weekly Running Record Level! (Level of Intervention)! ! 25! 20! 15! 10! 5! 0!
Reading Level 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20! Weeks!
Figure 10. Duane’s weekly Running Record Levels.
! ! $)!
Duane's Weekly % Accuracy!
! 100! 98! 96! 94! 92! 90!
% Accuracy 88! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20! Weeks!
Figure 11. Duane’s weekly reading accuracy percentages.
Duane's Weekly Known Words!
! 60! 40! 20! 0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20! Weeks! # of Known Words Figure 12. Duane’s weekly count of known words.
Weekly assessments reflect Duane’s overall success with the intervention with a steady increase in both reading levels and known words. The dip occurred after the winter break and as the books became longer, and the lessons focused more on fluency and comprehension the
! ! $*!
weekly gains diminished. Nevertheless the overall gain was similar to typically developing first graders receiving the
Reading Recovery intervention.
Duane was consistently enthusiastic and always willing to participate in the lessons. He was often easily distracted in other settings but the one-on-one setting as well as the 30-minute time limit worked to his advantage, allowing him to focus on the instruction and to not become fatigued or bored.
Student Three: Joseph
Joseph started the intervention with the lowest scores on the OS, and also demonstrated the least amount of growth overall. His Running Record score only moved from a one with 88% accuracy to a three with 96% accuracy.
While Joseph was able to identify four words from the word identification list at the end of the intervention, other areas did not show significant growth. HSIW score moved from zero to three, Writing vocabulary score moved from 2 to 7 and his CAP score moved from a 7 to only a 10.
While the scores themselves do not reflect the rate or quantity of growth hoped for, it is significant that growth occurred in the areas of Letter Identification (moving from
! ! %+!
33 to 48 out of 54 letters) and gaining four words identified on the ending word identification assessment.
Weekly assessment scores reflect the slow but steady increase in Reading Levels and Known Words, moving from a level 1 with 90% accuracy to a level 4 with 88% accuracy on the final lesson assessment. Known word scores also followed this trend, increasing from only one (his first name) to a final score of 6.
Joseph's Weekly Running Record Level! ! (Level of Intervention)! 6! 4! 2! 0!
Reading Level 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20!
Weeks!
Figure 13. Joseph’s weekly Running Record Levels.
! ! %"!
Joseph's Weekly % Accuracy!
! 150! 100! 50!
% Accuracy 0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20! Weeks!
Figure 14. Joseph’s weekly reading accuracy percentages.
Joseph's Weekly Known Words!
! 10!
5!
0! 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9!10!11!12!13!14!15!16!17!18!19!20! Known Words Weeks!
Figure 15. Joseph’s weekly count of known words.
Joseph was always willing to accompany the instructor for lessons and cooperated with all of the tasks. Because much of Joseph’s speech is echolalic, it was often difficult to generate and measure responses. As time went by and Joseph became more familiar with the format and
! ! %#!
expectations of the lesson format he began to generate consistent responses. Joseph was not reading continuous, connected text at the onset of the intervention, primarily receiving instruction in letter identification, phonemic awareness, and sight word acquisition. Thus, despite the relatively low difference between initial and ending scores, the growth can be interpreted as significant in that by the end of the 20 weeks Joseph had moved from identifying only letters and a few words in isolation to reading picture based leveled readers with as many as 50 to
60 words across 14 pages.
All students completed the full 20 weeks of instruction with an overall average weekly lesson rate of
4.2.
! ! %$!
Chapter Five
DISCUSSION
In this section the Reading Recovery Methodology and specific results of the students in the study will be examined, leading to a discussion of the limitations of the study and implications for further research.
Student Outcomes
As demonstrated by the data, the three students involved in the study had very different outcomes after the
20-week intervention. While Duane made the kind of progress seen in typically developing peers, both Joseph and Ivan demonstrated limited growth in almost all areas of measurement.
Student One: Ivan
Being in the first grade, Ivan most closely matched the typical student that receives the Reading Recovery intervention. Yet he didn’t demonstrate the growth seen by students who are successfully discontinued at the end of the 20-week intervention. According to the Reading
Recovery (RR) guidelines a student who does not make
! ! %%!
significant and demonstrable growth at the end of the 20- week intervention is referred for further intervention and site teams are expected to follow up with further assessments and supports for the student (Clay, 2005).
Additional research has demonstrated that students who do not respond to the RR intervention have a high likelihood of being diagnosed with some form of reading related disability. Michael Dunn’s 2007 retrospective study looked at 155 third to fifth grade students who received the RR intervention in first grade and found that the RR assessment elements were ‘significant predictors’ with
Ending Text Level being the ‘largest predictor’ of students who were later identified as having a reading disability or not (Dunn, 2007).
Considering Ivan’s significantly low Ending Level 4 (a successful student in RR should surpass level 4 in the first few weeks of lessons): it will be important that he continue to receive additional support in reading.
Ideally, this would be continued support from a RR trained instructor, continuing with a format with which he is familiar. In some cases typical students who do not initially respond to the initial RR intervention move with the Reading Recovery teacher into small group instruction
! ! %&!
with similarly struggling peers (literature circles, guided reading groups, etc.) if the resources are available. In the case of a student with significant needs, particularly if the special education teacher is not trained specifically in Reading Recovery, then another evidence based, balanced literacy program such as the Early Literacy
Skills Builder (ELSB) program described in Browder, et al
(2007) would ensure access to a balanced literacy program that may ensure his continued growth as a reader.
Student Two: Duane
Duane demonstrated the greatest growth of the three students in the study and his results reflected the kind of growth expected in targeted first grade students who successfully complete the Reading Recovery program. He developed more focus over the course of the lessons and developed stamina as a reader. Clay describes effective readers as having ‘self-extending systems’ that facilitate the ongoing orchestration of a series of strategies and tools (directional movement, one-to-one matching, self- monitoring, self correcting, cross checking and using multiple sources of information) that allow them to grow
! ! %'!
independently through the act of reading itself (Clay,
2005).
Duane began the intervention in October of his fifth grade year. While he was reading at a level far below his peers, he did enter the program with knowledge of his letters, good letter-sound knowledge, and familiarity with books and written language as reflected in his initial
Observation Survey (OS) assessment results. Nevertheless, it seems clear that he had had limited literacy instruction in his previous placement in a self-contained special class.
Despite making significant progress in the intervention, Duane’s functioning reading level (end of first grade/beginning of second grade) remains significantly below that of his typically developing peers and classmates. Perhaps in the future the RR screening procedures applied to typically developing students entering first grade could be applied to students in separate special education classes and inform educators how to address the literacy needs of all students. As it is,
Duane will move on to the middle school setting and it will be important that he continues to receive direct, focused
! ! %(!
literacy instruction that addresses his unique needs as a reader.
Student Three: Joseph
Joseph was the oldest of the three students involved in the study and established the least overall growth of the three students involved. He also demonstrated the greatest communication challenges, repeating prompts instead of providing responses and struggling to engage in
‘reading’ activities involving books. It was necessary to move Joseph up through the levels despite not consistently achieving accuracy scores of greater than 90% to 95%.
Fortunately, at the lower levels of literacy instruction the prompts and responses are typically concrete and therefore easier to utilize discrimination as a means to establish mastery. Outside of the instructional setting
Joseph will at times be given picture or symbol cues in order to respond to more abstract requests (i.e., “What color do you want?”).
Progress was also impacted at times by events or lessons that happened outside of the intervention setting.
Joseph would often perseverate on a topic and struggled to deviate from talking about it. During the period between
! ! %)!
the Thanksgiving and winter holidays Joseph was very excited about the upcoming Christmas celebrations. It became necessary to extend the lessons in order to have time at the end to discuss the topic.
Despite the relatively small gains measured, the growth for Joseph was significant in that he was not demonstrating the ability to read connected text at the onset of the intervention and by the end he was reading sentences and books with multiple pages and less structured, patterned stories.
Limitations
Interobserver reliability was not obtained across all settings and students in the intervention study due to a number of factors. Because of the specificity of the training and program in the researcher’s school district, there typically only exist one or two teachers who are certified in Reading Recovery. Due to schedule constraints the Reading specialist at the Elementary School site was unable to commit to observing enough lessons to establish reliability. This was exacerbated by Ivan’s lessons taking place before or after the school day. Because RR is a
! ! %*!
first grade intervention there were not any certified RR trained observers available in the middle school setting.
Another limitation is the small sample size of three students. A fourth student, a second grader, completed the intervention but the parent opted to not have their child’s data included in the study. Also, while it seemed beneficial to draw from as diverse a population as possible, there were also some challenges with scheduling and meeting the minimum attendance requirements. As a result, there were other students who received the intervention over the course of the study but did not meet the attendance requirements to establish validity.
Importance of Outcomes to Existing Research
The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the proven, evidence based literacy intervention, Reading Recovery (RR) when used with students with moderate to severe disabilities. Several studies, including Allor and Chard (2011) and Coyne, Pisha, Dalton et al. (2012) recommend the use of evidence based practices that address the literacy skills described by the National
Reading Panel when addressing the literacy needs of students with significant disabilities.
! ! &+!
It is also important to note that while Joseph and
Ivan demonstrated limited growth when compared to typical students who successfully complete the Reading Recovery program they did demonstrate growth in their literacy skills. In the longitudinal study by Allor et al., (2013) the researchers found that it took longer for students with intellectual disabilities to acquire the same literacy skills than students who do not have disabilities.
In the study by Lemons, Mrachko, Kosterwicz and
Paterra (2012) the effectiveness of decoding and phonological awareness interventions for children with Down syndrome was investigated. They reiterated the belief that teachers should be “providing comprehensive reading interventions that extend beyond the reading of sight words to include phonological awareness and phonics instruction” when addressing the literacy needs of students with
Intellectual Disabilities (p.88).
An important aspect of the Reading Recovery methodology is the intensive, one-on-one structural requirement of the program. In a 2012 study, researchers examined the effects of teacher-student ratios in response to the Reading Recovery intervention. Schwartz, Schmitt and
Lose found that the 1:1 instruction yielded significantly
! ! &"!
higher outcomes than the teacher student ratios of 1:2. 1:3 or 1:5 with literacy outcomes of the participants declining as the ratios increased (Schwartz, Schmitt & Lose, 2012).
Implications for Further Research
There seems to be a vast potential for future researchers to expand upon the results of the current study. Given the limited sample size, simply increasing the size of the study group to gain more data on the effectiveness of the RR methodology with students with a broad range of disabilities would be a next step.
One challenge faced in this study to be addressed in future studies would be establishing interobserver reliability. The Reading Recovery certification process involves a yearlong series of classes once a week; at least four student subjects as part of that year involving 60 minutes of instruction per day; access to an observation room for weekly ‘behind the glass’ lessons with students, and the enrollment and fees involved with obtaining the credits that are part of the certification. As a result, in the school district where the research took place there seems to be a constant shortage of certified RR specialists.
! ! &#!
Nevertheless, as an evidence-based practice, Reading
Recovery has demonstrated its effectiveness and is expanding as an intervention here in the United States. In
2010, Reading Recovery was awarded a $45 million “Investing in Innovation” grant from the U.S. Department of Education with the intent to expand to more than 1400 schools and address the literacy needs of 88,000 students (May, Gray,
Sirinides et al., 2015).
As a tool for intervention, and as a way to support literacy for students with disabilities, it is clear that
Marie Clay, the founder of Reading Recovery, was aware of the unique needs of students with special needs and the applicability of RR when she stated:
“It is because these procedures are designed for adapting the instruction to the learning needs of individual children that they can be applied to many beginning readers who are in some kind of special education” (p.1)
! ! &$!
Chapter Six
SUMMARY
This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery (RR) methodology as an intervention tool to increase the literacy skills of students with moderate to severe disabilities. The intervention had relatively limited success, with only one of the three subjects demonstrating a significant increase in their overall literacy skills. All three students in the study demonstrated some growth across the 20-week intervention period.
It was hoped that all three students, despite their significant differences in ages and variety of disabilities, would respond as positively to the implementation of an intensive, evidence-based, 1:1 intervention as their non-disabled peers receiving the same intervention. Nevertheless, the demonstrated significant growth in one and measurable growth in the other two students holds promise that students with moderate to severe disabilities, given increased access to balanced literacy interventions can gain important literacy skills.
The expansion of the RR methodology as a literacy
! ! &%!
intervention and the ongoing research in other evidence based, balanced literacy programs are demonstrating that every student, at an early age, can have their literacy needs met and can progress. Every student, including those with significant developmental disabilities should have access to effective assessment tools and evidence-based, balanced literacy instruction from an early age so that they have the opportunity to become readers, enjoying the joy and adventure that comes from a good book, as well as enhanced ongoing access to and learning of content and curriculum that may not have been directly accessible to them before.
! ! &&!
REFERENCES
Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., &
Baker, J. N. (2008, February). The Nonverbal
Literacy Assessment (NVLA). Paper presented at the
National Association of School Psychologists, New
Orleans, LA.
Allor, J., & Chard, D. (2011). A Comprehensive approach
to improving reading fluency for students with
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(5),
1-12.
Allor, J., Gifford, D., Al Otaiba, S., Miller, S., &
Cheatham, J. (2013). Teaching students with
intellectual disability to integrate reading skills:
Effects of text and text-based lessons. Remedial and
Special Education, 34(6), 346-356.
Allor, J. H., & Mathes, P. G. (2012). Early interventions
in reading: Level K. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGrawHill.
Allor, J., Mathes, P., Roberts, J., Cheatham, J., &
Otaiba, S. (2014). Is scientifically based reading
instruction effective for students with below-
average IQs? Exceptional Children, 80(3), 287-306.
! ! &'!
Austin, P., & Boekman, K. (1990). Edmark functional word
series. Redmond, WA: Edmark.
Bereiter, C, Campione, J., Carruther, I., Hirshberg, J.,
McKeough, A., Pressley, M.,...Adams, M. J. (2005).
Open court. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P., &
Baker, J. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy
to students with severe developmental disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 75(3), 343-364.
Browder, D. M., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade,
G., & Lee, A. (2007). Early Literacy Skills Builder
(ELSB). Verona, WI: Attainment
Browder, D., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G.,
Mraz, M., Flowers, C., (2009). Literacy for students
with severe developmental disabilities: What should we
teach and what should we hope to achieve? Remedial
and Special Education, 30(5), 269-282.
Clay, M. M. (2000a). Letter Identification. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2000b). Concepts About Print. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2005). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy
Achievement. n.p.: Heinemann.
! ! &(!
Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L., &
Smith, N. (2012). Literacy by design: A Universal
Design for Learning approach for students with
significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and
Special Education, 33(3), 162-172.
D’Agostino, J. (2012). Technical Review Committee
Confirms Highest NCRTI Ratings for Observation
Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. The Journal of
Reading Recovery, 11 (2), 53-56
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Dunn, M. (2007). Diagnosing reading disability: Reading
recovery as a component of a response-to-
intervention assessment method. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 31-47.
Hudson, M., Browder, D., & Wood, L. (2013). Review of
experimental research on academic learning by
students with moderate and severe intellectual
disability in general education. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,38(1),
17-29.
! ! &)!
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §
1400 (2004).
Lemons, C., Mrachko, A., Kostewicz, D., & Paterra, M.
(2012). Effectiveness of decoding and phonological
awareness interventions for children with down
syndrome. Exceptional Children, 79(1), 67-90.
May, H., Gray, A., Gillespie, J., Sirinides, P., Sam, C.,
Goldsworthy, H., Armijo, M., Tognotta, N. (2015). Year
one results from the multisite randomized evaluation
of the i3 scale-up of reading recovery. American
Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 547-581.
National Institute for Literacy. (2001). Put reading
first: The research building blocks for teaching
children to read. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from
http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/
researchread.htm
National Reading Panel (U.S.) (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel : Teaching Children to Read :
An Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific
Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications
for Reading Instruction. [Bethesda, Md.?]: U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health
! ! &*!
Service, National Institutes of Health, National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110
(2002). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/
index.html
Schwartz, R., Schmitt, M., & Lose, M. (2012). Effects of
teacher-student ratio in response to intervention
approaches. The Elementary School Journal, 112(4),
547-567.
Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., & Smith, B. (2012).
Evidence-based practice for teaching academics to
students with severe developmental disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 33(6), 374-387.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2013, July).
Beginning Reading intervention report: Reading
Recovery®. Retrieved from http;//whatworks.ed.gov
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Fletcher, J.
(2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention for
middle school students with learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 78(1), 73-87.
! ! '+!
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001).
Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca,
IL: Riverside
!