Articles on reading intervention programs

Related articles and strategies Learn about instructional classroom strategies and resources that support phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. About the author Corrie Kelly has worked as a 3rd grade teacher, a literacy specialist, and a reading intervention specialist.

Stay informed! Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter. Rhyming Games. Phonological Awareness. Using Peer Tutoring to Facilitate Access. Computer-Assisted Instruction and Reading. Phonemic Awareness. Phonemic Awareness in Young Children. Top 10 Resources on Phonological and Phonemic Awareness. Phonological and Phonemic Awareness. Phonics Strategies. Reading Methods for Students with LD. Assistive Technology Glossary. Phonics Instruction.

The Alphabetic Principle. A Tale of Two Schools. Reading Phonics. Reading Fluency. Fluency articles. From kindergarten through second grade, it focuses on phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling, alphabetizing, handwriting and fluency. Third graders work on maintaining skills and learning more advanced spelling strategies. Struggling readers from third through eighth grade may encounter Soar to Success.

Soar is based on small group instruction involving "reciprocal teaching. Success for All can be used as the entire language arts curriculum or added as a supplement to a program using structured basal reading texts.

Instruction occurs in minute blocks and includes one-on-one tutoring for the students who struggle most. Wilson is a program for students from second to twelfth grade. Originally designed to aid dyslexic students, it has expanded its scope to work with a wider range of struggling readers through a heavy emphasis on decoding word analysis and spelling. Alicia Rudnicki's Library Mix website blends book buzz for all ages. A gardener, she writes for California's Flowers by the Sea nursery.

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Researchers have determined that at-risk students who respond inadequately to empirically validated instruction differ from at-risk students with adequate intervention responsiveness in the severity of their impairment in key cognitive domains Fletcher et al. Such studies help demonstrate the validity of the RTI framework as a prevention system that yields important data related to the identification of students with LDs.

Students with reading difficulties benefit from instruction that is purposeful and targeted at important objectives that students need to learn, progressing logically from easier to more challenging skills.

Students with reading difficulties also benefit from a explicit instruction in which skills are clearly modeled and key concepts are directly taught, so that students are not left to infer these critical concepts and skills; b extended opportunities for guided and independent practice with both corrective and positive feedback , including copious amounts of engaged practice in reading and responding to connected text; and c instructional formats that promote active student involvement and provide many opportunities to respond.

Students who are easily confused are more likely to be successful when they receive instruction with these characteristics. A study by Mathes et al. The researchers experimentally compared two first grade small-group intervention programs and a typical practice comparison group. Both interventions provided explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency with integrated instruction in vocabulary and comprehension, but they differed in other ways.

One was a fully scripted direct instruction program that provided systematic instruction and extended decontextualized practice in synthetic phonics with application in fully decodable text. The other program provided more flexibility within a consistent framework.

Students in the more flexible program spent a relatively larger portion of each lesson reading and responding to connected text and less time in decontextualized phonics and word-reading practice. Mathes et al. Researchers have demonstrated that quality evidence-based classroom reading instruction is sufficient for most students who are at risk for reading difficulties to learn to read at average levels e.

Using a core program may help ensure that instruction is evidence based and addresses key objectives. When classroom teachers do not follow core programs, they assume responsibility for ensuring that children are taught the critical content using effective instructional approaches, with an instructional sequence that progresses from easier to more challenging skills and concepts.

For example, published programs may introduce skills at a rapid rate and may not provide enough opportunities for practice for struggling readers, particularly cumulative practice over time Stein et al. Effective Tier 1 instruction is differentiated, meaning that children receive instruction targeted to meet their needs as readers Connor et al.

Teachers can effectively differentiate instruction based on data from screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments, including assessments that accompany a published reading program, informal inventories of sight word or letter-sound knowledge, curriculum-based measures of early reading skills and oral reading fluency, and other assessments.

The results of these assessments can be used to form small, flexible groups of students with similar needs and to plan their instruction Gersten et al. Students at risk for reading difficulties are more likely to make progress if instruction addresses content and strategies they need to learn and if text they are asked to read is neither too easy nor too difficult.

Reviews and meta-analyses have revealed larger effects for reading interventions provided in the early stages of reading acquisition than for those provided in Grades 3 and higher. For example, Wanzek and Vaughn found larger effects for intervention provided in Grades K—1 than in Grades 2—5. A small number of studies have investigated early reading interventions for ELLs, typically finding that word reading is improved, but reading comprehension is more difficult to remediate.

For example, Vaughn et al. They reported significant differences favoring the treatment groups in phonological and word-level skills but not in reading comprehension.

However, in a one-year follow-up of the same students with no further researcher-provided intervention, the effects of the first grade intervention had become stronger and included significant differences in reading comprehension and oral language Cirino et al. Further research is needed to confirm and extend these findings and to validate instructional programs for students who are not native English speakers.

A growing number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies have evaluated outcomes across two or more tiers of reading intervention e. In these studies, interventionists provided standard protocol reading interventions individually or to small groups of at-risk readers.

They generally report effects favoring treatment groups and a reduction in the percentages of children who remain at risk for reading difficulties. For example, O'Connor et al. In this model, Tier 2 was offered throughout the study for students who required ongoing support but not the intensity of Tier 3 interventions, and it was possible for students to enter and exit Tiers 2 and 3 and then reenter at a later time if needed.

Studies of reading interventions provided to students with identified reading disabilities have demonstrated that it is possible to intervene successfully with these students Swanson, For example, Torgesen et al. Few researchers have evaluated the effectiveness of Tier 3 intervention provided in Grades 2—5 to students who experienced low responsiveness in earlier Tier 2 intervention.

In studies of this type, group outcomes have been generally positive, but some students have remained very poor readers following even highly intensive Tier 3 intervention e. As these are ostensibly the kinds of students who would be served in special education in an RTI model, there is a need for research examining effective instruction for students with reading difficulties that are demonstrably resistant to evidence-based remediation. It has been argued that, particularly in Grades 2 and higher, students identified with serious reading difficulties who are performing substantially below grade level may need to be immediately provided with intensiveintensive intervention e.

Delaying the provision of intensive interventions may substantially decrease the likelihood that seriously impaired readers will learn to read adequately. Providing quality supplemental reading intervention to all students who require it can be challenging, given the realities associated with limited time, personnel, and funding in schools. This has led to questions related to qualifications of interventionists, where interventions should be provided, group size, and the timing and duration of interventions.

Tier 2 interventions are typically provided by a general education classroom teachers who provide regularly scheduled small-group instruction within their own classrooms, b reading specialists or other certified teachers who deliver small-group lessons within the regular classroom setting or in a setting outside the classroom, or c paraprofessionals who receive training and sustained coaching from an experienced teacher.

There is a lack of experimental research directly contrasting models in which classroom teachers provide Tier 2 small-group interventions in the classroom setting and those in which other interventionists provide intervention in a location outside the regular classroom. If classroom teachers are to provide effective Tier 2 intervention during the school day, they will likely need substantial professional development and ongoing support in the implementation of scientifically validated reading intervention programs and in effective classroom management strategies.

Studies such as these have suggested that paraprofessional-provided early reading intervention is effective when a interventionists are carefully selected e. Gersten et al. Given the challenges faced by students in Tier 3, it may be best to provide their interventions in a quiet location outside of the regular classroom.

As a general rule, groups should be small enough so that active student involvement is maximized and the teacher is able to monitor and respond appropriately to each student. Providing one-on-one instruction to at-risk readers has been associated with positive outcomes Elbaum et al.

In a synthesis of studies that evaluated extensive reading interventions i. Some students who receive Tier 3 intervention may require instruction, although there are examples in the literature of effective Tier 3 interventions provided in very small groups e. There is insufficient research guidance about the ideal time to begin Tier 2 intervention. Researchers have tested models in which Tier 2 begins in kindergarten e.

Kindergarten may represent a window of opportunity during which intervention is most likely to prevent reading difficulties for many children.

Some have found that significant percentages of students who receive kindergarten intervention also required intervention in subsequent grades e. Although kindergarten intervention may prevent future reading difficulties, it can be challenging to accurately identify the children who require supplemental reading intervention at this stage, often resulting in a high rate of false positive errors i. Compton et al. It may be advisable to implement a two-stage screening process that includes early screening followed by a period of progress monitoring assessment; however, this would delay the onset of intervention for all students.

Practitioners will need to evaluate their priorities and resources while keeping in mind the trade-off between the potential benefits of very early intervention and the possibility that this intervention will be provided to some students who do not actually need it. Longitudinal research on the long-term effects of beginning intervention at various points in kindergarten or Grade 1 would be useful, as would continued work to develop accurate screening procedures that are feasible for use in schools Jenkins et al.

Wanzek and Vaughn found in their synthesis of reading intervention studies that providing small-group intervention for at least 20 weeks was feasible in school settings and that students with reading difficulties and disabilities benefitted from these interventions.

Few studies have directly examined intervention dosage and scheduling in the primary grades, and results have been mixed. In contrast, Denton et al. All three groups received the same intervention beginning in January of Grade 1 in groups of three, provided outside of the regular classroom.

There were no posttest differences in rates of adequate intervention response; however, across all groups, the percentage of students with adequate response to the intervention was smaller than has often been reported for more extensive first grade reading interventions. Similarly, Hatcher et al. Although both Denton et al. Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Bryant, and Davis reported that first grade students who received a 9-week Tier 2 intervention in min sessions, four times per week about 27 hr of instruction , in groups of one to four outperformed control students on progress monitoring assessments and on some standardized reading tests.

To inform the question of intervention dosage, Vaughn et al. Progress toward the benchmarks was evaluated after 10, 20, and 30 weeks of intervention, and students who met criteria at each assessment point exited intervention. All students received daily min intervention in groups of three outside of the regular classroom. Students with the highest preintervention ORF scores required less time in intervention, whereas more severely impaired readers required more extensive intervention.

Some students continued to make acceptable growth with regular classroom instruction after exiting intervention at 10 and 20 weeks, but others did not.

The number of weeks—or months—spent in Tier 3 will depend on the needs of the students and the level of intensity with which intervention is delivered. In a seminal study by Torgesen et al. After only 8 weeks, the students had made large standard score gains in word reading and comprehension, maintained 2 years later, although outcomes in reading fluency were weaker. Other researchers have provided interventions to students with severe reading difficulties for 50 to 60 min per day over a longer period of time with generally positive group outcomes e.

Implementation of RTI models requires the use of progress monitoring assessment data for determining whether students are making adequate progress toward instructional goals as well as outcome assessments to evaluate whether these goals are attained.

In most cases, progress is monitored using curriculum-based measures CBMs that are closely aligned with instructional content.

In early reading interventions these measures may assess phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word identification, phonemic decoding, word reading fluency, and ORF in connected text. There is evidence that brief measures of ORF are good indicators of growth in general reading ability in the primary grades, reflecting the development of quick and accurate word identification, and scores from ORF assessments are highly predictive of outcomes on standardized tests of reading comprehension for young readers.

The use of well-designed CBMs to inform instruction is well established e. Researchers and practitioners have used a variety of approaches to identify students with adequate and inadequate levels of intervention responsiveness. Such judgments are crucial to the implementation of RTI models, as they inform decisions to place children in more or less intensive interventions and serve as a source of data for special education evaluation L.

Fuchs, Methods of determining instructional response differ across four dimensions: a whether they apply summative benchmarks or scores as criteria for adequate response i.

Fuchs et al. Approaches that differ on these dimensions are likely to identify different students as adequate and inadequate responders, and there may be little or no overlap in the identified groups Barth et al. Four approaches met their criteria for classification accuracy in predicting end-of-Grade-2 status. Students were most accurately identified as inadequate responders based on a low preintervention status on a CBM of word identification fluency WIF , b failure to achieve final normalization as defined by a standard score less than 90 on the Test of Word Reading Efficiency Sight Word Efficiency subtest, c WIF slope at least 1 SD below a normative sample, or d a dual discrepancy with a normative sample in both ORF level and WIF slope.

The examination of slope, or growth over time, is often considered a necessary component of the determination of adequacy of intervention response. Schatschneider, Wagner, and Crawford examined this assumption in a 2-year longitudinal study in which they analyzed an extensive statewide database from first grade students who attended Reading First schools in Florida. They compared the use of final achievement status i.

Schatschneider et al. In contrast, Compton et al. Since one of the goals of RTI frameworks in early reading is to close the performance gap between at-risk and typically developing readers, one typical approach focuses on postintervention performance in domains of interest e. However, Barth et al. Barth et al. Another important consideration in judging instructional response is what domain s of reading to measure.