Discussion
In this paper, we discuss the issue of formulating secondary-level reading interventions in a randomized trial underway at the Kansas Center. Addressed were issues related to: What evidence-based practices/strategies shaped the planning and delivery of secondary reading interventions in local elementary schools? How large is the school population of students at risk and qualifying for secondary interventions? What training, professional development, and support is needed to implement, improve, and sustain secondary intervention in local schools, and what was the initial impact on instruction and student performance? and What is the initial efficacy of secondary intervention for 1st graders over a 3-5 month period?
Impact of Evidence-based Reading Practices on Classroom Instruction
Results from the initial fall screening using the DIBELS clearly showed remarkably high levels of risk for reading failure across participating schools. It is our considered opinion that these results are related to the district's mandated curricula choices that are not based on scientific evidence (Kamps, Wills, Greenwood, Lien, & Lazo, in press), and that do not bode well for students nor schools particularly given the mandates of No Child Left Behind to improve reading results. High risk schools need reading programs with strong emphases on phonemic awareness and systematic phonics instruction combined with 3-tiered models that identify early and intensive instruction to students' learning to read before reading problems emerge.
Our findings indicated that there will continue to be a need for secondary intervention for more students in high risk schools given use of non-phonics reading instruction. On a positive note, some of the accelerated rates of growth favoring experimental group students in these preliminary and incomplete findings were very much linked to the secondary, small-group reading intervention initiated as part of the study, and the selected curricula which incorporated these components.
Findings showed key differences among the groups including,
- increased amounts of time in small group versus whole class instruction,
- increased use of systematic phonics instruction as part of the reading program,
- increased amounts of time spent on active reading engagement (i.e., reading aloud and reading silent),
- higher levels of teacher praise and lower levels of reprimands for intervention schools, and
- higher scores on the DIBELS winter and spring assessments for nonsense and oral reading.
Findings also indicate, however, that there is a need for more fluency practice within intervention to improve oral reading scores by the end of first grade.
Implications for Formulating Continued Secondary and Tertiary Level Intervention
Professional development efforts in year one supported the use of planned secondary level intervention for the majority of at-risk students. However, implementation required intensive training, on-going, and follow-along efforts by the research support team. Year 2 implementation in contrast, however, required re-training and assistance for new teachers. Additional efforts were targeted at maintaining the 3-tiered model included (a) collaboration to establish school level staff to provide training for new teachers in subsequent years, and (b) guidance from research staff related to adoption of the 3-tiered model. Extended professional development is required to address development and strengthening of the following critical components:
- a functional instructional team to address management of reading interventions,
- a strong instructional leader to support the 3-tiered model,
- mastery by school personnel of the screening and progress monitoring procedures,
- understanding of school staff of data-based decision making to determine recipients of reading intervention at an early point for students falling behind, and
- understanding by school staff of the relationship between instructional processes (teacher behaviors, contextual variables) and student outcomes.
These critical variables and shaping of school level expertise further requires ongoing strategic professional development and technical assistance from the research team.
Additional variables for maintaining an effective early intervention for reading risk are related to decision making (i.e., entry points, and how much progress is enough to warrant exiting, continuing, or revising). Options underway are more frequent progress monitoring, and determining a criteria for "when to change", that is decision rules for moving students in and out of the secondary level intervention. Currently, students must meet benchmark DIBELS levels for two assessment periods (8-9 weeks apart) before exiting the secondary intervention. Changes in secondary intervention for those making inadequate progress include reduced group size, more intervention sessions, the addition of a behavioral intervention within reading sessions, and additional intervention to teach language as well as early literacy skills. Use of an alternate more intensive curriculum, with long-term use of small groups with smaller teacher student ratios (1:1 and 1:3), and referral for special education services is considered implementation of a tertiary level intervention. Progress has been made, findings are preliminary, and questions regarding formulating, implementing, improving, and maintaining a school-wide approach to reading and behavior intervention management require further investigation and analysis.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Initial Efficacy) | (References)
