S This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on academic outcomes and whether children's characteristics were differentially related to an instructional intervention. One intervention (Proactive Reading) was aligned with behavioral theory and was derived from the model of Direct Instruction. The other intervention (Responsive Reading) was aligned with a cognitive theory and was derived from a cognitive‐apprenticeship model. These interventions were provided to small groups of first‐grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Students were assessed on various reading and reading‐related measures associated with success in beginning reading. Results indicated that (a) first‐grade students who were at risk for reading failure and who received supplemental instruction in the Responsive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures of reading and reading‐related skills than students who received only enhanced classroom instruction, (b) enhanced classroom instruction appeared to promote high levels of reading growth for many children at risk for reading failure, (c) the two interventions were essentially equally effective even though they reflected different theoretical perspectives, and (d) children's characteristics did not differentially predict the effectiveness of an intervention. Este estudio investigó la eficacia de combinar una enseñanza intensiva en el aula y una intervención suplementaria exhaustiva para los lectores de primer grado con dificultades. Adicionalmente se compararon dos intervenciones suplementarias derivadas de orientaciones teóricas diferentes y se las examinó en términos de sus efectos sobre los resultados académicos y de sus relaciones con las características de los niños. Una intervención (Lectura Proactiva) pertenecía al marco de la teoría de la conducta y derivaba del modelo de Instrucción Directa. La otra intervención (Lectura Receptiva) estaba relacionada con una teoría cognitiva y derivaba de un modelo cognitivo de aprendizaje. Las intervenciones se realizaron con pequeños grupos de estudiantes en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que asistían a primer grado. Se evaluó a los estudiantes en varias medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que se asocian al éxito en lectura inicial. Los resultados indicaron que: a) los estudiantes de primer grado en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que recibieron intervención suplementaria, tanto Receptiva como Proactiva, tuvieron mejores calificaciones en medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que los estudiantes que sólo recibieron enseñanza intensiva en el aula, b) la enseñanza intensiva en el aula pareció promover altos niveles de desarrollo lector en muchos niños en riesgo de fracaso, c) los dos tipos de intervención fueron igualmente eficaces aunque reflejaran perspectivas teór...

To evaluate the effects of an intensive tertiary reading intervention, 27 students with severe reading difficulties and disabilities, 14 of whom had demonstrated an inadequate response to 1-2 tiers of prior reading instruction, received a 16-week intervention package involving decoding and fluency skills. The decoding intervention was provided for 2 hours per day for 8 weeks and was based on the Phono-Graphix program. The fluency intervention followed the decoding intervention and involved 1 hour of daily instruction for 8 weeks based on the Read Naturally program. The 16-week intervention resulted in significant improvement in reading decoding, fluency, and comprehension. Although individual responses to the intervention were variable, 12 of the 27 students showed a significant response to these interventions. Students who had participated in previous Tier 1 plus Tier 2 interventions but remained impaired had a stronger response to intervention in the current study than students who had previously participated only in Tier 1 intervention and students who had not received prior intervention outside of special education.

Intervention-related changes in spatiotemporal profiles of regional brain activation were examined by whole-head magnetoencephalography in 15 children with severe reading difficulties who had failed to show adequate progress to quality reading instruction during Grade 1. Intensive intervention initially focused on phonological decoding skills (for 8 weeks) and, during the subsequent 8 weeks, on rapid word recognition ability. Clinically significant improvement in reading skills was noted in 8 children who showed "normalizing" changes in their spatiotemporal profiles of regional brain activity (increased duration of activity in the left temporoparietal region and a shift in the relative timing of activity in temporoparietal and inferior frontal regions). Seven children who demonstrated "compensatory" changes in brain activity (increased duration of activity in the right temporoparietal region and frontal areas, bilaterally) did not show adequate response to intervention. Nonimpaired readers did not show systematic changes in brain activity across visits.

This article reviews research related to intensive interventions within a Response to Intervention framework. We review the research from studies that provided different levels of intensity of intervention with the goal of establishing a case that movement through less intensive tiers of intervention may not be an effective and responsible approach to addressing the reading difficulties of some students, particularly those with significant reading difficulties or disabilities.

The authors report the effects of a yearlong, very small-group, intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with serious reading difficulties who had demonstrated low response to intervention (RTI) in both Grades 6 and 7. At the beginning of Grade 6, a cohort of students identified as having reading difficulties were randomized to treatment or comparison conditions. Treatment group students received researcher-provided reading intervention in Grade 6, which continued in Grade 7 for those with low response to intervention; comparison students received no researcher-provided intervention. Participants in the Grade 8 study were members of the original treatment (N = 28) and comparison (N = 13) conditions who had failed to pass a state-mandated reading comprehension test in both Grades 6 and 7. In Grade 8, treatment group students received a 50-minute, daily, individualized, intensive reading intervention in groups of two to four students per teacher. The results showed that students in the treatment condition demonstrated significantly higher scores than comparison students on standardized measures of comprehension (effect size = 1.20) and word identification (effect size = 0.49), although most continued to lack grade-level proficiency in reading despite 3 years of intervention. Findings from this study provide a rationale for intensive intervention for middle school students with severe reading difficulties.