The Effects of Tier 2 Literacy Instruction in Sixth Grade: Toward the Development of a Response-To-Intervention Model in Middle School

Abstract

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to (a) compare Tier 2 evidence-based intensive reading instruction to business-as-usual instruction for sixth graders with and without learning disabilities who were "far below" or "below" basic level in literacy and (b) explore the development of a response-to-inter vention model in middle school. The study took place in a large inner-city urban setting, where 100% of students received free or reduced-price lunch and 90% of the students were considered English learners at some point in their school history. Interven tion students received intensive small-group instruction for 30 hours across 10 weeks. Credential candidates in special education provided the small-group instruction in the treatment condition. Results on oral reading fluency, less so for Maze reading com prehension measures, indicated greater improvements for treat ment students, and students with learning disabilities benefited as much or more than the other struggling sixth graders. Educa tional implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Best practice in conducting RCTs: Lessons learnt from an independent evaluation of the Response-to-Intervention programme

“…A study by Graves et al (2011) showed that RTI was particularly efficacious for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds with learning difficulties, and was more effective for improving oral fluency than reading comprehension. All of the pupils involved were 'below' or 'far below' basic level in literacy.…”

Teacher implementation of an adolescent reading intervention

“…Third, the vast majority of intervention research is short-term, collecting data in the first year of implementation (e.g., Benner et al, 2011;Cantrell et al, 2013;Cantrell et al, 2010;Faggella-Luby & Wardwell, 2011;Graves et al, 2011;Lang et al, 2009;Simmons et al, 2014;Solís et al, 2015;Vaughn et al, 2011). Therefore, these studies examine teachers' practice while teachers are still in the process of learning a new curriculum or instructional approach.…”

“…Many promising interventions have been designed to improve adolescents' reading comprehension, but when implemented by classroom teachers, the effects of these interventions are often small (e.g., Cantrell, Almasi, Carter, Rintamaa, & Madden, 2010;Faggella-Luby & Wardwell, 2011;Graves, Brandon, Duesbery, McIntosh, & Pyle, 2011;Lang et al, 2009;Vaughn et al, 2010) or nonexistent (e.g., Fogarty et al, 2014;Hitchcock, Dimino, Kurki, Wilkins, & Gersten, 2011;Kushman, Hanita, & Raphael, 2011;Simmons et al, 2014). These poor outcomes raise the question why carefully designed, research-based interventions have so little an effect on struggling adolescents' reading skills.…”

“…These poor outcomes raise the question why carefully designed, research-based interventions have so little an effect on struggling adolescents' reading skills. As one answer, instruction may be so variable that differences in outcomes between treatment and control groups do not reach statistical significance (Graves et al, 2011;Hitchcock et al, 2011;Lang et al, 2009;Simmons et al, 2014). In other words, teachers' implementation of the "treatment" condition is often so varied that, in the end, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what the "treatment" is.…”

“…Furthermore, both studies examine mature implementation of the intervention, as all participating teachers were in at least their second year of implementation. This is rare in literacy intervention research, as most of the implementation literature is focused on teachers in their first year of implementation (e.g., Benner, Nelson, Stage, & Ralston, 2011;Burkhauser & Lesaux, 2015;Cantrell, Almasi, Carter, & Rintamaa, 2013;Cantrell et al, 2010;Faggella-Luby & Wardwell, 2011;Graves et al, 2011;Lang et al, 2009;Leko, Roberts, & Pek, 2015;Simmons et al, 2014;Solís, Vaughn, & Scammacca, 2015;Vaughn et al, 2011).…”