• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Tier II reading interventions: Research study

Dissertation
Author: C. Lee Goss
Abstract:
The purpose of this thesis is to describe a doctoral research study designed to implement response to intervention (RTI) techniques in reading for first grade students. RTI is an early intervention and prevention method for identification and effective intervention for students at-risk for developing academic problems. This research study focuses on research-based reading instruction and early identification and intervention for first grade students at-risk for developing reading problems. The effectiveness of two Tier II reading interventions, Reading Mastery and Fundations 2, are compared. The results indicated that all at-risk students made progress with supplementary intervention following eight weeks of intervention and weekly progress monitoring. A comparison of Reading Mastery and Fundations 2 reading intervention results indicated that Reading Mastery students demonstrated the most significant progress. The findings are discussed in the context of the procedures necessary to implement and monitor RTI methods for students at-risk for developing reading problems in the early stages of literacy development.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………. v LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………... vi

Chapter 1. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………….. 1 2. METHOD…………………………………………………………...11 Research Design……………………………………………. 11

Participants…………………………. ……………………....11

Dependent Measures……………………………………….. 12 Materials…………………………………………………….14 Procedures…………………………………………………..18 Data Analysis………………………………………………. 19 3. RESULTS………………………………………………………….. 22 Effects of Tier II R eading Mastery and Fundations 2 Supplem ental Interventions…………………. 22 4. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………… 39 Effects of Fundations 2 Instruction…………………………39 Effects of Reading Mastery Instruction……………………. 40 Instructional Implications………………………………….. 45 Limitations and Future Research……………………………47 5. SUMMARY………………………………………………………...49

iii

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………….. 50 BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR………………………………………... 53

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Tier 1 Treatment Integrity Observation Data (Accuracy Percentage)…………………………………………….. 16 Table 2. Tier 2 Treatment Integrity Observation Data (Accuracy Percentage)……………………………………………...16 Table 3. Pre- and Post-Test DIBELS Results for Dyads A-F……………….. 17

Table 4. Pre- and Post-Test TPRI Results for Dyads A-F…………………... 19 Table 5. Average Weekly Gains in Phoneme Segments and

Nonsense Word Units for Each Dyad……………………………... 23

Table 6. Fundations & Fundations 2 Lesson Components…………………. 23

Table 7. Reading Mastery Lesson Com ponents……………………………... 24

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. DIBELS progress data for Dyad A (students 1 and 2)…………...….25 Figure 2. DIBELS progress data for Dyad B (students 3 and 4)…………...….26 Figure 3. DIBELS progress data for Dyad C (students 5 and 6)……………....27 Figure 4. DIBELS progress data for Dyad D (students 7 and 8)……………....28 Figure 5. DIBELS progress data for Dyad E (students 9 and 10)……………. .29 Figure 6. DIBELS progress data for Dyad F (students 11 and 12)…………....30 Figure 7. TPRI pre-test and post-test data for Dyad A (students 1 and 2)…….36 Figure 8. TPRI pre-test and post-test data for Dyad B (students 3 and 4)…….36 Figure 9. TPRI pre-test and post-test data for Dyad C (students 5 and 6)…….37 Figure 10. TPRI pre-test and post-test data for Dyad D (students 7 and 8)…….37 Figure 11. TPRI pre-test and post-test data for Dyad E (students 9 and 10)…... .38 Figure 12. TPRI pre-test and post-test data for Dyad F (students 11 and 12)…. .38

vi

Chapter 1 LITERATURE REVIEW There is a growing awareness among educational adm inistrators and practitioners of the importance of additional research to determine the most effective interventions for struggling readers prior to a classification as learning disabled. Such efforts support public policy and legislation requirem ents in No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004). A great deal of research has sho wn the core elements of effective reading instruction (National Reading Panel, 2000). In particular, response to intervention (RTI) methods provide a way to organize reading instruction across three levels, or tiers, of intensity (Brown- Chidsey & Steege, 2005). The first level, Tier I, includes universal instruction and assessment. Tier I is the research-based core curricula and assessments used for all students in the classroom setting. Tier II includes additional instruction and assessment, generally provided in small groups on a daily basis for students identified at-risk, or below the benchmarks for all students in Tier I. Tier III involves individualized, intensive instruction and assessment for students who do not respond to multiple research-based interventions in Tier II, along with a comprehensive evaluation to determine whether the student meets the diagnostic criteria for special education services. A review of the research indicates tha t more work is needed to identify the combinations of research-based supplemental reading interventions that are most effective for students who are making minimal gains in general education programs (Linan-Thompson & Davis, 2002). Additional research is needed regarding the use of trained

1

paraprofessionals to implement Tier II interventions to provide economically feasible and consistent programs for students at-risk for difficulties learning to read. The National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) research clarified that one of the essential ing redients for reading success is mastery of the alphabetic principle. A proven method to ensure mastery of the alphabetic principle is through explicit instruction in phonemic and phonological awareness. Foorman and Torgesen (2001) emphasized that children at-risk for reading failure acquire reading skills more slowly than other children and benefit from instructional support that is more explicit, comprehensive, and intensive. Recent intervention research with children at risk for reading failure has provided powerfully converging evidence that phonemically explicit interventions are an important feature of effective reading interventions for at-risk readers (Daly, Chafouleas, Persampieri, Bonfiglio, & LaFleur, 2004; Scheule & Boudreau, 2008). Increasing the intensity of instruction for at-risk readers is accomplished through small group instruction to address the need for a slower pace of instruction, along with additional opportunities for modeling, repetition, and practice. Foorman and Torgesen (2001) also highlighted that an interesting finding of m eta-analyses of grouping practices that increase the intensity of instruction for at-risk readers is that small group interventions appear to be as effective as individual instruction. The need for learning support through sequential scaffolded instruction, feedback an d positive reinforcement, as well as emotional support through encouragement, was underscored by the authors as an important aspect of the im plementation of effective reading instruction interventions for at-risk readers.

2

Cavenaugh, Kim, Wansek and Vaughn (2004) concluded that a body of twenty years of research document significant empirical evidence in support of implementing scientifically based reading interventions for identified at-risk kindergarten students. A more recent study by O’Connor, Harty and Fulmer (2005), examined the effects of increasing levels of intervention in reading for a sample of children in kindergarten through third grade to determine the effect of intervention on the severity of reading disability. The Tier II intervention consisted of reading instruction delivered to small groups of two to three students three times per week. In first grade, Tier II small group instruction occurred for 20 to 25 minutes three times per week, in addition to their classroom reading instruction. O’Connor, Harty and Fulmer (2005) showed that a model of tiered interventions helped students who struggled with acquiring basic literacy skills and could inform effective alternative instruction before a student is referred for special education services. Results indicated that direct early intervention in Tiers II and III for students eventually identified with a reading disability showed moderate to large effect sizes in terms of reducing the number of students later diagnosed with a learning disability. Schatschneider, Francis, Fletcher, Carlson, and Foorm an. (2004) showed that phonological awareness, rapid automatic naming (RAN) of letters, and knowledge of letter sounds were most predictive of reading achievement. They concluded that prevention is only possible if those who are in greatest need are identified early in their development (Schatschneider et al., 2004). Early identification of students at-risk requires accurate assessment of student pre-reading skills. Rouse and Fantuzzo (2006) provided an important study of the validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy

3

Skills (DIBELS) measures of Letter Naming (LNF) Nonsense Words (NWF), and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) administered in kindergarten with measures of specific literacy constructs (i.e., alphabet knowledge, conventions of print, and meaning from print). Predictive validity evidence for the DIBELS LNF, NWF, and PSF was demonstrated, with significant correlated outcome relationships with reading, vocabulary, and language constructs measured at the end of first grade. Letter Naming evidenced the largest correlation coefficients, followed closely by Nonsense Words (Rouse & Fantuzzo, 2006). Results showed Letter Naming to be the most significant kindergarten predictor of first-grade reading, vocabulary, and language. Phoneme Segmentation emerged as the second strongest predictor (Rouse & Fantuzzo, 2006). Despite the strong evidence concerning what type of instruction best helps struggling readers, Chard and Ka me’enui (2000) showed that most instruction for at-risk readers may not be aligned with recent research on preventing reading difficulties, and even identified at-risk readers receiving scientifically-based reading instruction may be only making minimal progress. These research results indicated that the observed reading instruction practices did not provide adequate opportunities for students who are struggling to learn to read to apply and practice knowledge and skills. Wanzek, Dickson, Bursuck and White (2001) analyzed four phonological awareness instructional programs according to the extent to which they incorporated five principles of effective instructional design related to teaching students at risk for reading failure; the five “big ideas” are based on work by Simmons and Kame’enui (2008) and include: mediated scaffolding, strategic integration, conspicuous strategies, primed background knowledge, and judicious review. Of the four phonological awareness instructional programs

4

studied, Phonemic Awareness in Young Children, Ladders to Literacy, and Phonological Awareness Training for Reading were shown to provide strong com ponents in many of the curriculum design principles except for primed background knowledge, and required the fewest adaptations for at-risk learners (Wanzek, Dickson Bursuck & White, 2001). The researchers concluded that Reading Readiness required the most adaptations and a very knowledgeable teacher to be used effectively. Results of the analysis revealed that no program effectively included all five principles, indicating that teachers need to be aware of the instructional components of selected programs and modify programs to improve their effectiveness. Linan-Thompson and Hickman-Davis (2002) examined the effects of a research- based in tervention for students at risk for reading difficulties which included intensive, explicit, and systematic reading instruction in five areas: fluency, phonemic awareness, instructional-level reading with an emphasis on comprehension, word analysis, and spelling delivered daily in a 30-minute small group lesson formats, 1:1, 1:3, and 1:10 for thirteen weeks. The authors reported that this intervention was effective in improving the reading skills of diverse learners, including low SES, second-grade English monolingual (MEL) and English-language learners (ELL). Features of instruction that appear to have been critical to student growth across instructional elements were the use of progress monitoring, teaching to mastery and holding students accountable, and comprehension checks throughout the session (Linan-Thompson & Hickman-Davis, 2002). Analysis of the group data showed students in 1:1 groups did not make significantly higher gains than students in 1:3 groups; this finding has significant implications for instructional resource

5

allocation in schools (Linan-Thompson & Hickman-Davis, 2002; Vaughn, Linan- Thompson, Kouzekanani, Bryant, Dickson, & Blozis, 2003; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). Kamps and Greenwood (2005) highlighted the finding that as m any as 82% of the students in their study showed reading risk in the beginning of their first grade year based on low scores on the fall DIBELS Nonsense Word fluency Measure. High risk levels also were observed later in the school year based on students’ poor oral reading rates from the winter DIBELS assessment. Results of this initial study showed key differences among the groups, with benefits of accelerated rates of growth for the experimental groups due to phonics- based curricula with supplemental small group instruction, increased amounts of time spent on active reading engagement, 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 Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency (Kamps & Greenwood, 2005). The researchers also noted that the study showed a need for more fluency practice within intervention to improve oral reading scores by the end of first grade. Joshi, Dahlgren and Boulware-Gooden (2002) examined the efficacy of a multi- sensory teaching approach to im prove reading skills at the first-grade level. Joshi et al. (2002) concluded that results of the study showed that the treatment group demonstrated gains in all of the variables measured, including phonological awareness, decoding, and comprehension, in contrast to the control group which only showed gains in comprehension. Phonological awareness and decoding are significantly correlated with oral reading fluency, and oral reading fluency is highly correlated with continued development of reading comprehension (NRP, 2000). Through their study, Joshi et al.

6

(2002) provided additional evidence that systematic phonics instruction from the very early grade levels is an effective tool to combat reading failure and should become a part of the curriculum at every school. Torgesen, Alexander, Wagner, Rashotte, Voeller, and Conway (2001) researched the effect of two intervention program s Auditory Discrimination in Depth (ADD), and Embedded Phonics (EP). Both of the intervention programs included explicit instruction in phonological awareness, decoding, and sight word vocabulary of high-frequency words. Although each program differed in depth and extent of instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding skills, the researchers reported that children with severe reading disabilities showed significant improvements in generalized reading skills that were stable over a 2-year follow up period. An important finding of this study is that within 1 year following the intervention, 40% of the children were found to be no longer in need of special education services. These findings emphasize the importance of early intervention and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonological awareness. Although almost half of the students demonstrated average-level reading skills by the end of the follow-up period, analysis of the results revealed a significant increase in word reading accuracy, but not reading rate in connected text. The significant progress in reading skills, in contrast to a lack of progress in reading rate for most children in this study highlights the importance of focusing resources on the prevention of reading difficulties in the early stages, and suggests a need to further develop interventions in this area. A review of the literature showed the efficacy of identification and early intervention for early reading skills. With the combination of scientifically based

7

universal instruction (Tier I) and school wide early intervention screening measures in place to identify students at-risk for reading failure (i.e., DIBELS), the majority of evidence supported the findings that Tier II interventions can significantly reduce the number of children who experience the inability to close the gap from poor reading achievem ent to expected levels of reading achievement (Laurice, 2008). Progress monitoring is essentia l to determine if the level and type of intervention is successful, so modifications of the intervention can be made as needed (Linan-Thompson & Hickman- Davis, 2002; Kamps & Greenwood, 2005; Shapiro, 2008; Shinn, 2007). With these features in place, general education teachers have the ability to close the widening gap of reading achievement, or Matthew Effect, for identifiable at-risk readers. Additionally, as shown by O’Connor et al. (2003), when responsive intervention practices are used, fewer children are likely to be identified as learning disabled and in need of special education instruction. Critical features of research based reading ins truction include scientifically based systematic, explicit classroom instruction with additional small group reading instruction for at-risk students in Tier II interventions. Interventions explored and identified in the research include programs consistent with the NRP (2000) findings which identified the five key elements of effective-research based reading instruction as: phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle (e.g. decoding), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Features of research-based supplemental instruction include more intensive, explicit, systematic, and direct phonemically-based instruction in small groups. Effective supplemental instruction is scaffolded and delivered at a slower pace, providing multiple opportunities for repetition and practice. Frequent (weekly) progress monitoring data

8

should be gathered to assess the effectiveness of the reading intervention (Daly, Martens, Barnett, Witt, & Olson, 2007). The purpose of this research study was to compare two Tier II reading instruction interventions. The target population was students in first grade at risk for reading failure. The hallmark of Tier II effective reading instruction interventions is longer periods of more intensive, small group, scientifically-based direct instruction, with frequent opportunities to practice, along with frequent progress monitoring to evaluate the student response. Tier II instruction is targeted to specific learning goals developed through Tier I at-risk screening benchmark data. A lack of response to Tier II interventions, determ ined by Tier II progress monitoring data, indicates the need for Tier III interventions, as well as a comprehensive evaluation and the possibility of the need for special education services. The interventions selected for the study included Reading Mastery and Fundations 2. Reading Mastery was initially developed in the 1960’s and has been documented as an effective reading intervention in a number of studies (Schieffer, Marchand-Martells, Martella, & Simonsen, 2007). Fundations 2 is a new intervention and was developed as a general education application for teachers seeking to improve student reading skills. It is based on a reading intervention first developed for adolescents and adults, the Wilson Reading System. Wilson Reading System is an Orton- Gillingh am research-based individualized or small group intensive reading intervention program that is frequently used in schools, particularly for the special education population (O’Connor & Wilson, 1995). Fundations 2 was developed specifically for children K-3, and is comparable in scope to the systematic and explicit instructional

9

principles of the Wilson Reading System. The Fundations curriculum offers teachers the option of Tier I classroom instruction, as well as Tier II and Tier III small group or individualized instruction, with shorter, age appropriate lessons and materials.

10

Chapter 2 METHOD Research Design

The single subject case study design was selected because it is well suited to the study of Tier II interventions. Case study design incorporates both baseline and intervention data. It demonstrates whether a specific intervention was effective. Because DIBELS measures were used, a limited baseline phase was implemented. Research on DIBELS has shown it to be highly reliable and predictive of reading skill. In the fall benchmark screening period, three separate measures were administered to each student in one session. These three data points together represent a highly predictive baseline indicator of student reading performance. Additional sequential baseline data points were not needed because of the overall established reliability of DIBELS when three data points are collected in one session. Although (AB) case study design does not have the benefit of a withdrawal condition, the study of reading behaviors is well matched to an (AB) case study design because reading behaviors are not likely to revert with a withdrawal condition. Participants

A sample of 12 first grade students identified s ignificantly at-risk for acquisition of basic early literacy skills from two intact classrooms were selected to participate in the study. Participants attended a public elementary school in a suburban town located in the Northeast United States. Inclusion criteria for the research study included any student enrolled in the two first grade classrooms participating in the study. Exclusion criteria for participants included any identified at-risk first grade student who was already

11

receiving special education service as the result of an individualized educational plan. Six girls and six boys participated in the study. All of the subjects were Caucasian. One of the female students repeated kindergarten prior to entering first grade. One of the students received free or reduced lunch. Students who were identified in the at-risk range on universal screening measures and confirmed by teacher judgment, were selected for participation in the Tier II small group reading interventions. The twelve students were randomly assigned to a treatment group for more intensive supplementary reading instruction on the basis of their initial benchmark screening scores and at-risk status. Tier II groups were designed to have between 3 and 6 students. In order to compare the effects of two different specific interventions, the students were matched in dyads according to their baseline reading data. Each member of the dyad was randomly assigned to participate in one of two different reading interventions: Reading Mastery or Wilson Fundations 2. Following random assignment by dyads, four females and two males received Reading Mastery supplemental intervention. This group included the female who repeated kindergarten, as well as the female who received free and reduced lunch. Four males and two females participated in the Wilson Fundations 2 supplemental reading intervention. Dependent Measures

All children in the target general education classroom s were individually assessed by the research team members using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and the Texas Primary Reading Index (TPRI). All first grade benchmark screening assessments were administered to all children in both classrooms in one individual student session. All evaluators were thoroughly trained in the

12

administration and scoring of these instruments. The DIBELS first grade benchmark assessments include Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), a measure of correct letter identification of a random sequence of upper and lower case letters, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), a measure of correct sound segments, Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), a measure of correct letter sounds, and Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), a measure of words read correctly in connected text. The TPRI beginning of the year benchmark screening assessments including Grapheme Knowledge (GK), a measure of letter identification and letter sounds, Word Reading (WR), a measure of words read correctly in isolation, and Phonological Awareness (PA), a measure of correct sound segments, were completed for all children identified at-risk on the DIBELS benchmark assessments. The DIBELS and TPRI benchmark assessments were administered at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, all participants completed weekly DIBELS progress measures to show progress toward meeting reading goals. In order to estimate assessment accuracy, 20% o f DIBELS pre-test and 25% of DIBELS post-test screening assessments, and 25 % of TPRI post-test screening assessments were scored by two researchers. To determine point-by-point inter-rater agreement on the DIBELS pre-tests (e.g., LNF, PSF, and NWF) 8 of the Tier I students were randomly selected and scored simultaneously by two experienced examiners, the researcher and another master’s level school psychology doctoral student. Scores were compared on each subtest and determined to be in agreement if the scores were within 2 points on each individual subtest. 1 In November, inter-rater agreement on the DIBELS post-tests (e.g., LNF, PSF, NWF, and ORF) was computed from data collected by the

1 The DIBELS Administration and Scoring Procedural Checklist specifies that scores within 2 points of the actual score are considered accurate.

13

same examiners. 25%, or 10 students, were randomly selected, 5 from the Tier I sample, and 5 from the Tier II sample. Each student was scored simultaneously by the same two examiners. Scores were compared on each subtest and determined in agreement if the scores were within 2 points on each individual subtest. The same 10 randomly selected students were scored simultaneously by both examiners on the TPRI post-test. Point-by- point inter-rater assessment results, (e.g., the total of correct letters, correct sounds, correct letter segments, and correct words) indicated 75% inter-rater agreement on pre- test DIBELS screening assessments, and 88% inter-rater agreement on post-test DIBELS screening assessments, with100% inter-rater agreement on the post-test TPRI screening assessments. Materials

Two different Tier II reading interventions were used in this study: Fundations 2 and Reading Mastery. The teachers of the general education classrooms from which the at-risk students were selected used the grade 1 Fundations with their entire classrooms. Both first grade classroom teachers were experienced teachers with over twenty years of elementary teaching experience. Each teacher received training in Fundations by the Wilson Language Training Center. One first grade classroom teacher was entering her second year of teaching Fundations, and the other first grade classroom teacher was teaching Fundations for the first time. Those students identified at-risk of developing reading difficulties through the universal benchm ark screening methods were randomly selected to participate in Tier II sessions using Fundations 2 instruction or Reading Mastery. The Fundations 2 lessons are intensive versions of the whole class Fundations program and include additional

14

direct instruction and practice of the core skills covered in the grade 1 Fundations program. Specifically, the program covers decoding, blending, acquisition of irregular English words, reading decodable connected text stories, handwriting, and spelling (Table 6). Fundations 2 was selected as one of the interventions because it is a new intervention designed to provide systematic instruction in core reading skills; this study was designed to learn more about its efficacy. A general educational technician (i.e., paraprofessional) provided the small group Fundations 2 intervention. She received training in Fundations by the Wilson Language Training Center prior to providing instruction. Student progress toward the middle first grade benchmark reading goal was monitored with the weekly PSF and NWF DIBELS subtests. The second Tier II intervention used was Reading Mastery. This is a direct and systematic scripted reading program that focuses on teaching beginning readers how to read and comprehend through explicit instruction in phonics that emphasizes letter sounds and blending, sequential and scaffolded instruction, and multiple opportunities for repetition and practice of learned skills. At the first grade level, the Reading Mastery curriculum includes decoding, blending, acquisition of irregular English words, and reading decodable connected text stories (Table 7). Reading Mastery was selected as the second Tier II intervention because it has a very strong record of efficacy (e.g., Schieffer, Marchand-Martells, Martella, & Simonsen, 2007). The educational technician assigned to the Reading Mastery small group intervention had a master’s degree in literacy, along with professional experience administering literacy interventions with at-risk students. Prior to the small group intervention, she received direct training in Reading Mastery from the researcher. As with the Fundations 2 intervention, student progress toward the

15

Table 1. Fundations and Fundations 2 Lesson Components

Lesson Components Activity Materials Alphabetical Order (Unit 1 Only) Students match letter tiles to Alphabet ove rlay Standard Sound Cards Baby Echo Pointer Magnetic Letter Tiles and Letter Bo ards Alphabet Overlay Echo/Letter Formation (Unit 1 Only) Students cued on writing position and penci l grip. Teacher says a sound and holds up Echo. Students repeat the sound and name the letter that makes the sound. Letter Formation Verbalization Gui de Echo the Owl Wilson Writing Grid on Classroo m Board Pencil Grip Picture Dry Ease Writing Tablet Sky-Write/Letter Formation (Unit 1 Only) Teacher models and directs sky- writing correct letter formation along w/ the letter-keyword-sound. Letter Formation Guide Wilson Writing Grid w/ Pictures Vowel extension (Unit 1 Only) Teacher extends the vowel sound wh ile tracing the line to the keyword picture. Vowels reviewed every day. Keyword Pictures Letter-Keyword-Sound New letters/sounds taught w/ sound cards Echo the Owl or Baby Owl Large Sound Cards Standard Sound Cards Drill Sounds Teacher models letter-keyword-sound w / Large Sound Cards & Students Echo. Vowels reviewed every day Large Sound Cards Standard Sound Cards Baby Echo Pointer Echo/Find Letters Teacher dictates a sound, students echo s ound, students identify all letters that make the sound Standard Sound Cards Echo the Owl Letter Board Alphabet Overlay Magnetic Tiles (only taught sounds) Echo/Find Sounds & Words Teacher dictates the sound/word, students repeat the sound/word. Students identify all letters that make the sound and tap the sounds in words. Students identify the correct letter tiles to form the words on the Building Boards Echo the Owl or Baby Echo Standard Sound Cards Display

Magnetic Tiles Building and Letter Boards Trick Words Trick words presented as words that cannot be tapped out and must be memorized. Teacher and students say, spell, and practice skywriting and writing trick words. Board Building Boards or Desk Surface Student Notebook Word of the Day

Word selected from the unit list and mad e w/ Standard Sound Cards, Defined, Used in a Sentence, & Written on Index Card. Students write sentence in Student Notebooks Standard Sound Cards Blank 5x8 Index Cards Baby Echo Pointer Student Notebooks

Full document contains 64 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this thesis is to describe a doctoral research study designed to implement response to intervention (RTI) techniques in reading for first grade students. RTI is an early intervention and prevention method for identification and effective intervention for students at-risk for developing academic problems. This research study focuses on research-based reading instruction and early identification and intervention for first grade students at-risk for developing reading problems. The effectiveness of two Tier II reading interventions, Reading Mastery and Fundations 2, are compared. The results indicated that all at-risk students made progress with supplementary intervention following eight weeks of intervention and weekly progress monitoring. A comparison of Reading Mastery and Fundations 2 reading intervention results indicated that Reading Mastery students demonstrated the most significant progress. The findings are discussed in the context of the procedures necessary to implement and monitor RTI methods for students at-risk for developing reading problems in the early stages of literacy development.