1

Author: Sweeney, Sara, J Title: The Impact of a Direct Instruction Program on Third Grade Reading

Achievement at Grant Elementary School The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial

completion of the requirements for the

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Education

Research Adviser: James Lehman, Ed.D.

Submission Term/Year: Summer, 2013

Number of Pages: 55 Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

X I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website X I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office. X My research adviser has approved the content and quality of this paper.

STUDENT:

NAME Sara Sweeney DATE: July 30, 2013

ADVISER: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):

NAME Dr. James Lehmann DATE: July 30th, 2013

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

3. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.

Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:

2

Sweeney, Sara, J. The Impact of a Direct Instruction Program on Third Grade Reading

Achievement at Grant Elementary School

Abstract

The purpose of this program evaluation is to determine if the implementation of a differentiated

reading program based on student needs was effective towards overall reading achievement. A

total of 11 regular education third graders were involved with this study. This evaluation will

collect and study data from two different reading programs. The data to be reviewed includes

how students in each reading program progressed as readers from the beginning of the school

year until the end. The information from the study will help the teachers and administrator decide

to continue offering the differentiated program or continue with the traditional approach to

addressing the needs of struggling readers.

3

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my husband and two children for their support, smiles and

encouragement throughout my studies at UW-Stout and while completing this research. They

were my inspiration to complete this program.

I would also like to thank Dr. James Lehmann who was my long standing advisor on this

project. His patience and valuable feedback made this task manageable.

4

Table of Contents

............................................................................................................................................. Page

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 6

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 7

Assumptions of the Study ................................................................................................ 8

Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................... 8

Methodology ................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter II: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 12

Chapter III: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 26

Subject Selection and Description .................................................................................. 26

Instrumentation.............................................................................................................. 27

Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................ 28

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 28

Limitations .................................................................................................................... 29

Chapter IV: Results ................................................................................................................... 30

DIBELS Analysis ......................................................................................................... 30

Benchmark Assessment Analysis .................................................................................. 32

Benchmark Items Analysis ........................................................................................... 34

Chapter V: Discussion ............................................................................................................... 38

Limitations ................................................................................................................... 38

Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 38

5

Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 41

References ................................................................................................................................ 42

Appendix A: Wausau School District Third Grade Quarterly Benchmarks ............................... 47

Appendix B: Reading Assessment Used to Determine Student Growth .................................... 48

Appendix C: DIBELS Cut Scores for Each Assessment Period…………………………………55

6

Chapter I: Introduction

In 2002 the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was passed into law. In order for states to

receive federal funding, NCLB mandated that all public school students score proficient or better

on state mandated tests in the areas of reading and math by the year 2014. As a result of NCLB

Reading First was a federal program created to help struggling schools achieve reading

proficiency for students in high poverty areas. The focus of Reading First was on students in

kindergarten thru third grade with a goal for all readers to be reading at grade level by the end of

third grade. Reading First centered on professional development to ensure that teachers were

competent reading teachers using scientifically based reading research when choosing, planning

and providing instruction to students. A portion of the professional development focused on

assessment and using data to identify struggling readers. As readers were identified as struggling,

Response to Intervention (RTI) models were put in place to help identify interventions that

would support students and provide the intense instruction they needed to attain grade level

reading. Intervention programs range in intensity from short interventions provided by the

classroom teacher, to Title 1 services provided by a licensed reading teacher or a more rigorous

intervention that requires differentiated reading instruction. The interventions chosen are

dependent on each child’s strengths and weaknesses as a reader.

Statement of the Problem

A problem existed at Grant Elementary School in that not all third grade readers were

making significant gains in their reading progress after a full year of reading instruction using the

guided reading model. Ideally, all students would respond positively to the reading curriculum

set by a district and all students would progress at a steady pace in response to instruction.

Unfortunately, not all third grade students at Grant Elementary were responding successfully to

7

the District’s chosen curriculum and instructional model of guided reading. Teachers at Grant

Elementary observed a pattern over several years that showed students who were reading at or

above grade level were responding positively to the guided reading instruction. In contrast

struggling readers and students reading below grade level would often plateau in third grade and

made no progress or inadequate progress during the school year. If teachers did not consider

alternatives to the existing instruction model of guided reading, many third grade students would

continue to struggle as readers and not make the gains necessary to be reading by grade level at

the end of third grade.

The importance of reading at grade level by the end of third grade is a state and district

objective. Lesnick (2010) affirmed the importance of reading at grade level by third grade when

stating “Students who are not reading at grade level by third grade begin having difficulty

comprehending the written material that is a central part of the educational process in the grades that

follow. Meeting increased educational demands becomes more difficult for students who struggle to

read.” With a sense of urgency to get all students reading at grade level by the end of third grade

and with the support of the school’s principal, teachers at Grant Elementary implemented an

additional reading program to their reading block in order to meet the needs of struggling

readers. The goal of adding an additional program was to support struggling readers in third

grade and for them to become proficient readers by year’s end.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of the new reading program

used in third grade. The results would inform teachers on the effectiveness of the change in

literacy programming for struggling readers. The data collected would inform the stakeholder’s

decision on continuing, modifying or terminating the differentiated approach to reading

instruction at Grant School.

8

The research addressed the following questions:

1. To what extent did struggling third graders placed in the Reading Mastery program

progress as readers?

2. To what extent did struggling readers progress in comparison to struggling readers

without the Reading Mastery program?

3. How did the Reading Mastery program support the needs of struggling readers?

Assumptions of the Study

The assumption of the study was that after implementation of a different reading program

based on student needs, students would have higher reading achievement. This study

acknowledged that while the students involved in the study had different classroom teachers for

their whole group reading instruction, that each teacher provided quality, balanced literacy

instruction based off of scientifically based reading research. The study also assumed that the

reading programs implemented (Reading Mastery and guided reading) were taught with fidelity

to each program’s specifications and implemented as designed.

Definition of Terms

Basal reading programs. Basal reading programs were published textbooks designed to

teach reading to whole classrooms. Basal textbooks included a collection of writings such as

stories and poems to help teach reading skills. A teacher’s manual and student workbooks were

also included in the program.

Basic reading level. A person reading at a basic reading level is reading below

proficiency or below grade level. The basic skills for reading at a given grade level are evident,

such as reading the print or sounding out words, but higher level thinking skills such as

comprehending what is read are not developed.

9

Direct instruction. Direct instruction was a type of published reading program based on

explicit, systematic instruction that is scafolded. Direct Instruction used scripted lessons to

maintain program fidelity (Ashworth, 1999).

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Dynamic Indicators of

Basic Early Literacy Skills was a universal reading screen that looks at reading fluency to assess

the literacy skills of elementary students. DIBELS assessed fluency in one minute readings that

look at how many words per minute a student correctly reads.

English language learners. English language learner referred to a student learning

English as a second language. ELL students speak another language at home and are acquiring

English as part of their education.

Guided reading. Guided reading was a leveled reading system in which students of the

same reading level were placed in small groups of 4-6. Groups were taught a specific reading

skill based on students strengths and weaknesses as readers. Groups met with the teacher for 15 –

20 minutes several times a week. In guided reading the teacher decided the focus of each lesson.

Proficient reading level. A proficient reading level is indicated by being able to read a

text at a given grade level and to comprehend it and use the information learned from the text.

States are allowed to determine proficiency at each grade level as these are assessed on state-

wide, standardized tests. A student that received a proficient reading level had demonstrated

successful reading and comprehension of texts at their respected grade level.

Reading first. Reading First grants were federally funded grants used to increase student

reading achievement by providing professional development on best reading practices to teachers

in the elementary schools. Reading First funds were targeted at low-income schools and focused

on grades kindergarten thru third (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

10

Reading Mastery. Reading Mastery was a direct instruction reading program published

by McGraw Hill. The program was scripted for teachers and each lesson included a structured

routine. Each Reading Mastery lesson included explicit phonics work, vocabulary development,

comprehension skills and fluency work.

Response to Intervention (RTI). Response to Intervention was a multi-tiered framework

that used assessment data to determine what interventions or additional support a student would

need to progress as a reader. RTI matched a student’s academic needs with an intervention that

addressed the strengths and weaknesses of the student.

Title 1. Title 1 was a federally funded education program that provided extra funding to

schools that serviced high numbers of students living in poverty. Title 1 teachers worked with

students that are at-risk.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects that a differentiated reading

program, Reading Mastery III, had on struggling third grade readers. Data from two groups of

students were analyzed to determine the effects of the program. One group of struggling readers

received instruction using Reading Mastery III, the comparison group received instruction using

guided reading taught by a Title 1 reading specialist. The study analyzed results from two

assessments to determine and compare the growth of each student and group. The first

assessment used was Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). This

assessment focused on how many words per minute each student read from a third grade

passage. The second assessment used was the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment

System, 1st Edition. It measured the reader’s accuracy, fluency and comprehension using a short

reading passage. Scores on both assessments were reported for each of the four quarters of the

11

school year. Scores were analyzed and compared to determine the effectiveness of the Reading

Mastery III program for this group of students.

12

Chapter II: Literature Review

Struggling Reader, Struggling Learner Learning how to read is a fundamental skill for children to master. Success at school is

linked to how well a child can read. The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2010 Kids Count Special

Report explains a critical literacy shift that happens in elementary school. From the beginning of

school through the end of third grade, the focus is on learning to read. In fourth grade a

foundational shift occurs in school where children move from learning to read into reading to

learn. At this stage in schooling a struggling reader often becomes a struggling learner because

they cannot read and comprehend the grade level content and keeping up with the pace of

instruction becomes difficult.

In their report, The National Research Council acknowledged that high school graduation

can be reasonably predicted by knowing a student’s reading skill at the end of third grade. They

stated a student “who is not at least a modestly skilled reader by that time is unlikely to graduate

from high school” (Snow, p.21). Moats (1999) supported this statement by stressing that students

that do not learn to read well in the primary grades will not easily master other skills and are

unlikely to thrive in school.

According to The Nations Report Card Reading 2011, 67% of fourth graders nationwide

were reading at or above a basic level. A basic level is identified by the National Center for

Education Statistics as partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental

for proficient work at each grade. Students not receiving basic or higher levels were performing

at minimal levels which equates below grade level. This indicated that 33% of fourth graders

were at risk of not graduating because of low reading performances. The Nations Report Card

identified Wisconsin following the national trend closely with 68% of fourth graders reading at

13

or above a basic level. Both the nation and the state have seen a slight increase in reading

achievement since 1998 when at basic or above levels were at 60%. This data supported that our

classrooms have many struggling readers.

No Child Left Behind Act

In 2002, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, an educational initiative, was signed into

law. The focus of the law was on student achievement in United States public schools. A main

component of the law was to ensure that all students, regardless of income, ethnicity or

background, obtain a score of proficient or above in the core academic areas of reading, math

and science by 2014 (McCormick, 2011). Yearly testing in grades 3 through 8 and once during

grades 10 through 12 were mandated in order to monitor student progress. States and districts

using NCLB funds were required to verify if they were making adequate yearly progress (AYP)

toward the 2014 goal. Schools failing to make AYP were subject to sanctions such as turning

schools into charter schools or losing funding (McCormick, 2011).

Reading First was a grant funded by NCLB that focused on reading instruction and

achievement in schools that serviced low income students. This grant focused on grades

kindergarten through 3, with the main purpose of “ensuring that every child can read at grade

level or above by the end of third grade” (Guidance for the Reading First Program, 2002).

Schools that accepted Reading First grants needed to implement reading programs that were

supported by scientifically based reading research. Such research and findings from the National

Reading Panel (2000) helped clarify research based instruction and announced five key

components to effective literacy instruction. These components were phonemic awareness (being

able to identify each sound in a spoken word), phonics (associating a letter or letters with each

sound), fluency (ability to read accurately, with expression and at a speaking rate), vocabulary

14

(understanding the meanings of words) and comprehension (constructing meaning from printed

material). Classroom teachers, reading specialists and special education teachers received

professional development in these five areas in order to provide, quality reading instruction to all

students. An additional component of the grant was teacher training on assessments and the

implementation of assessments to identify student reading abilities and to monitor student

progress. Assessments identified when a student was struggling with reading and needed

additional instruction or interventions.

Response to Intervention

Response to Intervention (RTI) is the result of NCLB and the 2004 reauthorization of

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Howard (2009) defined response to

intervention as “a multi-tiered approach to early intervention for struggling readers, initially

focused on K-2, but gradually extending to all grade levels” (p.3). Allington (2009) added that

the goal is to resolve the reading difficulties of struggling readers so they are able to catch up

with their achieving classmates. Xu and Drame (2007) noted that under the RTI model, all

students, especially those from culturally diverse or non English backgrounds benefited because

it eliminated testing that had disproportionately placed students in special education programs

due to culturally biased standardized testing. Within the RTI model, assessments are curriculum

based and may include classroom observation and authentic assessments such as portfolios, truly

helping to identify when English language learners (ELL) struggled with learning to read, not

with language or cultural acquisition.

The foundation of RTI was high quality teaching using scientifically based reading

instruction and identifying struggling readers early. Most RTI designs included a three-tiered

15

model; students were placed in a tier based off of academic performance and benchmark

assessments.

Tier one encompasses high-quality, research-based, initial instruction in the regular

classroom. All students are included in the core reading program and are assessed three times a

year in order to monitor progress and to identify individuals that are struggling. Struggling

students receive targeted instructional interventions within the classroom through small groups,

one on one tutoring and differentiated instruction (Howard, 2009). English language learners

identified in need of intervention at this tier received similar support as research has suggested

that ELLs benefit from the same high quality reading instruction that is effective with non-ELL

students (National Institute of child Health and Human Development, 2000).

Targeted interventions at tier one reteach and reinforce a skill or concept, giving a

struggling student another experience with the material or specific support on a skill in a smaller

group. Foorman and Moats (2004) asserted that small groups provide the teacher an opportunity

to immediately recognize when students were having difficulty and to respond instantly to

support the student’s learning. Continued informal assessments are used to determine if the

interventions at this tier are successful. Burns (2010) stressed the importance of quality first

teaching in tier one and Brown and Doolittle (2008) added that when working with ELL

students, quality first teaching must include “culturally relevant curricula that reflects the

background and experiences of the students” (p. 67). Due to the quality instruction provided,

most students should be successful at this level, with no more than 20% needing additional

interventions at tier two or three.

Tier two of the RTI model is for students that are not making adequate progress in tier

one. Instruction continues with the core reading program from tier one, while added

16

interventions are targeted to a specific area, depending on the student’s need and are designed to

accelerate student learning. ELL students identified in this tier are provided with additional

reading support targeted to their specific reading or language need (Kamps et. al, 2007). Support

included may be the same provided to monolingual students or tailored to specific language

needs.

Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) identified several approaches to intensify instruction at this level.

These included: using more systematic and explicit instruction, increasing the frequency of

instruction, adding more time to the intervention, creating smaller student groups and relying on

instructors with greater reading expertise such as a reading specialist. A student at this level

would receive the core reading instruction within their classroom; however, they would also

receive a second dose of reading at another time during the day (Howard, 2009). These

interventions are conducted by reading specialist, ELL teachers or special education teachers. As

in tier one, progress is continually monitored. Students that responded to the interventions at tier

two may continue with the intervention, or return to tier one being intensely monitored. Students

not showing progress or significant growth at tier two continued onto more intense intervention

at tier three.

At tier three, the level of intervention is very high, very individualized and often long

term. Instruction is typically provided outside of the regular classroom and is carried out by the

reading specialist or the special education teacher (McCormick, 2011). Many schools having

implemented a three tiered model use entrance into tier three as the beginning of a special

education referral. Students identified as having severe disabilities and non readers are placed

into this tier. No more than 5 % students should be receiving tier three interventions (Burns,

17

2010). Higher numbers at this level may indicate poor instruction at lower tiers or instruction that

did not meet the students’ needs.

Instruction for Struggling Readers

While readers are taught and supported in any of the three RTI tiers, there are consistent

findings from decades of research on what instruction for struggling readers should include.

Explicit and systematic instruction of skills and strategies has proven to help students that are

struggling readers (Denton, Fletcher, Anthony & Francis, 2006 and Mathes et al., 2005).

Systematic instruction is carefully sequenced instruction that starts with simple concepts and

builds to more complex concepts. Explicit instruction includes very direct explanations of

concepts, including concise teacher language and high levels of interaction between the teacher

and the student. Torgesen (2000) confirmed students with phonological weaknesses showed

greater reading gains when explicitly and systematically taught phonemic awareness and phonics

compared to struggling readers that do not receive explicit instruction in these areas.

Increasing the intensity of instruction is another characteristic that supports struggling

readers. According to Foorman and Torgesen (2001) increasing intensity can be accomplished in

two different ways. The first is to increase the total time for reading instruction. Increasing time

allows teachers to incorporate explicit instruction. It also supports struggling readers who tend to

learn skills more slowly and need more repetition to master skills. If the additional time is spent

with an expert reading teacher, the positive effects on reading achievement is greater (Allington,

2011, and Fischer & Ivey, 2006). Reducing group size is the second factor for increasing

intensity. Small group instruction with three to four students is as effective as one-on-one

instruction (Foorman & Moats, 2004). Small groups allow for teachers to observe and respond to

18

students specific instructional needs. Amendum et al. (2009) added student engagement and

motivation increased during small group instruction.

A third finding is to identify struggling readers early so interventions may begin early.

Schatschneider and Torgesen (2004) stressed students that exhibit considerable reading

difficulties for an extended period of time “miss out on enormous amounts of reading practice

that has important effects on the growth of reading” (p.763). They continue to explain if teachers

wait to intervene until a student has failed at reading for several years; it is very difficult to make

up for the large amounts of missed reading practice. Research has shown early intervention in

first and second grades yield higher success than interventions that begin in grade three or

beyond (Foorman & Moats, 2004). The longer an intervention is delayed, the more time

consuming and intense the instruction will have to be in order to be successful.

The support a teacher provides during intervention is another factor that should be

included when teaching struggling readers. While most teachers understand the importance of

emotional support using positive feedback and praise when teaching children, the support that is

being referenced for this factor is cognitive support. Cognitive support, which is also referred to

as scaffolded instruction, includes explicit interactions between the instructor and student that

helps the student accomplish a task or skill that they would not be able to do without the

teacher’s support (Stone, 1989). Others such as McCormick et al. (2011) called this model of

instruction the gradual release of responsibility. The process of supporting a reader in this

manner includes giving precise explanations about a skill or strategy through modeling, the

reader then actively participating in guided practice of the skill with the teachers support. Next

the reader engages in independent practice of the skill in explicit exercises and then finally

applies the strategy to regular text independently (McCormick, 2011). When teaching fluency

19

using this support, a teacher may model fluency rate by reading a poem aloud to the class, next

the teacher would have the student(s) follow along as she read it and join in when they were

comfortable or on the teacher’s prompt. This practice would continue until the teacher feels the

student is ready to attempt the reading on their own. Finally, the reader would be asked to read

the same poem or a similar one independently.

Scaffolded support can also be used when a student struggles during the reading process.

According to Foorman and Torgesen (2004), scaffolded support involves four elements. First the

student is presented with a task. The second element is when the student indicates they don’t

know how to proceed or makes an error. Thirdly the teacher does not tell the answer but rather

asks questions that help the student focus on the first step in the solution (for example drawing

the student’s attention to a piece of information). Finally the student responds and the procedure

is repeated until the student successfully completes the task. Providing support to accomplish the

task is the critical element, rather than telling the answer.

Direct Instruction

There are many theories and philosophies on effective reading instruction. Such

approaches include whole language, traditional basal reading programs, guided reading

instruction and commercial direct instruction programs all of which differ in how explicit,

systematic or structured instruction is delivered. They are on a continuum from constructivist

(student led) to more direct, teacher led. Direct Instruction (DI) programs are systematic, explicit

and highly structured teacher-led programs. A lesson includes teacher modeling (demonstrating

exactly what needs to be said or done), choral reading (reading as a group together), independent

reading (a student reading on their own), a review of previous material covered and

comprehension questions checking that the students understood the reading. Through the use of a

20

script, Direct Instruction programs offer a high level of teacher support and set procedures for

teachers to correct students immediately when a mistake is made (Ashworth, 2005). The lessons

are scripted, telling the instructor exactly what to say and require that students answer to prompts

in unison on a teacher signal such as a tap or a snap. When an error is made, a scripted teacher

prompt is used to identify the mistake, such as “that word is erase” and then a prompt is given for

all students to correctly read the word, “what word?” and all students reply “erase” while looking

at the word erase.

Since its beginnings in the 1960’s, Direct Instructions effectiveness has been studied on

numerous occasions. In 1967, the United States government began conducting the largest

educational experiment called, Project Follow Through. The purpose of the experiment was to

identify models of teaching that produced high student achievement, and DI was one of the nine

models studied (Kennedy, 1978). At the conclusion of the 10 year study Direct Instruction

outperformed the other reading models in the study as assessed through the Metropolitan

Achievement Test. This test assessed both language and reading comprehension. Students who

were taught using the DI program, on average earned a higher score than the students that

participated in any other program.

A more recent study found that “the D.I. Model consistently raised academic

achievement of low income children in grades K-3 close to national norms on tests of reading”

(Wrobel, 1996). In a study of first grade students using the DI program Horizons, Tobin (2003)

found that students in the DI program demonstrated stronger reading skills at the end of first

grade compared to students that received instruction through a traditional basal program Silver,

Burdett and Ginn. Two years later the same students were assessed and Tobin (2004) found that

the students that received the DI curriculum in first grade “maintained and even increased their

21

superior performance” (p. 136) as third and fourth graders. These two studies showed positive

student reading achievement when using DI compared to a specific basal program and that the

achievement of the students was maintained over a short period of time.

While several studies reported on Direct Instructions effectiveness, other reports cited

mixed results and the program had many critics. The What Works Clearinghouse (2007) reported

DI had no discernible effects with special education students in the areas of print knowledge or

knowing what the letters on the page represented, oral language speaking skills or cognition, an

understanding or awareness of what was read. A study by Ryder, Burns and Silberg (2006) found

DI to be as effective as other programs in the area of teaching decoding but that DI had little

evidence to support comprehension instruction. The students in the study demonstrated that they

could read the words on the page but that the program did not instruct students in how to make

meaning from what they had read.

Concerns about the structure and scripted lessons of DI were reported in the Ryder et al.

(2006) study. They stated the structure and limit the “range of instructional activities that are

required for a robust reading curriculum that is sensitive to the context of the classroom and the

individual instructional style of the teacher” (p.190). To ensure program fidelity, teachers must

follow the program as written. They are not at liberty to add or change content to add interest or

variety. Many critics of DI believe children should learn through constructing, using what the

student is interested in to teach them as it increases student motivation. Using a child’s interest in

the Titanic for example, provides an intrinsic motivation to learn to read as students discover and

encounter books about the ill fated ship. Elkind (2012) is one such believer and he stated that

“Direct Instruction and rote learning, offer young children very little challenge, interest, or

novelty” and that DI can “dull” a child’s interest in learning. Kim and Axelrod (2005) confirmed

22

that even with positive evidence from Project Follow Through, educators against DI typically

accepted the philosophy of a child-centered approach to learning, one that allows student

motivation to guide learning, rather than a systematic, explicit, teacher-led model such as DI.

Using Reading Mastery for Reading Instruction

Reading Mastery is a published reading program that uses the direct instruction model for

delivery. Published by SRA/McGraw-Hill and the most widely used DI reading program,

Reading Mastery is a yearlong curriculum designed to be an explicit, systematic program for

teaching English language reading skills. The five components outlined by the National Reading

Panel (2000) of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension are

taught within the program. Beginning levels of the program focus heavily on sound-letter

correspondence or phonemic awareness. Instruction is systematically scaffolded and progresses

into word, then phrase and finally sentence and text reading. Instruction is intense and a teacher

script is provided to ensure fidelity to the explicit content of each lesson. Students take a

placement test to identify which lesson best matches the student’s reading level as a starting

point for instruction. Reading Mastery can be delivered in a small or large group setting.

Assessments are included with the program and are ongoing to help determine if skills need to be

re-taught for mastery. These assessments may also be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of

RM as an intervention.

A study by Marchand-Martella, Martella, Kolts, & Mitchell (2006) looked at the effects

of using Reading Mastery for instruction in Tiers 1, 2 and 3 at a Title 1 school. The findings

“demonstrated pretest to posttest improvements of more than half of a standard deviation on all

subtests” (p.68) with kindergarten through third grade students at the study school. In a meta-

analysis of studies using Reading Mastery, Schieffer et al. (2002) found when used with general

23

education students and struggling readers, Reading Mastery had positive reading outcomes and

was more effective at improving reading skills than non Direct Instruction programs such as a

traditional basal reader.

Additional studies reported positive reading achievement outcomes with Reading

Mastery. In a study that focused on using Reading Mastery (RM) in kindergarten through third

grades, Stockard and Englemann (2010) found students receiving RM instruction had

significantly stronger Oral Reading Fluency in kindergarten and first grades than student

receiving a less structured program. As the students progressed into second and third grades, one

RM group continued to show significantly higher scores and at the conclusion of the study, when

compared to the non RM group, all of the RM scores remained slightly higher at the end of third

grade. Similar findings were reported in a study by Crowe et al. (2009) which compared several

different reading programs in first through third grades, one of which was Reading Mastery. First

and second graders instructed with RM had stronger Oral Reading Fluency scores with third

grade scores declining slightly in the Reading Mastery groups. However when comparing the

third graders in the RM group to the other reading programs, the RM students were the closest to

achieving benchmark at the end of the year. Crowe (2009) summarized that the “RM students

more frequently met or exceeded benchmarks for adequate achievement in first, second, and

third grade” (p. 209). The scripted Reading Mastery lessons provided more explicit instruction

when compared to the other programs and this may have contributed to the studies’ findings. As

discussed earlier, explicit and systematic instruction has been identified by Fuchs and Fuchs

(2006) as a means to intensify instruction and by Denton et al. (2006) as a strategy to support

struggling readers.

24

The scripted lessons of RM were often viewed by some educators as a negative. Founders

of Direct Instruction, Adams and Englemann (1996) acknowledged the popular myth associated

with DI and Reading Mastery, that the scripted lessons “stifle” a teacher’s creativity. They

countered this by stating “the creative potential of student is limited by what they know” (p. 27)

and the teacher’s priority is to teach the basic skills first and to be successful, before the teacher

can become creative. The focus of Reading Mastery is teaching to mastery the basic skills of

reading with a systematic, explicit approach.

Reading Mastery has aligned with the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (2000) recommendations for a scientifically based reading researched program

making it a candidate for RTI. Reading Mastery can be delivered in small group settings which

supports its use in all three tiers of RTI. RM also provides systematic, explicit instruction that is

scaffolded which are all components of quality instruction for struggling readers.

Conclusion

In conclusion there were many students in the United States that were reading below

grade level and therefore jeopardizing their future academic success. To help combat this issue,

Federal laws were enacted to increase student achievement. Many studies of scientifically

research based reading instruction concluded that solid reading instruction should include

teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. In addition to

teacher training and grants to help implement these components, Response to Intervention was

initiated to help identify struggling readers and to support them at different levels. Many factors

helped ensure a successful intervention, these include: identifying and intervening early, explicit

and systematic instruction, strong teacher support through scaffolding, and intensifying

instruction via smaller groups or increasing time. Direct Instruction reading programs were

25

structured to provide explicit, systematic instruction that include scaffolding and high levels of

teacher support. One such program that has shown success with struggling readers is Reading

Mastery.

26

Chapter III: Methodology

The literature review highlighted the importance of students being proficient readers by

the end of third grade. Struggling readers at this age often struggle academically for the

remainder of their education. Third grade teachers at Grant Elementary in Wausau, Wisconsin

had observed students that entered third grade as struggling readers often exited third grade as

struggling readers. Teachers wanted to modify and improve their reading instruction in order to

support these readers and provide instruction that transitioned the students from struggling

readers to proficient readers. This case study followed a group of struggling third grade readers

and the differentiated reading instruction they received.

This study focused on a group of struggling readers and examined the reading progress

each student demonstrated while enrolled in the Reading Mastery III program. In order to

determine the program’s effectiveness, the researcher compared the rate of growth between the

students in the RM program to struggling third grade students that did not receive the RM

program. This study identified characteristics of the RM program that supported the needs of the

students and any areas of weakness.

Subject Selection and Description

The subjects for this study were five regular education, third grade students. Two of the

students were girls and three were boys. One of the students was Caucasian and four were South

East Asian. These four of the students were English Language Learners; all had a Language

English Proficiency (LEP) of 3 or higher, suggesting their English acquisition was on target for

their age. All five students were identified as struggling readers based off of their performance

on the District’s quarterly reading benchmark assessment. Each student was assessed in the fall

using a benchmark and each was identified as reading below grade level. This group received

27

small group instruction using differentiated instruction with the Reading Mastery III program.

The group met daily for 60 minutes of instruction that was delivered by a classroom teacher.

This group did not participate in the core guided reading program, but were present for a daily,

30 minute whole classroom reading lesson.

The comparison group consisted of six regular-education, third grade students, four boys

and two girls. One student was African-American, three were Caucasian and two were South

East Asian. The two South East Asian students were ELL learners, one having an LEP of 3,

which suggested English acquisition on target for this age, and the other had an LEP of 4, a

higher English proficiency. Students in this group were identified on the District’s fall

benchmark assessment as reading below grade level. This group received Title 1 support

throughout the year which consisted of meeting with a reading specialist for a second dose of

guided reading. Students in the comparison group met with a classroom teacher daily for 15-20

minutes of small group instruction and with the reading specialist for an additional 30 minutes.

Instrumentation

Two assessments were used for this case study. The first was a benchmark assessment

which gathered information on each student’s overall reading ability at the end of all four

quarters. This assessment was the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System, 1st edition

and was a district required assessment. Reading levels were determined by combining scores

from fluency, accuracy and comprehension. The second assessment used was Dynamic

Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). It was administered 3 times throughout the

year and was also a district required universal screener. This assessment obtained an oral reading

fluency score which was determined by how many correct words a student read in one minute on

a third grade leveled passage.

28

Data Collection Procedures

Data was collected from the classroom teachers and the Title 1 teacher. Classroom

teachers administered the DIBELS assessments three times during the year in September,

January and May. The classroom teacher that instructed the Reading Mastery III group and the

Title 1 teacher administered and provided the scores for the benchmark assessments for their

struggling students. Benchmark assessments were administered at the beginning of the year as

well as at the end of each quarter, November, January, March and May.

Each teacher had received training and professional development in administering and

assessing the students using the benchmark assessment and DIBELS. Teachers had several years

of implementing and administering both assessments. Scores were recorded and submitted to the

researcher. Each of the benchmark assessment forms from the Reading Mastery III group were

submitted to the researcher.

Data analysis. The researcher analyzed the data and compared the amount of growth

each struggling reader made throughout third grade. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy

Skills (DIBELS) scores were compared to show overall growth for each group in the number of

words read per minute (WPM) as well as the average WPM gains for each group. DIBELS

scores were also used to determine if the grade level benchmark of 110 WPM was attained by

students in either group. Benchmark levels from each quarter were evaluated to identify the

quarterly and annual progress made by each student. Benchmark assessments were analyzed to

determine how many levels each student gained throughout the year and which students attained

the end of year level of P. The rate of growth and extent of growth were also compared between

the two groups.

29

Finally, benchmark assessments for the Reading Mastery III group were analyzed using

accuracy, fluency and comprehension scores to identify areas of weakness or strength that may

be associated to RM instruction. Scores for accuracy, fluency and comprehension were combined

on this assessment and used to determine if a student successfully read the passage. The

researcher separated and analyzed each of these scores to determine any trends in the Reading

Mastery group in the areas of accuracy, fluency and comprehension.

Limitations

A limitation of the study involved the students’ classroom teachers that provided the

daily 30 minutes of whole group instruction. Both classroom teachers received professional

development in best reading practices, each were ELL certified and had been teaching between

12 and 13 years. Each teacher adapted, modified and chose daily whole group lessons for their

classroom based on standards, classroom needs, learning and teaching styles. Another limitation

was that the benchmark assessments were administered by different teachers. Each teacher

received professional development and had implemented the assessment for several years. Scores

for comprehension questions and fluency ratings were subjective to teachers experience with the

student and assessment.

30

Chapter IV: Results

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects that the Reading Mastery III

program had on a group of struggling third grade readers. Two groups of struggling third grade

readers were used for this study. One group received the traditional intervention of Title 1, the

other group received instruction using the Reading Mastery III (RM) direct instruction program.

Scores from two assessments were used to determine the extent of reading growth each student

and group made as well as the rate of growth. Data was also analyzed to determine any strengths

or weakness in the areas of accuracy, fluency and comprehension that resulted from instruction

with RM. Results from this study would be used to determine if Reading Mastery III would

continue to be used as a program for struggling readers at Grant Elementary School.

DIBELS Analysis

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) was the universal screener

used at Grant Elementary School three times a year. This assessment evaluated the students Oral

Reading Fluency (ORF) on a third grade reading passage by finding the number of words

correctly read per minute. The assessment was administered one-on-one, with the student reading

a passage for 1 minute and the teacher marking any errors. During each assessment, the student

read three separate passages for a minute each. The words read correctly were totaled and the

median score was used to identify the reader as at risk, some risk or low risk. In September,

2011, students that read less than 53 words per minute (WPM) were identified as at risk, students

reading between 53 and 77 WPM were identified as some risk and students reading 77 or more

words per minute were identified as low risk. These cut scores increased throughout the year, as

students should have been making gains in the number of words they read per minute as the year

progressed (See Appendix C). Students that scored in the at risk category were considered to be

31

achieving below grade level expectations. Table 1 depicts the DIBELS scores for both groups of

students in this study as well as the growth each student made from the beginning of the year to

the end.

Table 1

DIBELS Scores

Student

September ORF

January ORF

May ORF

Year’s Growth

Reading Mastery

Group

RM A 38** 52** 71** 33

RM B 80 96 94* 14

RM C 64* 86* 106* 42

RM D 37** 61** 105* 68

RM E 80 100 107* 27

Title 1 group Title A 43** 53** 85* 42

Title B 55* 63** 76** 21

Title C 58* 68* 98* 40

Title D 62* 73* 78** 16

Title E 64* 84* 98* 34

Title F 36** 46** 69** 33

Note. ORF=Oral Reading Fluency. *=Scored in the Some Risk Category, **=Scored in the At Risk Category. While all of the September scores varied, only two students were not identified as At

Risk or Some Risk on this assessment. At the end of the year, all students had made gains

however; they were all identified as Some Risk or At Risk. No student at the end of third grade

was identified on this assessment as Low Risk. Based on the May assessment, only one student

32

from the Reading Mastery group (20%) was identified as At Risk, while three students from the

Title 1 group (50%) were At Risk at the end of the year. As a group, the average growth for

students in the Reading Mastery group was 36.8 wpm, while the average growth for students in

the Title 1 group was 31 wpm. Two students in the RM group began the year with Low Risk and

although made gains throughout the year, by May their scores were considered Some Risk,

indicating a decrease in achievement based on this assessment’s cut scores. The student with the

most gains throughout the year was Student D from the RM group. These results indicated that

overall the Reading Mastery group made more gains than the Title 1 group.

Benchmark Assessment Analysis

The Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System was used quarterly at Grant

Elementary School to monitor and evaluate each student’s reading progress. It evaluated the

reader’s accuracy, fluency and comprehension on a short passage. This assessment was

administered one-on-one, with the student and classroom teacher. The student was introduced to

the passage and then directed to read the passage aloud while the teacher noted errors, self

corrections as well as strengths and weaknesses of the reader on the form provided for the

passage (See Appendix B). The comprehension total, fluency score and the students’ accuracy

which found the percentage of how many words were read correctly, were collectively used to

determine if the passage was difficult, instructional or independent. The teacher administered

different leveled passages until each student’s instructional reading level was determined. The

expectation for third grade students at Grant Elementary by the end of the year was to attain a

level P or higher. A level P was considered as reading at grade level if attained by the end of

third grade. Students that read at grade level at the beginning of the year, which was a level M,

must make a one level gain each quarter to maintain a proficient, reading at grade level status by

33

the end of the year (See Appendix A). Table 2 depicts the benchmark levels for both groups of

students throughout the year.

Table 2

Benchmark Assessment Levels

Student

Beginning of year

1st Quarter

2nd Quarter

3rd Quarter

4th Quarter

RM A L M* N* O* P*

RM B L L N* O* O

RM C K L M N O

RM D K L M N O

RM E L M* N* O* O

Title A K K L M N

Title B K K L L N

Title C K K L M O

Title D J K L L M

Title E L M* M M N

Title F K L L M N

Note. * indicates reading at grade level based on District expectations for that quarter.

Beginning of the year levels verified that no student met the beginning of the year grade

level expectation of M and all were considered reading below grade level in September. Students

in both groups made gains throughout the year, however only one student, RM A finished the

year reading at grade level, level P. The four remaining students from the RM group were close

to attaining grade level at the end of the year, ending at level O. In comparison, no student from

34

the Title l group attained level P at the end of the year while one student, Title C, ended the year

close to grade level, at level O.

At different points throughout the year, three Reading Mastery students and one Title 1

student attained reading at grade level expectations for a particular quarter. In order to remain at

grade level, student’s reading levels needed to progress one level per quarter once grade level

was obtained, students RM B, RM E and Title E were unable to make the gains expected each

quarter to maintain grade level expectations.

While not all were at grade level, 60% of the Reading Mastery group (RM A, C & D)

were able to progress at least one level each quarter, while 33% of the Title 1 group (Title A &

C) made such gains. The average yearly gain was 3.6 levels for the RM group and 3 levels for

the Title group, which indicated slightly more gains for the students in the Reading Mastery

group.

Benchmark Items Analysis

While the benchmark assessment were administered and scored fluency, accuracy and

comprehension were all considered when assigning a level based on a student’s reading

performance. During the assessment the teacher focused on the fluency of the reader, in order to

rate the fluency on a 0-3 scale. A 0 indicated word by word reading with little to no expression or

phrasing, whereas a 2 on the scale indicated the student grouped the reading into three or four

word chunks, used some expression and had a fairly even speed throughout. A fluency score of 3

meant smooth, expressive reading in meaningful phrases. The assessment ended with

comprehension questions asked by the teacher to evaluate the student’s understanding of the

passage. Each answer was scored on a 0-3 scale. A 0 reflected no understanding of what was

read, a 2 demonstrated partial understanding and a 3 indicated excellent understanding of the

35

passage. The scores from each question were totaled to give an overall comprehension score of

unsatisfactory (0-4 points), limited (5-6 points), satisfactory (7-8 points) or excellent (9-10

points). Finally an accuracy score was calculated by taking the total number of words read

correctly divided by the total words in the passage. Scores of 95% in accuracy or lower indicated

that the passage was too difficult for the student to read and that a lower leveled passage should

be attempted. All three scores were then considered collectively when determining if the passage

was too difficult or frustrational, too easy which was identified as independent or a text that was

instructional, meaning the student could read and understand the majority of the text however

there was enough challenge for learning opportunities. The goal was to determine each student’s

instructional level. A student that read with 100% accuracy had a fluency rate of 2 and

unsatisfactory comprehension would have received a frustrational level on that passage because

the student was making no meaning from the reading even though every word was read

correctly. However, a different student that read the same passage with 98% accuracy, a fluency

rate of 2 and limited comprehension, would have received an instructional level, this is the

recorded level for that student. Although the accuracy rate indicated a few errors, the student still

had some understanding of the passage and this level would be the point where the teacher would

instruct the child, or the instructional level. Accuracy scores of 98% or better combined with a

fluency score of 2 or 3 and excellent comprehension indicated independent levels and the teacher

administered the next level up until an instructional level was identified.

The researcher analyzed the benchmark assessments from quarters 2, 3 and 4 by

separating the accuracy, fluency and comprehension scores for each student in the Reading

Mastery group. Of all the accuracy scores recorded for the three quarters, only two scores fell

below 98%. These high accuracy scores indicated that the students from the Reading Mastery

36

group are decoding and reading the words on the page correctly and consistently. Based on these

accuracy scores, decoding was not identified as a weakness for this group of students but rather a

strength.

Fluency rating scores also indicated that for most students, fluency is not a weakness.

Student RM A obtained two separate fluency scores of 1, indicating fluency as an area in need of

improvement for this particular student. All other fluency scores for the group indicated that

fluency is not an area of need.

At the end of second quarter, all students but one scored limited in comprehension. The

limited comprehension scores determined that the student did not attempt to read the next level

of benchmark, this was the area of reading difficulty for 80% of the group during the second

quarter. By the end of fourth quarter, the comprehension scores showed gains, four out of the

five RM students had satisfactory scores, 80% of the group had made gains in understanding

what they had read. Due to high accuracy and fluency scores achieved on the fourth quarter

assessments, comprehension scores of satisfactory were the factor that prohibited students from

attaining the next level. Comprehension is identified as an area of weakness based off of the

results. Table 3 depicts the fluency, accuracy and comprehension results for each Reading

Mastery student on benchmark assessments for three quarters.

37

Table 3

Benchmark Scores by Reading Component

Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Student

Acc

urac

y %

Flue

ncy

Com

preh

ensi

on

Acc

urac

y %

Flue

ncy

Com

preh

ensi

on

Acc

urac

y %

Flue

ncy

Com

preh

ensi

on

RM A 98 1 Sat 99 1 Lim 97 2 Sat

RM B 99 2 Lim 100 3 Lim 100 1 Sat

RM C 99 3 Lim 99 2 Lim 99 2 Sat

RM D 97 2 Lim 98 2 Sat 99 2 Lim

RM E 99 2 Lim 98 3 Lim 99 2 Sat

Note. Sat = Satisfactory, Lim = Limited

38

Chapter V: Discussion

The purpose of this case study was to determine the effects of the Reading Mastery III

direct instruction program with a group of struggling third grade readers. The reading progress of

two groups of struggling readers were compared for this study, one group received Reading

Mastery III as their primary reading instruction and the second group received the traditional

reading support offered for struggling students, which was Title 1 services. The researcher

compared and analyzed results from two assessments to identify which program produced

stronger reading gains. The results of the study helped determine if Reading Mastery III would

continue to be used, needed to be modified or terminated as an option for reading interventions

for struggling readers at Grant Elementary School.

Limitations

There were two limitations associated with this study. The first involved the different

teaching approaches from the student’s homeroom teachers. While both teachers had identical

teaching certificates, had been teaching the same amount of time and received the same

professional development in reading, each used their professional judgment to determine the

content and focus of daily whole group lessons that took place outside of the Reading Mastery

and Title 1 instruction. The second limitation was that the benchmark assessments were

administered by different teachers. While each teacher received professional development on

administering the assessment the scores for comprehension questions and fluency ratings were

subjective to teachers experience with the student and assessment.

Conclusions

The first question of this study asked to what extent did struggling third grader readers

placed in the Reading Mastery (RM) program progress as readers. The data from Tables 1 and 2

39

helped to determine the progress that the students made. All five students started the year reading

below grade level, scores indicated they started one or two benchmark levels below an M, the

beginning of the year at grade level expectation. Student RM A was the only student from the

group that attained reading at grade level by the completion of the year. The four other students

in the RM group attained a level O, which is one level below what is expected for the end of

third grade. Based on this assessment each student made gains however, the gains were not

accelerated enough to bring all of the students up to grade level. The average level growth for

readers in this group was 3.6 levels which was just under the 4 levels that are suggested in the

district’s quarterly benchmark gains.

Results from the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) indicated

some growth for this group of students in oral reading fluency. While each student made gains in

the number of words read correctly in a minute from first assessment to the last, no student

achieved the end of the year goal of 110 words per minute. Based on this assessment 4 of the

students were identified as Some Risk at the end of the year and 1 was still considered At Risk.

Similar to the benchmark levels results discussed above, three of the students almost attained

grade level on this assessment by being within 5 words or less of the cut off score. These results

showed growth, but not the accelerated growth that a struggling reader must achieve in order to

attain grade level reading within a school year.

These two assessments demonstrated that all of the students made gains in reading

achievement. However, the gains were not sufficient enough for all students to attain grade level

proficiencies by the end of the year. One student did meet this goal, while the others were just

under this level. These findings coincided with Wrobel (1996) findings in which students

receiving Reading Mastery attained grade level or near grade level expectations or norms.

40

The second question of this study asked to what extent struggling readers progressed in

comparison to struggling readers without the Reading Mastery program. While no students from

either group attained the 110 words per minute goal on DIBELS by the end of the year, only

20% of the RM group was identified as At Risk while 50% of the Reading Master group was

similarly identified. In addition, the average number of words per minute gained in the RM

group was 36.8 wpm while the average gained for the Title 1 group was 31 wpm. Crowe et al.

(2009) reported similar results when comparing Reading Mastery students to students in other,

traditional programs. Reading Mastery students, like those in this study, scored closest to or at

the cut shore than students in other programs. Data compared from the benchmark assessments

also showed slightly higher gains from the Reading Mastery group. At the end of the year 4

students from the RM group had achieved a level O, and one student attained grade level

expectations of level P. The Title 1 group had only 1 student who achieved a level O and no

students made grade level expectations. In addition, the average levels gained in the RM was 3.6

while the Title 1 was an average of 3 levels. Results from both assessments proved greater gains

were achieved by the students in the Reading Mastery group.

The final question of the study asked how the Reading Mastery program supported the

needs of struggling readers. The way in which Reading Mastery was implemented as a reading

intervention at Grant Elementary School complied with Fuchs and Fuchs (2006)

recommendations of how to intensify reading interventions for struggling students. This included

small groupings of students, an extended period of time and supplementary instruction in

addition to whole group lessons. Reading Mastery is designed to be an explicit and systematic

program; this type of instruction is successful with struggling readers (Denton, Fletcher, Anthony

& Francis, 2006, Mathes et al., 2005 and Torgesen, 2000). Design and implementation of the

41

program at Grant School supported struggling readers.

Using benchmark data the researcher analyzed how the program supported struggling

readers in the reading components of fluency, accuracy and comprehension. The data from Table

3 confirmed that strengths of the program are accuracy and fluency. All but two accuracy scores

were 98% or higher, this indicated strong decoding skills. Fluency scores also indicated a

strength in the program with only 1 student struggling in this area. Comprehension proved to be

an area of weakness based on benchmark data. While every student exhibited comprehension

gains throughout the year, satisfactory or limited comprehension scores determined that students

did not progress onto the next benchmark reading level. These scores held 4 students back from

attaining a level P, or grade level expectations at the end of the year. Ryder, Burns and Silberg

(2006) also found that direct instruction programs such as Reading Mastery were effective in the

area of teaching decoding but had little evidence to support comprehension instruction. This

researcher confirmed these findings with data from this study.

Recommendations

It is recommended that Grant Elementary School continue the Reading Mastery III

program with struggling readers. Students made gains while in this program and outperformed

the students in the traditional Title 1 intervention group. This program should be continued in

addition to whole group reading instruction and with a small group of students. Assessments

should be closely monitored to ensure adequate gains are being made.

Due to weak comprehension scores it is also recommended that comprehension strategies

and skills be taught explicitly during whole group instruction in addition to the Reading Mastery

instruction. Comprehension scores should be monitored frequently to help teachers determine the

effectiveness of instruction in this area.

42

References

Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond

DISTAR. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Amendum, S.H., Li, Y., Hall, L.A., Fitzgerald, J., Creamer, K.H., Head-Reeves, D.M. &

Hollingsworth, H.L. (2009). Which reading lesson instruction characteristics matter for

early reading achievement?. Reading Psychology, 30(2), 119-147.

Ashworth, D.R. (1999). Effects of direct instruction and basal reading instruction programs on

the reading achievement of second graders. Reading Improvement, 36(4), 150-156.

Allington, R. (2011). What at risk readers need. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 40-45.

Allington, R. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for

response to intervention with English language learners. Teaching Exceptional

Childlren, 40(5), 66-72.

Burns, M.K. (2010). Response-to-intervention research: Is the sum of the parts as great as the

whole? Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 36(2). Retrieved from:

www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/response-to-intervention-research-is-the-sum-of-the-

parts-as-great-as-the-whole

Crowe, E., Connor, C., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Examining the core: Relations among reading

curricula, poverty and first through third grade reading achievement. Journal of School

Psychology, 47(3), 187-214.

Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., & Francis, D.J. (2006). An evaluation of intensive

intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 39(5), 447-466.

43

Elkind, D. (2012). Knowing is not understanding fallacies and risks of early academic

instruction. YC: Young Children, 67(1), 84-87.

Fischer, D., & Ivey, G. (2006) Evaluating the interventions of struggling adolescent readers.

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(3), 180-189.

Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research based practices in

early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 51–60.

Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group

instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research &

Practice, 16, 202–211.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006) Introduction to response to intervention: What, why and how

valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92-128.

Howard, M. (2009) RtI from all sides. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., Culpepper,

M., & Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for

English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 153-168.

Kennedy, M. (1978). Findings from the follow through planned variation study. U.S. Office

of Education. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/sPE65E

Kim, T., & Axelrod, S. (2005). Direct instruction: An educator’s guide and a plea for action.

Behavior Analyst Today, 6(2), 111-120.

Lesnick, J., Goerge, R., Smithgall, C., Gwynne J., & Chaplin Hall at the University of Chicago.

(2010). Reading on grade level in third grade: How is it related to high school

performance and college enrollment? A longitudinal analysis of third-grade students in

44

Chicago in 1996-97 and their educational outcomes. A Report to the Annie E. Casey

Foundation.

Marchand-Martella, N.E., Martella, R.C., Kolts, R.L., Mitchell, D., & Mitchell, C. (2006).

Effects of a three-tier strategic model of intensifying instruction using a research-based

core reading program in grades K-3. Journal of Direct Instruction, 6(1), 49-72.

Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C.

(2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the

skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.

McCormick, S. & Zutell, J. (2011). Instructing students who have literacy problems (6th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should

know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD]. (2000). Report of the

National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction:

Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.

Ryder, R.J., Burton, J., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal study of direct instruction effects

from first through third grades. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 180-191.

45

Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J.K. (2004). Using our current understanding of dyslexia to

support early identification and intervention. Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10), 759-

765.

Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, R.C., Simonsen, F.L., & Waldron-Soler, K.M. (2002). An

analysis of the reading mastery program: Effective components and research review.

Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 87-119.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M., Griffin, P., & National Academy of Sciences – National Research

Council, W.m. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington

D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Stockard, J., & Engelmann, K. (2010). The development of early academic success: The impact

of direct instruction’s reading mastery. Journal of Behavior Assessment and Intervention

in Children, 1(1), 2-24.

Stone, A. (l989). Improving the effectiveness of strategy training for learning disabled students:

The role of communicational/dynamics. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 35–41.

Swanson, (1991). Reading research for students with LD; A meta-analysis of intervention

outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 504.

Tobin, K.G. (2004). The effects of beginning reading instruction in the Horizons reading

program on the reading skills of third and fourth graders. Journal of Direct Instruction,

4(2), 129-137.

Tobin, K.G. (2003). The effects of the Horizons reading program and prior phonological

awareness training on the reading skills of first graders. Journal of Direct Instruction,

3(1), 1-16.

46

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The

lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice

(Lawrence Erlbaum), 15(1), 55.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Guidance for the Reading First program. Retrieved from:

www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.pdf

What Works Clearinghouse, (2008). Reading mastery: What works clearinghouse intervention

report. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

What Works Clearinghouse, (2007). Direct instruction, DISTAR and language for learning:

What works clearinghouse intervention report. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved

from: www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED497624.pdf

Wrobel, S. (1996). The effectiveness of direct instruction on various reading achievement

categories. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED395292

47

Appendix A: Wausau School District Third Grade Quarterly Benchmarks

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter

Advanced O and Above P and Above Q and Above Q and Above Proficient MN NO OP P Basic KL LM MN NO Minimal J and Below K and Below L and Below M and Below Proficient indicates reading at grade level. Revised 06/01/2007

48

Appendix B: Reading Assessment Used to Determine Student Growth

7 "'":if. ..w_ $d10d k"1~-...!i:>::...:..:.1"..:L.t ______ _

~Qt.w llc~SOII~IfAnlll:rl- Ull f'QIIfk ~dop~p~ltl.it!dk .. WC'IQ - b pup cb NuS. I• fnt o.J If lllllh"" unl} r(-m1 I th!o( d

l l.)o you know ao'(tl e

wtto hns j) pe dog?

M.aybe yq«< hav ~ dog

In your f'amily.

DogS au: gD!JC p ts.

J Some dogs ~re mor than peb.

1\-tu U.nrch cd day,; do spec ar Jo!l9.

D<>(l! tflo~L make pe1Qp1e e~l l>etrl!!r

at~ tailed lbctt.a.py dor:1 Vog:s ... oft. tt<: _ ...

thllt YitWk .!Ire (:lilt I'd servUe do11.

49

• (Thtr• py OopJ

$Qm~timcs people '"" ""' $l ily " home bett~Vse they

••• "'" - 11. ,.,. ""'"f ~tay ,. • hospiWI 0< In

• nuJSing home. .... , miss

ttlett home~ and famnfes.

• People lccl better

I ' !

wh en tlu.-y p~l a dug.

1~-------------------+rl-

f I

l I I I j

f

~pie l.lke to pet

••d I eel their S<>ft

i he,apy doas cheer

wh en I.I!~Y a1e .ad

they ••• "" lcteUng

dogs

lut.

pe-ople up

bet:eu)e

'd ..

50

is il frii:J'dly

.ond snURil' dng.

I She vi~its Sam in the

She outs rtght Clp -I)

dnd Sam sallies

t . ~ b~t ~=il.

9 1\ddle I.; a Jentf~ potrp. till I'·~

hos:pital

bed,

Her owner takes l,er to ·isit

people in ~, nursing homo.

th y P•' hor.

• IServic: D~s] elOI"~

Serv ce 'dijfs "'m morr rtt.n pels ~~~\1~::... Service dogs r1ve w ll

the people they help.

,,

51

"' I t' J .(>

r l i p

I f 3

I l' r I r

I

If fh~ Yt-ofk, play, and go IVi't

~-~:J:-. 11 ~f'VICe dogS fCO t D

a special !HJJUOI where

to help dlelr mvMu.

"' ser!lice dog

I i ly, ll is owner •

l.ily J'ICI d,; ll lp

j)rc;a!lli $ Cf ,.nr "e \Vt!ll

Ro~l 'mG to 1:ve ·Jt.h Uly

wtl~ hcl was • puppy

He •nd LOy wer ttaLO~ b.J1>etheJ'-

52

~uc together all the lime.

al the m~~U u1 on the tt.ain.

fCI Lily 10 walk..

I t i I j I l

I i ' !

53

f T SC) Sf:• -

Llt'l r. hrt t f

'"lllllT.:

·a.$U~ ik

54

In t.w .... 94 d lhol bmM ao1 ~ ""'-iCic..IIU 1111 1Uf •usc

~ amns k"Pf lnd mwr~ L.. _ • ,.. (k4t.. P·"• V up 1rl!l t ~ &::::: ~ hdrl ~ 17 ((mJ H e&n1flct Ll#1l ~ ·~~ "' l ""' lo*\U • • Dllkt- . ...., ..

~""~""' ·-............. - ....... . ...... I a.....,. ..... _._...,bo-_a._..,..

. ..... ~:.e ...... _t.~ ........... • ,......lM""*' .. ..._ ... f~ , ~"'~ .... -~~ _,_liaL

55

Appendix C: DIBELS Cut Scores for Each Assessment Period

Oral Reading Fluency as measured in words per minute

At Risk

Some Risk Low Risk

September ORF <53 ORF 53 – 76 ORF >=77

January ORF<67 ORF 67 – 91 ORF>=92

May ORF<80 ORF 80 – 109 ORF>110