Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 1

Reading Intervention and its Effect on Primary Student's Instructional Reading Levels Caitlin M. Foster University of New England EDU 690: Action Research Fall 2013

Statement of Academic Honesty: I have read and understand the plagiarism policy as outlined in the Student Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct document relating to the Honesty/Cheating Policy. By attaching this statement to the title page of my paper, I certify that the work submitted is my original work developed specifically for this course and to the MSED program. If it is found that cheating and/or plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper, I acknowledge the possible consequences of the act/ s, which could include expulsion from the University of New England.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 2 Abstract This study explored the effects that reading interventions have on primary students instructional reading levels. In addition this research investigated most beneficial reading interventions as well as identified how often these interventions should occur. Finally, this research examined the effect these interventions have on the amount of special education referrals. The participants in the study were four grade two students who prior to the study, were not meeting the grade level reading benchmark as identified by their BAS scores and informal running records. The research occurred over four weeks which included one day of pre-intervention testing, three days of progress monitoring, one day of post-intervention assessment and eight days of intervention. A mixed-method approach to data collection was used including the Benchmark Assessment System, informal running records, an Intervention Time Log, a teacher survey, and student reading response notebooks. The results demonstrated an increase in all participants instructional reading levels, created a list of most beneficial intervention strategies, and decreased the amount of special education referrals necessary among the studys participants. Limitations aside, the findings from this study support the continued reading intervention to improve students instructional reading levels. Keywords: grade two, reading achievement, comprehension, reading intervention

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 3 Table of Contents Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Statement of Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Administrative or Instructional Road Blocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Ethical Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 What is Response to Intervention?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Fundamental Principals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Identification Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Research Based Interventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 A Group Effort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Teaching Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 4 Ratio and Frequency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Teacher-Student Ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Frequency of Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Challenges of RTI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Literature Review Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Statement of Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Interventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Data Collection Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Data Source Triangular Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Informal Running Records to Find Instructional Level and Teacher Observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Intervention Time Log. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Teacher Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Student Reading Response Notebooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Analyzing Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 5 Possible Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Research Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Data Validity Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Validity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Triangulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Peer Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Generalizability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Reading Intervention and Reading Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Beneficial Intervention Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Frequency and Duration of Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Special Education Referrals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Discussion of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Reading Intervention and Reading Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Beneficial Intervention Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Frequency and Duration of Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Special Education Referrals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Results Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Further Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 6 Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Reading Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Research-Based Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Professional Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Action Plan Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Appendix A: Consent for Participation in Research Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Appendix B: Running Record Template. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Appendix C: Intervention Time Log Template. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Appendix D: Teacher Survey Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Appendix E: Student Reading Response Notebook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 7 List of Tables Tables Table 1 Data Source Triangular Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2 Timeline for Action Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 3 Benchmark Assessment System Guided Reading Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 4 Informal Notes Taken During Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Table 5 Student Reading Response Notebooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 6 Intervention Provided and Informal Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Table 7 Intervention Time Log. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Table 8 Special Education Referrals Pre and Post-Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Table 9 Action Plan Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 8 List of Figures Figures Figure 1 Frequency of Intervention Based on Teacher Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Figure 2 Duration of Intervention Based on Teacher Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 9 Reading Intervention and its Effect on Primary Student's Instructional Reading Levels Introduction Rationale In todays primary classrooms, quality reading instruction is extremely differentiated to satisfy the unique needs of each individual learner. As Tomlinson states, At its most basic level, differentiating instruction means shaking up what goes on in the classroom so that students have multiple options for taking in information, making sense of ideas, and expressing what they learn (2001, p.1). This differentiation allows for each child to thrive regardless of their reading ability. In an ideal setting, within each reading workshop, students participate in teacher directed whole group, small group, partner, and/or independent reading activities based on individual needs in hopes of improving reading achievement. This classroom based differentiation is seen as the first step or tier in a successful Response to Intervention (RTI) model. Sanger, Friedli, Brunken, Snow, and Ritzman (2012) define RTI as a multi-tiered approach to providing instruction, services, and intervention at increasing levels of intensity to struggling learners (p. 98). With this RTI model in place, when problems persist or lack of growth is noted within tier 1 differentiation, students are moved to tier 2 of the model. It is then that a more targeted instruction is given in a small group or one on one setting. By identifying these most struggling students, educators are able to provide quality intervention that will hopefully limit the number of students referred for special education services, essentially narrowing the gap in reading achievement (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p. 280).

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 10 Statement of the Problem For the past two years, Response to Intervention in the area of reading had been a major area of focus in the primary school where this action research project took place. Intervention time was built into the master schedule for at least thirty minutes, three times a week to ensure that the proper amount of time was allocated to provide the necessary interventions. Students reading below the grade level benchmark were provided intervention within small groups or in some cases, one on one, to address their specific literacy needs. According to Fountas and Pinnell (2011), the benchmark for the beginning of second grade is a Guided Reading instructional level I (p. 3). In order for an instructional level to be determined, a student must score a 90-94% accuracy combined with excellent or satisfactory comprehension or 95-100% accuracy with limited comprehension (Fountas and Pinnell, 2012, p. 40). Despite intervention time being accounted for in the master schedule, second grade teachers and staff were not seeing reading scores increase the way they hoped. Using running records and Fountas and Pinnells Benchmark Reading Assessment (BAS), second grade teachers and staff were finding that while students accuracy scores were on the rise, comprehension scores remained steady or in many cases, declined, which was holding students back from advancing to the next reading level. The primary purpose of this research was to explore the impact reading intervention had on students comprehension scores on the BAS. In addition, it was hopeful that this research would indicate most beneficial reading interventions as well as identify how often these interventions should occur. Finally, it was hopeful that this research would show the effect these interventions had on the amount of special education referrals.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 11 Participants At the time of the study the teacher researcher had seven years teaching experience. She had been teaching second grade at the site school for five years with a total of seven years teaching experience in second grade. She was part of a team of three second grade teachers. This project involved second graders as the primary learners. Participating students were from an affluent, well supported, Caucasian community. Students receiving intervention were those who did not meet the grade level benchmark as identified by their BAS scores and informal running records. None of the students in this study had been identified as having a learning disability. The research also involved the second grade team of teachers as information gathered will be shared with them. Title One and special education staff were involved with some data sharing and collaboration and the building principal was made aware of the findings. All research for this project took place in Room 134 at Coastal Ridge Elementary School and was completed by the classroom teacher, the Principle Investigator. Research Questions This action research was guided by four primary research questions: Question 1: What effect does reading intervention have on a students ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level? Question 2: What interventions are most beneficial to reading comprehension improvement? Question 3: Will targeted intervention for at least three times a week for twenty minutes increase literacy achievement? Question 4: Do our reading interventions reduce the rate of special education referrals specific to reading comprehension?

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 12 Hypotheses The hypotheses for the research questions in this study were: Hypothesis 1: Students who participate in reading intervention will demonstrate improvement in their ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level. Hypothesis 2: A bank of most beneficial comprehension interventions will be gathered. Hypothesis 3: Students who participate in targeted reading intervention for at least three times a week for twenty minutes each time will demonstrate improvement in their ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level. Hypothesis 4: Current rate of special education referrals regarding reading comprehension will go down due to successful interventions. Administrative or Institutional Road Blocks One potential roadblock in this study was the consistency of intervention times. Often these times were shortened or sometimes even eliminated due to day to day schedules. It was important to keep this intervention time sacred and timely. Ethical Considerations The building principal was informed of the study and enthusiastically approved the project. Families of students receiving the intervention were given a permission slip asking for consent for their child to participate in the study (Appendix A). Names were changed or omitted to protect confidentiality. Students were informed of data collection and interventions were fun and engaging ensuring that no harm was done. Information was collected at each intervention time ensuring the accuracy of data.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 13 Literature Review Introduction There is a growing population of students not reaching academic benchmarks in classrooms today. The need for interventions with those students that are struggling certainly comes as no surprise to educators. OConnor (2002), discusses how schools have grappled with the dilemma of how to best deal with students not performing successfully in classrooms. She notes how those students falling behind their peers are quickly labeled as slow, developmentally delayed, or learning disabled (OConnor, 2002, p. 635). Typically we see these students being referred for special education services which has them spending the rest of their academic careers labeled under a special education plan receiving specialized instruction. Although these referrals are made with the best interest of the student in mind, can some of them be prevented? Would some low achieving students given additional support in certain subject areas prior to a referral help to bring them up to grade level? Response to Intervention, a new approach to managing the increasing numbers of students identified with learning disabilities, seeks to do just that. What is Response to Intervention? The term specific learning disability (SLD) dates back to 1963 when a group of parents gathered to come up with suitable explanations for, and to seek resources to, remedy the issues seen in their children. Through their efforts the phrase specific learning disability was designated for children with lower achievement and intelligence. In addition, funding to support special instruction for these children was secured (Johnston, 2011). These actions got the ball

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 14 rolling for what has now become a very complex system of identifying students who may qualify for support with difficult academic tasks. As things continued to unfold, the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975, confirmed a general definition of a specific learning disability as well as an explanation of disorders not included. Students would be identified with a SLD using the discrepancy model. This process required a significant difference be documented between a students ability (IQ) and achievement in order for a learning disability to be identified (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p. 280). Over time this discrepancy model has drawn several criticisms including, the fact that it requires the learning problem to come become considerably severe before a child can receive any support, achievement discrepancy does not account for opportunities to learn, and under this model there has been an increase of students identified with a SLD, especially minorities (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p.280). Enter Response to Intervention (RTI), a logical response to the many criticisms of the discrepancy model. This new approach to identification shifts the emphasis of the identification process toward providing support and intervention to struggling students early (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p. 280). While there is not one single definition, Spear-Swerling and Cheeseman (2011) discuss the four essential components that must be present: screening, progressmonitoring, data-based decision making, and a multi-level prevention system (p. 1694). This multi-tiered approach to providing instruction has allowed educators to provide instruction to struggling readers inclusively, which prevents labeling and avoids a potential history of school failure (Sanger et al., 2012).

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 15 Fundamental Principles While specific RTI models may vary among schools, there are several basic principles that must be considered when implementing this system. Identification age. Schools must identify children as early as possible. As Lose (2007) states, research has shown that signs of a childs literacy learning difficulties usually surface after one year in school (p. 276). Ransford-Kaldon, Flynt, & Ross (2011) confirm this notion explaining research which suggests that children with poor early reading skills continue to struggle with reading and writing in later grades and are more likely to drop out of school (p. A-1). While there is a constant push for early literacy intervention, Duke and Block (2012) are still finding they must recommend that all children have access to early childhood environments (including prekindergarten as well as kindergarten) that promote language and literacy growth and that address a variety of skills that have been identified as predictors of later reading achievement (p. 57). Assessment. Assessments must look at the whole childs academic experiences. Lose (2007) discusses how assessments should examine all aspects of a childs control over literacy, including oral language skill, knowledge of letters, words, and sound-letter correspondences; concepts about print; and text reading and writing (p. 276). Research based interventions. Interventions provided must be research based and consistent progress monitoring of these interventions must occur. Mesmer and Mesmer (2008) explain that RTI requires that instructional interventions be scientifically valid, public, implemented with integrity, and systematically evaluated (p. 284). Progress monitoring, an

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 16 assessment technique required by RTI regulations, must take place weekly for 1-5 minutes to measure the improvement of the student (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p. 281). A team effort. All members of the school RTI team must be part of the intervention. They all must assume responsibility for the child regardless of who is actually providing intervention (Lose, 2007, p. 277). Each member of the team must be clear on the content of the intervention, the responsible parties, and the assessments needed. The who, what, when, where, and how of interventions must be clear (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p. 284) to all involved. Teaching Expertise Even with an RTI model that embraces the fundamental principles explained above, an incredibly important piece to a successful model is that of teacher expertise. As Spear-Swerling and Cheeseman (2011) state, Although many variables influence childrens reading achievement, there is widespread agreement that one especially important variable involves the effectiveness of teachers (p. 1692). The first tier of RTI assumes that differentiation to satisfy the needs of each unique learner begins in the classroom. That being said, instruction in the classroom must be provided by the most expert teachers. This may seem simple, but as Duke and Block (2012) explain, a major obstacle preventing best practices in teaching reading is that of a lack of expertise among many educators in how to effectively teach these harder-to-master reading skills (p. 55) Torgesen (2007) says, If students do not receive high quality initial instruction, and do not have available to them reasonable interventions if they are struggling in the classroom, then far too many students will be judged to have learning disabilities when they are essentially victims of weak instruction (para. 4).

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 17 These victims of weak instruction are often mis-labeled and referred to special education without having been given the appropriate interventions that could have eliminated the need for these services. So how can we ensure that all students are provided a skilled responsive teacher? The truth is, we cant. As Sanger et al. (2012) discuss, RTI requires considerable time, planning, and commitment from all educators in a school system in order to be beneficial (p. 99). Unfortunately, with a lack of staffing and budget money, schools cannot guarantee that teachers are given sufficient training and that everyone has the explicit knowledge needed to provide the research-based interventions a struggling student needs (Spear-Swerling & Cheeseman, 2011). Ratio and Frequency In addition to teacher expertise, teacher-student ratios and frequency of interventions must be considered. Teacher-student ratio. Teacher-student ratios, brings up a few different schools of thought. Schwartz, Schmitt, and Lose (2012) discuss that the mix of individual and small group services should be sufficient to reduce the achievement gap for 70%-80% of all students who struggle to make process in the classroom context alone (p. 565). On the other hand, Lose (2007), in her own article, cites The U.S. Department of Education Institute for Education Sciences identified one-to-one tutoring by qualified tutors in grades 1-3 as meeting the gold standard for effectiveness for the most at risk learners (p. 276). Finally, Mesmer & Mesmer (2008), explain that the teacher-student ratio changes as students work their way up in through the tiers. Small group instruction is seen in the first and second tier, while more individualized, one on one instruction should evolve as a child enters the third tier of an intervention.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 18 Frequency of intervention. Frequency of interventions, while important, is not discussed as often as ratios. Interventions must be delivered in a timely manner and progress monitoring must be done to document progress, or lack thereof, however, frequency is heavily dependent on the severity of the childs need. Two well-known reading interventions, Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) and Reading Recovery (RR) occur daily. LLI, a short term, small group literacy intervention provides support to students 30 minutes a day for 18 weeks (Ransford-Kaldon et al., 2011). RR, another research-based literacy intervention program, also supports struggling first graders, meets for 30 minutes daily for an average of 12-20 weeks. Challenges of RTI In theory, everything about RTI works perfectly, but in actuality it can be a lot to ask of teachers, staff, and schools. The challenges of planning time, meeting time, collaboration, highly trained teachers, and lack of time in the day continue to surface regardless of the motivation of those involved (Sanger et al., 2012, p. 99). As discussed earlier, teacher expertise stands as the most important variable in the effectiveness of RTI. Lose (2007) states that sustained continual professional development is required to continuously develop highly expert teachers (p. 278). If these opportunities are not present, how can we ensure interventions are reaching their full potential? In addition to these challenges, research-based resources for these interventions can be expensive and require extra training for staff providing interventions. Schools with a lack of staff and funding are at a significant disadvantage. Conclusion The RTI model, when properly implemented, is designed to provide a safety network that involves strong instruction from the classroom teacher coupled with robust interventions

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 19 available when needed (Torgesen, 2007, para. 5). This safety network will prove valuable with adequate support and proper training for teachers. In addition, teacher expertise, quality assessments, identification age, collaboration, research base interventions, and progress monitoring must all be considered when building a successful RTI model. It is hopeful then, that teachers will be able to provide quality instruction and interventions that will give struggling students the opportunity to succeed before a referral to special education is necessary. Methodology Statement of Problem Four students in the class being studied were not meeting the reading benchmark for a second grade student at the beginning of the year. The primary purpose of this research was to explore the impact reading intervention had on students comprehension scores on the BAS. In addition, it was hopeful that this research would indicate most beneficial reading interventions as well as identify how often these interventions should occur. Finally, it was also hopeful that this research would show the effect these interventions had on the amount of special education referrals. Research Questions This action research was guided by four primary research questions: Question 1: What effect does reading intervention have on a students ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level? Question 2: What interventions are most beneficial to reading comprehension improvement? Question 3: Will targeted intervention for at least three times a week for twenty minutes increase literacy achievement?

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 20 Question 4: Do our reading interventions reduce the rate of special education referrals specific to reading comprehension? Hypotheses The hypotheses for the research questions in this study were: Hypothesis 1: Students who participate in reading intervention will demonstrate improvement in their ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level. Hypothesis 2: A bank of most beneficial comprehension interventions will be gathered. Hypothesis 3: Students who participate in targeted reading intervention for at least three times a week for twenty minutes each time will demonstrate improvement in their ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level. Hypothesis 4: Current rate of special education referrals regarding reading comprehension will go down due to successful interventions. Participants The participants were four students chosen from the second grade classroom involved who prior to the study, were not meeting the grade level reading benchmark as identified by their BAS scores and informal running records. All participants were initially assessed by the classroom teacher (teacher researcher) using these two forms of assessment. Participants selected for the action research all scored below the grade level reading benchmark (I, instructional). All four participants received Title One services for thirty minutes a day, five days a week. Although the referral process for one participant had been started, none of them had been identified with a specific learning disability. One of the participants in the study was a boy, the other three, girls. All participants were seven years old at the time of the study. All students in the class

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 21 participated in differentiated reading instruction, but this small group participated in small group and/or one on one intervention. Site The action research took place in a small, affluent, coastal town in Southern Maine within a second grade classroom. The interventions took place in one of two locations. The first was a round table in a quiet corner space in room 134. The second was a rectangular table in the small tutorial/adjoining room between room 134 and 136. Interventions Interventions were differentiated based on the need of each unique learner. The tier 2 intervention consisted of Title 1 literacy support for 30 minutes a day, four days a week. Support ranged from 1:1 to small groups of two to three students. In addition, tier 2 students participated in a small focus group based on specific needs. As discussed by Schwartz, Schmitt, and Lose (2012), while 1:1 teacher student ratio may be preferred, small group instruction can achieve similar, positive outcomes (p. 549). The activities that students engaged in during these intervention times focused on the particpants area of need in relation to accuracy, fluency, comprehension, or vocabulary. Specifically participants worked on a review of fix up strategies beyond sound it out. Chunking the word, skip it and go back to it, think about what makes sense were the most highly used and practiced. Participants also practiced retelling using important story parts. Story maps and planning pages were used and participants practiced retelling across fingers. Metacognition thinking stems such as Im thinking..., Im wondering..., and Im noticing... were discussed and visualizing techniques were taught and

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 22 practiced. All of these activities were done using good fit books at the particpants instructional reading level. Data Collection Plan A data collection plan was created to determine the effect reading interventions had on students instructional reading levels. Mills (2011) states that It is generally accepted in action research circles that researchers should not rely on any single source of data, interview, observation, or instrument (p. 92). That being said, a mixed-method approach to data collection was used. The following five methods were used for data collection and analysis for this action research project. Table 1 shows this data collection matrix. Data was collected from October 21 to November 15, 2013. Table 1 Data Source Triangular Matrix Questions D.S. 1 D.S. 2 D.S. 3 D.S. 4 Teacher Survey

1. What effect Fountas & Pinnell does reading Reading intervention have Benchmark on a students Assessment ability to System: 2nd comprehend Edition written text at their instructional reading level?

Weekly Informal Student Reading Running Records Response at Instructional Notebooks Reading Level

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 23 Questions 2. What interventions are most beneficial to reading comprehension improvement? D.S. 1 Fountas & Pinnell Reading Benchmark Assessment System: 2nd Edition D.S. 2 D.S. 3 D.S. 4

Weekly Informal Student Reading Running Records Response at Instructional Notebooks Reading Level

3. Will targeted Fountas & Pinnell interventions for at Reading least three times a Benchmark week for twenty Assessment minutes increase System: 2nd literacy Edition achievement? 4. Do our reading interventions reduce the rate of special education referrals specific to reading comprehension? Fountas & Pinnell Reading Benchmark Assessment System: 2nd Edition

Weekly Informal Teacher Survey Running Records at Instructional Reading Level

Intervention Time Log

Weekly Informal Teacher Survey Running Records at Instructional Reading Level

Instruments Data was collected pre-intervention, during intervention and post-intervention. The data collection matrix (Table 1) shows the quantitative and qualitative research methods used to collect data in reference to the research questions being examined. Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System. This comprehensive system is a oneon-one assessment that matches students instructional and independent reading abilities to the Fountas and Pinnell Guided Reading Level system. This quantitative data collection technique provided the researcher with data that can be reduced to numbers (p. 89) Students are given an

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 24 overall independent and instructional score based on accuracy, comprehension, and fluency. The score could be easily analyzed and interpreted throughout the duration of the action research. Informal Running Records to find Instructional Level and Teacher Observations. An informal running record is one method of assessing a childs reading level by looking at their accuracy and errors when reading a text. Teacher observations included any notes made by classroom teacher during running record session. An instructional level is achieved when a student scores a 90-94% accuracy combined with excellent or satisfactory comprehension or 95-100% accuracy with limited comprehension on a leveled text. Running records were recorded using an adapted version of Marie Clays Running Record form (Clay, 2006) (Appendix B). Intervention Time Log. An Intervention Time Log will be used to document the intervention done including the focus of the intervention, the date the intervention was given, the time spent providing the intervention, and the frequency of the intervention. This Intervention Log is provided by the building principal and decided on the schools Leadership Team. This template is used consistently in grades 2-4 (Appendix C). Teacher Survey. Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, was used for a teacher survey. Mills (2011) explains that SurveyMonkey.com provides templates for the development of questionnaires using a variety of response strategies (e.g., multiple choice, rating scales, and drop down menus), as well as the ability to administer the survey using e-mail invitations, with a record of respondents and nonrespondents and the ability to analyze results as soon as data arrive (p. 85). This survey was anonymous and given to all teachers grades 2-4 at the sites school. This qualitative research method asked questions regarding teachers experience with reading interventions (Appendix D).

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 25 Student Reading Response Notebooks. Each child participating in intervention responded to comprehension questions provided using their Reading Response Notebooks (Appendix E). As Mills (2011) explains, Students journals can provide teachers with a valuable window into the students world (in much the same way that homework assignments provide parents with insight into their childrens daily experiences) (p. 86). Analyzing Results The first research question was addressed with participants BAS scores, running record and teacher observation, and student reading response notebooks. Participants BAS scores were used to chart progress. Scores from the start of the project were compared to scores achieved after several weeks of interventions. Running records were also analyzed for errors, self corrections, and were given a fluency score and teacher observations were recorded and analyzed. This progress monitoring strategy helped guide further instruction through the duration of the intervention. In addition, reading response notebooks were used as further evidence as to the depth of a students comprehension. The second and third research question was addressed by the Intervention Log and teacher survey. Both the Intervention Log and teacher survey were analyzed by the researcher who looked for consistent patterns in time and frequency as well as interventions that showed the greatest success. Finally, the fourth question was addressed with the classroom teacher survey. Data gathered from this survey was used to discover trends in general thoughts of Response to Intervention and special education referrals. Possible Issues ! Possible issues associated with the research include lack of time. Lack of time could have

proved problematic for the actual intervention as the window for data collection was short and

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 26 actual interventions only took place for nine, thirty minute blocks with the rst and last day used for assessment. Lack of time could also have proved problematic for the collaboration component of this research as there was limited time to meet with Title 1 staff and interventionists to analyze and compare data. In addition, student absences and the short time frame for this research could have presented issues in the results. To address these issues intervention times needed to be meaningful and well planned out and collaboration times had to be carefully scheduled and followed through on. Research Timeline The action research took place over 15 weeks in late 2013. Table 2 outlines the actions performed to complete this project. Table 2 Timeline for Action Research Project Dates September 2013 October 21, 2013 October 21, 2013November 1, 2013 Actions Performed Obtain approval from school administration Pre-assessment completed Teacher survey

October 22, 24, 25, 29, 31 Intervention takes place - 3 times a week, thirty minutes per and November 1, 5, 7, 8, session, student reading response notebooks filled out, 12, 13, 15 Intervention Time Log filled out November 15, 2013 November 15- November 24, 2013 November 25- December 1, 2013 December 15, 2013 Post-assessment completed Data analyzed Action plan created Action research paper submitted

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 27 Data Validity Analysis Attention to three important concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizabilty will help teacher researchers ensure the quality of their work (Mills, 2011, p. 101). Validity. Validity, as described by Mills (2011), is how we know that the data we collect (test scores, for example) accurately gauge what we are trying to measure (p. 102). The data collection methods used in this study received positive feedback regarding their validity when reviewed by peers and colleagues. There were no procedural and ethical considerations that needed to be taken into account in relation to the data collection plan. Triangulation. Per Mills (2011), In research terms the desire to use multiple sources of data is referred to as triangulation (p. 92). This multi-method data collection plan strengthens the analysis of the results (Mills, 2011, p. 92). The Benchmark Assessments, running records and teacher observation, and Intervention Time Log were used as quantitative data collection methods while the teacher survey and student reading response notebook were used as qualitative data collection methods. These five methods make it so there is no one single source of data solely relied on (Mills, 2011, p. 96). It should also be noted that this research involves the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches by including qualitative and quantitative data in a single study (Mills, 2011, p. 93). Additionally, this action research addresses Gubas Criteria for Validity of Qualitative Research as discussed by Mills (2011). All four characteristics; credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are satisfied in the data collection methods used. Peer Review. Three colleagues were consulted with regarding the data collection plan. The two second grade teachers and the Title 1 teacher were asked to analyze and discuss the data

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 28 collection plan. All are informed colleagues working to provide students daily reading instruction at the site school where the action research took place. Discussion with these professionals proved the procedure for and sources of data collection were valid. The procedure in which information would be gathered followed the school RTI model and was in sync with the Title 1 and Reading Recovery pull out model. All three teachers agreed that this would allow data collection to be done in a way that kept with the pace of what was currently in place for intervention and assessment gathering in the classroom. Regarding data sources, all three teachers were familiar with the BAS and administer this assessment often. In addition to the informal running records, it was agreed that these assessments were the most valid and reliable way to collect data regarding student progress before and after intervention. Appreciation for the student reading response notebooks was discussed as they can be very telling in regards to a students comprehension. Finally, it was agreed that the teacher survey and intervention time log would provide data helpful in answering the proposed research questions. It was concluded that all five data sources were valid in that they were accurately gauging the research question posed by the action research project (Mills, 2011, p. 102). While no changes were made to the action research project, two concerns were brought up regarding the data collection plan. Both concerns were problems anticipated when the project began. The first was that of time. The schools time frame for reading interventions is typically six weeks. Due to time restraints, this time will be shortened for this action research project. The second concern discussed was in reference to student absences which was beyond the control of

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 29 the research project. Both problems are anticipated and will be addressed as they arise, however, each intervention session was meaningful and well planned out. The two second grade teachers noted the variety of data sources being used. As discussed in Mills (2011) important characteristics of a study; credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, are achieved when triangulation is practiced in data collection (p.104). With five different data collection sources, three quantitative and two qualitative, it is clear there are different methods used to cross check data. Reliability. Reliability is the degree to which a test consistently measures whatever it measures (p. 112). Interventions were consistently administered by the teacher researcher and data was collected and recorded solely by the teacher researcher. In addition, the teacher researcher had been trained to perform and analyze the Benchmark Assessments as well as administer running records. Generalizability. Before the conversation was over, considerable time was spent discussing the generalizability of the research. In particular, the Title 1 teacher mentioned how anxious she was to see the results as she would like to make some changes in the way she provides intervention to those struggling with the area of reading comprehension. Per Mills (2011) it was clear the nature of this action research wasnt as directly applicable first thought. In fact, as stated by Mills (2011), The goal of action research is to understand what is happening in your school or classroom and to determine what might improve things in that context. Therefore, action researchers dont need to worry about the generalizability of data because they are not seeking to define ultimate truths (p. 114). While this data will be shared among colleagues, it is important to note that the findings may not generalize into all classrooms.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 30 Finally, the data collection plan was shared with the building principal. He did not see any ethical or procedural issued associated with the sources. The only concern brought up was that of parent contact and it was noted that the consent form was signed by each parent before data collection began. He was satisfied with the plan and looked forward to hearing about the findings. Results Findings Data was collected and analyzed before, during and after implementing the interventions lessons which were constructed to teach students reading strategies that would increase reading achievement levels. Data was collected and analyzed regarding frequency, length and focus area of each intervention. Students pre, mid and post assessments were recorded and analyzed and most beneficial interventions were noted by the researcher. Data was also collected from cooperating staff on common intervention practices and special education referrals pre and post intervention. Reading intervention and reading achievement. Reading achievement scores were formally assessed twice using the BAS. The first assessment took place on October 21, 2013, pre-intervention, and the second took place on November 15, 2013, post intervention. Informal running records were used to progress monitor each other week of the study. The combined accuracy and comprehension score from these assessments provided a Guided Reading level which was used to chart progress over the course of the intervention (see Table 3). Pre-intervention. Guided Reading levels prior to intervention showed that all four participants were reading below the second grade expected benchmark level (see Table 3).

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 31 Informal notes taken during BAS and running records showed all four participants were relying on the sound it out strategy when they came to unfamiliar words. They did not attend to meaning and there was little self correcting. In addition it was noticed that three out of four participants comprehension broke down due to a lack of decoding skills. These three participants also struggled to see the deeper meaning in a text. One participant showed very low motivation for reading throughout the entirety of the study (See Table 4). Initial responses in student reading response notebooks indicated low, surface level comprehension based on the title, pictures or predictions. Deeper thinking questions were not answered (See Table 5). Post-intervention. All four participants showed growth in reading achievement. Table 3 shows pre-intervention and post-intervention Guided Reading level changes and Table 4 shows informal notes taken during each assessment time. All participants increased in reading achievement as indicated by the change in their BAS Guided Reading levels at the completion of the intervention. Three of the four participants met the grade level benchmark, while the fourth participant finished one Guided Reading level below the expectation. Participants also showed an increase in comprehension based on their responses in their response notebooks. Table 5 indicates reading response notebook entries pre-intervention, during intervention and postintervention.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 32 Table 3 Benchmark Assessment System Guided Reading Levels Pre-Intervention (Instructional GR Level/Accuracy %/ Comprehension Score) Student A Student B Student C Student D H, 92%, 5/7 H, 94%, 5/7 G, 96%, 6/7 H, 94%, 6/7 Post-Intervention (Instructional GR Level/Accuracy %/ Comprehension Score) J, 94%, 5/7 J, 94%, 5/7 I, 94%, 6/7 J, 94%, 5/7 Change

+ 2 Levels (at GL) + 2 Levels (at GL) + 2 Levels (below GL) + 2 Levels (at GL)

Note. According to Fountas and Pinnell (2011), the benchmark for the beginning of second grade is a Guided Reading instructional level I (p. 3). By November of second grade students should be reading at an instructional level J. Therefore, for students to be at grade level they must be reading instructional at a J. In order for an instructional level to be determined, a student must score a 90-94% accuracy combined with excellent or satisfactory comprehension or 95-100% accuracy with limited comprehension (Fountas and Pinnell, 2012, p. 40). GR = Guided Reading, GL = Grade Level.

Table 4 Informal Notes Taken During Assessments

Student Observed Student A Date 10/21/13 Informal Notes -relies on sound it out with unfamiliar words, no other xup strategies noted -word by word uency -self-corrects based on meaning -disorganized retelling -relies on sound it out with unfamiliar words, no other xup strategies noted -uses meaning but at the expense of visual information, needs to make sure words match the text -needs to think about the story, comprehension is limited -little attempt at any unknown word, appeals often -using only initial visual to help decode -not using meaning to make sense of text -lacks automatic decoding strategies -very disengaged

Student B

10/21/13

Student C

10/21/13

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 33
Student Observed Student D Date 10/21/13 Informal Notes -relies on sound it out with unfamiliar words, lacks condence and appeals often, very nervous -word by word uency, using initial visual cues for all unknown words -three x up strategies noted: sound it out, chunk it, skip it and move on -some simple phrasing -self-corrects based on meaning -comprehension adequate by very disorganized -attempts to chunk unknown words, continues to rely on sound it out -self corrects often, starting to use visual clues to self correct -reads in a monotone voice that does not dramatize mood and/or understanding of the text -attempted to use skip it and go on...but it was not the right place to use it, so it didnt make much sense -still relied on sound it out when faced with unknown word -very disuent, not reading for meaning -a bit more condent today -used sound it out and chunk it, seems to have good idea of vowel sounds and vowel teams -still word by word uency -limited comprehension due to slow reading -three x up strategies noted: sound it out (still rst one she goes to), chunk it, and think about what makes sense -more phrasing and emerging expression -character and setting organized, problem and solution disorganized -three x up strategies noted: sound it out, chunking the word, and thinking about what makes sense (using visual clues) -more phrasing and expression used based on meaning of text -uninterested in text -two x up strategies noted: sound it out and chunk it, both were successful in xing up the word -needed quick reminder to change vowel sound when stuck on a word -surface level comp, not thinking further about the text -needs lots of prompting to answer basic questions about text

Student A

10/29/13

Student B

10/29/13

Student C

10/29/13

Student D

10/29/13

Student A

11/5/13

Student B

11/5/13

Student C

11/5/13

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 34
Student Observed Student D Date 11/5/13 Informal Notes -uses several x up strategies automatically and feels proud -beginning phrasing -needed several prompts when retelling the story -two x up strategies noted: sound it out and chunk it -emerging expression -retelling organized and detailed (could possibly be too much detail) -excellent progress, three x up strategies noted: sound it out, chunking, and thinking about what makes sense (using visual clues) -reading for meaning seen in uency -used x up strategies independently today -seemed much more motivated to get through the text -emerging expression matching meaning -retelling was much better, needed only one prompt to get her started, ended with an organized retelling of story -x up strategies used automatically -very condent in self-corrections -still relies on sound it out as primary x up strategy, but chunk it, skip it and move on, and think about what makes sense are used on occasion, strategy use much more automatic -several word phrasing and emerging expression -detailed, organized retelling -struggles with nding the deeper meaning in text -independently using several strategies to decode unknown words! -detailed comprehension--showed signs of digging deeper into the meaning of the story -needs continued work on meaning of story--why did the character do that?, etc. -very disengaged today -attempted sound it out, skip it and go back to it, and thinking about what makes sense -some beginning phrasing and reading for meaning was noted -several x up strategies used -organized, detailed retelling of story -could use deeper thinking support

Student A

11/12/13

Student B

11/12/13

Student C

11/12/13

Student D

11/12/13

Student A

11/15/13

Student B

11/15/13

Student C

11/15/13

Student D

11/15/13

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 35 Table 5 Student Response Notebook Responses
Pre-Intervention Response Student A Ther is no prblm. (There is no problem.) Post-Intervention Response The nahbors got ltr adout new hrses. Thay thot that wr reel! Thay endd up bng a kerosel. (The neighbors got a letter about new horses. They thought they were real! They ended up being a carousel.) Ben got a not abot niw nabers. Evryone thot they wre horses, but they wre jist a merry go rond! (Ben got a note about new neighbors. Everyone thought they were horses, but they were just a merry go round!) The boy wantid a cat, so he got one. (The boy wanted a cat so he got one.) New nebers moved in town and brought horses. But they were fake horses like at a cirkis. (New neighbors moved in town and brought horses. But they were fake horses like at a cirkis.

Student B

Jim was sad. He got help.

Student C

It was Nics bdtm. (It was Nicks bedtime.) Nic was gong to bed. Sumthing was missing. Mom helpt. (Nick was going to bed. Something was missing. Mom helped.)

Student D

Note: Students entries are in response to the following questions: What was the problem in your story? How was your problem solved?

Beneficial intervention strategies. Participants were taught different reading strategies to increase reading achievement levels as the intervention for this study. These strategies were based on the needs of each individual participant. The data collected (see Table 6) shows FixUp Strategy Review to be most meaningful for students. It was noted with all four students that comprehension was breaking down because there was a lack of fluency and decoding skills. Thinking About What Makes Sense and Retelling Using Important Parts were also recognized as beneficial intervention strategies to help improve comprehension.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 36 Table 6 Intervention Provided and Informal Notes
Intervention Strategy Fix-Up Strategy Review Informal Notes -very helpful for all four students -forced them to think about other ways to decode words previous learned -jump started each student to move beyond sound it out -helped to organize a retelling making sure to include character, setting, problem and solution -had to do some quick teaching on setting -surface level problem/solution discussion -reminder to think about thinking when reading -not easily understood or used without reminder -focused on how visualizing is not just what we see -all four students relied on visual cues to decode a word -discussed how meaning could also help with decoding -before guessing on a word, reminder to think about what make sense and match it up with visual clues -all four students were able to slow down and think about meaning before plugging in a word

Retelling, Including Important Parts

Metacognition/Visualizing

Using Meaning to Decode Thinking About What Makes Sense

Frequency and duration of intervention. An Intervention Time Log was filled out for each student in the study (Appendix B). Interventions occurred for at least thirty minutes, three to four times a week (See Table 7) and an increase in reading achievement level was seen in all four students (See Table 3). A teacher survey was also given to find out the frequency and duration of intervention time in other grade levels within the school. As noted in Figure 1, 80% of teachers engaged in the intervention five days a week and 20% of teachers engaged in the intervention four days a week. No teachers provided intervention less than four days a week. Figure 2 explains the preferred duration of each intervention. It shows 61.54% of teachers had 20-30 minutes per intervention while 38.46% had more than 30% minutes per intervention. No teachers noted less than 20 minutes per intervention.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 37 Table 7 Intervention Time Log Student Student A Student B Student C Student D
Note. Total number of intervention days was 13.

# of intervention days per week 4 4 3-4 4

Duration of intervention in minutes 35 30 35 35

Figure 1. Frequency of Intervention Based on Teacher Survey

Daily

4 Times a Week

Less Than 3 Times a Week

20

40

60

80

Percent of Classrooms (Grades 2, 3, 4)

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 38 Figure 2. Duration of Intervention Based on Teacher Survey

More than 30 Minutes

20-30 Minutes

Less than 20 minutes

17.5

35

52.5

70

Percent of Classrooms (Grades 2, 3, and 4)

Special education referrals. Data was collected pertaining to the number of special education referrals specific to reading comprehension pre-intervention and post-intervention. Before the intervention, all four participants studied were being looked at for possible referrals to special education due to their below the benchmark reading levels, running record observations, and reading response notebook responses. Post-intervention, three out of the four participants were meeting the grade level reading benchmark and therefore were not longer being considered for a special education referral. After the study was complete, only one student was considered for a referral to special education. This question was also posed to teachers in the teacher survey. Results varied, but in all cases the number of students pre-intervention decreased by at least one post-intervention (See Table 8).

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 39 Table 8 Special Education Referrals Pre and Post-Intervention
Special Education Referrals Pre-Intervention Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D Teacher E Teacher F Teacher G Teacher H Teacher I Teacher J Teacher K Teacher L Teacher M Teacher N Teacher O 1 2 4 5 3 1 5 3 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 Special Education Referrals Post-Intervention 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 Change 0 -2 -3 -2 -3 -1 -4 -3 0 -2 -3 -1 -2 -2 -2

Discussion of Findings This action research explored the impact reading intervention had on students comprehension scores on the BAS. In addition, the research looked at most beneficial reading interventions and how often these interventions should occur. Finally, this research examined the effect these interventions had on the amount of special education referrals. Improvement was seen in reading comprehension scores on the BAS and a decline in possible special education

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 40 referrals was recognized. A preferred duration and frequency of intervention was found and a bank of beneficial interventions was gathered. Reading intervention and reading achievement. The first hypothesis that students who participate in reading intervention will demonstrate improvement in their ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level was confirmed. All participants involved in the study increased their instructional reading level by two Guided Reading levels. The growth is shown is Table 3. Student A, Student B, and Student D started at a Guided Reading instructional level H and finished at a Guided Reading instructional level J. All three students were reading below the grade level benchmark pre-intervention, but were reading at the grade level benchmark post-intervention. Student C started at a Guided Reading instructional level G and finished at a Guided Reading instructional level I. This is one level below the grade level benchmark. Informal notes indicate Student A, Student B, and Student D were motivated to try new strategies that were taught during intervention time. Student C showed a negative attitude and low motivation toward reading. These notes can be found in Table 4. This warrants more investigation. Is Student C a struggling reader because of a lack of motivation? Or is reading difficult, therefore there is little self confidence? Perhaps motivation and self engagement techniques can be used to increase motivation. Intervention focus areas included accuracy and comprehension strategies in hopes of increasing reading achievement. The use of these reading strategies is noted when a BAS is given. BAS scores and informal notes as seen in Table 3 and 4 explain that all students improved their reading strategy use which increased their reading achievement levels. Pre-intervention all

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 41 four students relied on one fix up strategy to decode unknown words. Post-intervention all four students had tried at least three fix up strategies independently. Table 5 shows pre and post intervention reading response notebooks student responses. Students pre-intervention responses were brief and lacked detail. Post-intervention Student A, Student B, and Student D improved their responses to include more detail including character name, problem, and solution. Student A showed the greatest growth with an initial response of There is no problem, to that of The neighbors got a letter about new horses. They thought they were real! They ended up being a carousel. Student C showed some growth, however, the post-intervention response still lacked a true problem and solution. Beneficial intervention strategies. The second hypothesis was a bank of most beneficial comprehension interventions will be gathered. Upon completion of this study, a list of tried and true intervention strategies was created. It must be noted, however, that this was the most difficult data to be interpreted. While there were very thorough informal notes taken during each intervention time, it was difficult to decipher which interventions worked and which ones did not due to the fact that all students Guided Reading levels increased. Instead of highlighting the interventions that worked and those that did not, three interventions were chose as most beneficial based on the informal notes taken. Table 6 outlines these notes. Fix-up Strategy Review was discussed as the most beneficial as all four students comprehension scores were low based on their need to decode a high number of unknown words. All four participants relied on the sound it out strategy before the intervention. This intervention strategy reminded participants of several other fix up strategies and gave them an opportunity to practice them. Student A, Student B, and Student D used only one fix up strategy pre-intervention, but showed .

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 42 independent use of at least three post-intervention. Student C used only one pre-intervention and showed independent use of two, prompted use of three, post-intervention. This information can be found in Table 4. Additionally, Thinking About What Makes Sense and Using Meaning to Decode also warranted success based on student progress and informal notes. As made evident by Table 4, pre-intervention all four participants were not attending to meaning when decoding unknown words. These two interventions worked together to teach students to use meaning to untangle unknown words. Post-intervention students were fluently asking themselves, Does that make sense? and What does this actually mean? before fixing up a word. Frequency and duration of intervention. The third hypothesis stating, Students who participate in targeted reading intervention for at least three times a week for twenty minutes each time will demonstrate improvement in their ability comprehend written text at their instructional reading level was confirmed. Reading achievement gains are indicated in Table 3. Interventions occurred for at least thirty minutes, three to four times a week. Student A and Student D received intervention for thirty-five minutes four days a week. Student B received intervention for thirty minutes, four times a week and Student C received intervention for thirtyfive minutes three-four times a week. Student C was absent twice. This information can be found in Table 7. All four students demonstrated improvement in their ability to comprehend written text at their instructional level. In addition, as made clear in Figure 1, the teacher survey results indicated 80% of teachers provided a daily intervention, while only 20% provided intervention four times a week and no teachers indicated intervention times less than three times a week. That being said, it is clear daily intervention time is preferred. Figure 2, regarding duration of

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 43 intervention, displays evidence that teachers prefer intervention times more than twenty minutes long. With 61.54% of teachers reporting twenty to thirty minute intervention times and 38.46% of teachers using more than thirty minutes, this time frame could warrant further research. Is twenty to thirty minutes preferred? Or is it simply a time constraint that only allows for this chunk of time? With the growth seen, it is assumed that the more one on one/small group time given, the greater growth made, however this cannot be confirmed without more extensive research. Special education referrals. The fourth and final research question asked, Do our reading interventions reduce the rate of special education referrals specific to reading comprehension? The hypothesis suggesting that the current rate of special education referrals regarding reading comprehension would go down due to interventions was confirmed. The four students involved in the study were all being looked at for possible referrals to special education pre-intervention. The parents of Student A had already begun the process. Postintervention Student A, Student B, and Student D were at grade level suggesting they did not need a referral for services. Student C was the only student not reaching the grade level benchmark, still being considered for a special education referral by the classroom teacher. Table 3 shows each participants growth. The teacher survey also confirmed this hypothesis to be true as all fifteen teachers surveyed commented that students in need of a special education referral post-intervention was either the same or less than pre-intervention. In no case did the amount of referrals go up. Thirteen out of the fifteen teachers found a decrease of at least one student in need of a referral. Teacher G saw a decrease of four students, the greatest decrease out of all fifteen teachers. The results from this survey combined with that of the participants in the study

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 44 shows that the reading intervention being done did indeed reduce the amount of special education referrals in the area of reading comprehension. Results Conclusion A (third) key obstacle to improving reading in the primary grades is time. While skilled teaching and intense curriculum can do a great deal, it remains the case that the expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the end of the each of the primary grades are greater than they have ever been (Duke & Block, 2012). With that in mind, this study gave the researcher that extra time in the form of intervention. All students in this action research increased their reading achievement level showing a positive effect on students ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level. The hypotheses that 1) reading intervention will increase students ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level, 2) a bank of most beneficial comprehension interventions will be gathered, 3) students given targeted intervention for at least three times a week for twenty minutes each time will demonstrate improvement in their ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level, and 4) the current rate of special education referrals regarding reading comprehension will go down due to successful interventions were confirmed. Results supported Loses (2007) statement that a childs response to intervention requires a skilled, responsive teacher and reading professionals already have enough information to make an appropriate, informed, and timely response to the challenges of RTI (p. 278). Growth varied, but all students made progress in their reading achievement. Limitations aside, the findings support continued intervention for those at risk students reading below the grade level benchmark.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 45 Limitations Although best practice was supported and RTI strategies were followed and adhered to, there are several factors that should be considered when analyzing data. These factors may have impacted each childs growth, or lack there of in the study. First, the small sample size, just four students, may have impacted the results. The population of students studied came from just one second grade classroom in a district of seven second grades. In addition, all students were from a similar socioeconomic background and belonged to the same affluent community. This factor limited the diversity and size of the results. Another limitation to this study is that of time, both frequency of intervention session and duration of each individual session. Even though the study took place over the course of four weeks, there were only thirteen intervention times that occurred, four of them testing days. Upon completion, there were just nine actual teaching days. Student C was absent twice and finished the study with just seven intervention sessions. While there were positive gains shown from this time together, a longer time frame may have warranted even more progress. Also, the duration of each session was limited to thirty or thirty-five minutes due to classroom scheduling. Would additional time daily with each student have shown greater gains? Teacher bias would also be a concern when recording informal notes about student progress. The researcher was very careful not to record personal feelings on each childs progress, but rather focused on recording observations without judgement or bias. In addition, assessment anxiety should be considered a limitation in this study. Due to the fact that all four students involved in the study are struggling students, there may be some pre-disposed anxiety around the topic of assessment.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 46 The final limitation to this study was the analyzation of the teacher survey. The vague responses provided by some of the teacher respondents suggested that some of the questions were not phrased in the way the researcher had anticipated. Because of this, some of the questions were not able to be used in the intended way which made it difficult to determine exactly what interventions were being done in other grades throughout the school. It is suggested that when further research is conducted, that the researcher develop a survey that is more specific. Further Research The researcher would like to continue this intervention in the area of literacy throughout the school year for all four students involved. Further research in the area of an intervention time frame would be helpful. It was observed and noted through teacher surveys that interventions were occurring at least four days a week for thirty to thirty five minutes. Is the frequency and duration of the intervention based on the constraints of school wide or classroom schedules? Or are these times determined by the needs of the students? Time is of the essence in classrooms today and teachers are constantly reminded that there are not enough hours in the day to teach all that needs to be covered. That being said, two well-known reading interventions, Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) and Reading Recovery (RR) occur daily. LLI, a short term, small group literacy intervention provides support to students 30 minutes a day for 18 weeks (Ransford-Kaldon et al., 2011). RR, another research-based literacy intervention program, also supports struggling first graders, meets for 30 minutes daily for an average of 12-20 weeks. Further research regarding ways to address this issue of time is necessary for continued success.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 47 It was also observed during several intervention times that Student C was very disengaged. This student was the only student to not meet the grade level benchmark after intervention. Further research into this lack of motivation and engagement is warranted. Is reading hard because there is a lack of motivation? Or is there a lack of motivation because reading is hard? It would be helpful to examine this lack of engagement and perhaps provide some possible strategies that may help to motivate. Finally, as noted above in limitations, the wording of the teacher survey needs to be addressed. There were limited quality responses to the question, What reading interventions are being done with these students. Please list all interventions. It was hoped that specific intervention strategies such as Fix-Up Strategy Review etc, would be discussed. Instead broader responses such as Title One and Wilson were noted. It would be helpful to Research Question 2, What interventions are most beneficial to reading comprehension improvement? to have more specific responses to this question. Action Plan Research supports a Response to Intervention (RTI) model be implemented to help struggling learners increase achievement in all academic areas (Johnston, 2011; Lose, 2007; Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008; Torgesen, 2007; Sanger et al., 2012; Schwartz, Schmitt, & Lose, 2012, Spear-Swerling & Cheeseman, 2011). RTI best defined by Sanger et al. (2012) as a multitiered approach to providing instruction, services, and intervention at increasing levels of intensity to struggling learners (p. 98) had begun to be implemented at the site school at the time of the study. While interventions were being done in the area of reading and math, reading was a major focus. However, even with the extra emphasis put on reading and intervention time

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 48 consistently accounted for in the master schedule, second grade teachers and staff were not seeing reading scores increase the way they hoped. Using running records and Fountas and Pinnells Benchmark Reading Assessment (BAS), second grade teachers and staff were finding that while students accuracy scores were on the rise, comprehension scores remained steady or in many cases, declined, which was holding students back from advancing to the next reading level. The main objective of this research was to explore the impact reading intervention had on students comprehension scores on the BAS. In addition, it was hopeful that this research would indicate most beneficial reading interventions as well as identify how often these interventions should occur. Finally, it was hopeful that this research would show the effect these interventions had on the amount of special education referrals. A plan to increase student reading achievement scores began October 21, 2013 and continued for four weeks. The study was completed on November 15, 2013. Four students reading below the grade level benchmark were chosen to participate in the study. Several limitations that were identified included small sample size, low socioeconomic diversity, teacher bias, test anxiety, and analyzation of the teacher survey. Reading achievement. This action research project addressed the participants growth in reading achievement through a series of reading interventions. All four participants successfully showed reading growth based on Benchmark Assessment and Running Record scores, as well as informal observations. This increase in achievement suggests that continued intervention will elicit an even greater advancement in reading levels. The researcher will continue the small group/one on one intervention with a focus based on the specific needs of each reader. In

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 49 addition, the researcher will maintain up to date progress monitoring assessments as well as record informal observations (See Table 9). Research-based interventions. A bank of most beneficial interventions was found based on information gathered for this action research project. Review of Fix-Up Strategies, Using Meaning to Decode and Thinking About what Makes Sense were found to be the most helpful. As discussed by Mesmer and Mesmer (2009), RTI requires instructional interventions be scientifically valid, public, implemented with integrity, and systematically evaluated (p. 284). Further research to discover the most up to date, research based intervention strategies to use during intervention time will address new student needs as interventions progress. Reflection of each new strategy tried will provide valuable feedback to the researcher. Additionally, a more specific teacher survey will be created and shared to hopefully discover tried and true intervention strategies already being used within the school (See Table 9). Professional development. Lose (2007) states that research has shown that every dollar spent on teachers professional development yields greater student achievement outcomes than any other expenditure of school dollars (p. 277). That being said, a very important part of this action plan is to pursue further professional development in the area of the Benchmark Assessment System and research-based intervention strategies. Furthermore, an in-house professional development meeting lead by the teacher researcher will be done to share results of the action research highlight the importance of frequent reading intervention (See Table 9). Action plan timeline. With six months left in the school year, there is plenty of time to put the following action plan into place. Table 9 shares the recommended actions, who is responsible, the timeline and the resources needed.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 50 Table 9 Action Plan Timeline Recommended Action Share results of study with colleagues and administration Person Responsible Teacher-researcher Timeline January 8, 2014staff meeting February 5, 2014grade level meeting E-mail/Phone call week of December 16-20, 2013 Resources *Summary of results *Intervention strategy resources *Computer *Student specic results *Parent e-mails/ phone number *Intervention strategy resources *Assessment materials (BAS and Running Records templates) *Fountas and Pinnells Benchmark Assessment System *Leveled texts *Running Record templates *Computer

Share results of Teacher-researcher study with parents of students involved in the study Continue with reading comprehension intervention Teacher-researcher

Ongoing for the remainder of the school yearDecember 9, 2013 to mid-June, 2014 Once weekly, ongoing for the remainder of the school yearDecember 9, 2013 to mid-June, 2014

Continue with reading progress monitoring

Teacher-researcher

Find new researchbased intervention strategies to use during intervention times Professional developmentFountas and Pinnell on Benchmark Assessment System and small group instruction

Teacher-researcher Title One Teachers

Ongoing for the remainder of the school yearDecember 9, 2013 to mid-June, 2014 To be determined based on next workshop

Teacher-researcher Grade Level Partners Principal

*Registration forms *Professional development funds

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 51 Recommended Action New survey for teachers regarding most benecial interventions Person Responsible Teacher-researcher Teaching colleagues Timeline January 6, 2014January 13, 2014 Resources *Access to Surveymonkey.com *Computer

Conclusions Response to Intervention is a process that incorporates both assessment and intervention so that immediate benefits come to the student (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p. 280). This Action Research Project was developed to explore the impact reading intervention had on students comprehension scores based on the Benchmark Assessment System. Using the Response to Intervention model, the researcher hoped to see an increase in reading achievement scores and a decrease in the amount of special education referrals. Furthermore, it was hopeful that this research would indicate most beneficial reading interventions as well as identify how often these interventions should occur. Finally, it was hopeful that this research would show the effect these interventions had on the amount of special education referrals. Participants were chosen for this action research based on their below grade level Benchmark Assessment scores as well as informal classroom observations. It was hypothesized that students participating in reading intervention for at least three times a week for twenty minutes each time would demonstrate improvement in their ability to comprehend written text at their instructional reading level. A bank of most beneficial interventions would also be gathered and the current rate of special education referrals regarding reading comprehension would go down due to these successful interventions. Limitations aside, the data gathered in this study confirmed all hypotheses.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 52 Intervention strategies used with participants in small groups and one on one had positive effects on each students reading achievement level. All participants involved in the study increased their instructional reading level by two Guided Reading levels. Upon completion, a list of tried and true intervention strategies was created and a decrease in special education referrals was noted among participants and teacher surveys. Based on the results of this action research several recommendations have been made and an action plan and timeline for the site classroom was created. Results will be shared with all teachers within the site school.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 53 References Clay, M.M. (2006) An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, Heinemann. Duke, N.K., & Block, M.K. (2012) Improving reading in the primary grades. The future of children, 22(2), 55-72. Retrieved November 16, 2013, from ERIC-EBSCO database. Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2011). Assessment guide: A guide to benchmark assessment system 1. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Johnston, P. H. (2011). Response to intervention in literacy: Problems and possibilities. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 511-534. Retrieved September 28, 2013, from ERICEBSCO database. Lose, M. K. (2007). A childs response to intervention requires a responsive teacher of reading. Reading Teacher, 61(3), 276-279. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from ERIC-EBSCO database. Mesmer, E.M., & Mesmer A.E. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI): What teachers of reading need to know. Reading Teacher, 62(4), 280-290. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from ERIC-EBSCO database. OConnor, E. (2002). The effect of reading recovery on special education referrals and placements. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (6), 635-646. Retrieved September 26, 2013, from ERIC-EBSCO database. Ransford-Kaldon, C., Flynt, E., & Ross, C. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of a response-to-intervention (RTI) Tier 2 literacy program: Leveled literacy intervention (LLI). Society For Research On Educational Effectiveness, A1-B6. Retrieved

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 54 September 26, 2013 from ERIC-EBSCO database. Sanger, D., Friedli, C., Brunken, C., Snow, P., & Ritzman, M. (2012). Educators year long reactions to the implementation of a response to intervention (RTI) model. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 7(2), 98-107. Retrieved September 26, 2013 from ERIC-EBSCO database. Schwartz, R.M., Schmitt, M.C., & Lose, M.K. (2012). Effects of teacher-student ratio in response to intervention approaches. Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 547-567. Retrieved September 28, 2013 from ERIC-EBSCO. Spear-Swerling, L., & Cheeseman, E. (2012). Teachers knowledge base for implementing response to intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(7), 1691-1723. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from ERIC-EBSCO database. Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms: 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Torgensen, J.K., & Florida Center for Reading, R. (2007). Using an RTI model to guide early reading instruction: Effects on identification rates for students with learning disabilities. FCRR Technical Report #7, Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from ERIC-EBSCO database.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 55 Appendix A

University of New England CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH

Project Title: Reading Interventions and their Effect on Primary Student's Instructional Reading Levels Principal Investigator(s): Caitlin Foster, Coastal Ridge Elementary School, York, Maine, 207-590-1056
Why is this study being done?

The purpose of this research is to explore the effect of reading interventions on primary students comprehension scores using classroom running records and the BAS, to discover which interventions are most beneficial, to identify how often these interventions should occur, and to determine if these interventions lower the amount of special education referrals. Students will be provided a timely, research based reading intervention in hopes of raising reading achievement levels to the intended benchmark. All research will be given and analyzed by the classroom teacher (Principal Investigator).
Who will be in this study?

This project will involve second graders as the primary learners. The students receiving the intervention will be identified based on their BAS scores and informal running records. The students chosen will be reading at instructional levels that are below the second grade benchmark. These readers make up the lowest 20% of students in the second grade group, which amounts to 22 students.
What will my participation involve?

1. Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System-This comprehensive system is a one-onone assessment that matches students instructional and independent reading abilities to the Fountas and Pinnell Guided Reading Level system. Students are given an overall independent and instructional score based on accuracy, comprehension, and fluency. A pre-assessment will be given as soon as the study commences on October 21, 2013. A post-assessment will be given upon completion of the study on November 15, 2013. 2. Informal Running Records to find Instructional Level and Teacher Observations-An informal running record is one method of assessing a childs reading level by looking at their accuracy and errors when reading a leveled text. Teacher observations will include any notes made by

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 56 classroom teacher during running record session. These running records will be taken weekly starting October 21, 2013 through November 15, 2013. 3. Intervention Small Group or One-on-One Work-Students involved in the research interventions will meet three times per week for 30 minutes. They will be provided a research based reading intervention by Principle Investigator. Intervention groups will begin as soon as students are assessed. They will start October 22, 2013 and run through November 14, 2013. 4. Student Reading Response Notebooks-Each child participating in intervention will respond to comprehension questions provided using their Reading Response Notebook. Reading Response Notebooks will be introduced as soon as students are identified for reading intervention. These will start October 22, 2013 and run through November 14th, 2013. Students will respond in their notebooks one time a week. 5. Intervention Time Log-An Intervention Time Log will be used to document the intervention done including the focus of the intervention, the date the intervention was given, the time spent providing the intervention, and the frequency of the intervention. Intervention times will be documented starting as soon as students are identified for interventions, October 22, 2013 and will be used through the completion of the study, November 14, 2013.
What will it cost me?

There is not cost to participate in this research.

What are the possible risks of taking part in the study?

The Principal Researcher has completed Human Subject Research training and will follow all policies discussed. The only possible risk in taking part of this study is a breach of confidentiality. However, the Principal Researcher will change names to protect privacy and keep all participation anonymous.
What are the possible benets of taking part in the study?

This research will potentially benefit students involved, future struggling readers, and teachers alike. Students will be given interventions to increase their reading ability, most promising interventions will be identified, and teachers will be provided best practice suggestions for the future. Students will have opportunity to grow as a reader.
How will my privacy be protected? The building principal, Sean Murphy, has been informed of the study and has enthusiastically

approved the project. Names will be changed or omitted to protect confidentiality. Students and families will be informed of data collection and interventions will be fun and engaging ensuring there is no harm done. Information will be collected at each intervention time ensuring the

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 57 accuracy of data. Data will only be shared with building principal and cooperating teachers, however, students names will not be shared, but rather renamed for privacy purposes.

What are my rights as a research participant?

Participation in this study is voluntary. There are no adverse consequences for those not wishing to participate. Students may withdraw at any time and a copy of the consent form will be provided to all participating families.
Whom may I contact with questions?

Caitlin Foster, Coastal Ridge Elementary School, York, Maine, 207-590-1056, FosterMC09@gmail.com If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, you may call Ronald P. Morrison, PhD, Chair of the Universitys Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, at (207) 602-2108.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Participants Statement I understand the above description of this research and the risks and benefits associated with my participation as a research subject. I agree to take part in the research and do so voluntarily.

Participants signature Print name:

Date

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Researchers Statement The participant named above had sufficient time to consider this information, had an opportunity to ask questions, and voluntarily agreed to be in this study.

Researchers signature Print name:

Date

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 58 Appendix B
Running Record
Name: __________________________________________ Date: ___________________ Accuracy = 100 (Errors Word Count x 100) = _________%

Title: _____________________________________________ Level:_______________ Word Count:

SC M

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ How did the reading sound (fluency rating)? _______________________________________________ Comprehension Questions (Use focus questions appropriate for this text):

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 59 Appendix C *Student Name:________________________________________________________________ Date Start/End Times Intervention Progress

Additional Notes:

*Fill out separate form for each child receiving intervention.

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 60 Appendix D Teacher Survey Questions 1. Please indicate grade level:_____________ 2. How many of your students are currently receiving a Tier 2 reading intervention?________ 3. What reading interventions are being done with these students? Please list all interventions. 4. Of the students receiving a reading intervention, how many have been referred for special education services? __________ 5. Of the students receiving a reading intervention, how many do you anticipate will be referred for special education services? 6. How often do these students receive their reading intervention? a. daily b. four times a week c. three times a week d. two times a week e. once a week 7. What is the duration of each intervention time? a. less than 10 minutes b. 10-20 minutes c. 20-30 minutes d. more than 30 minutes

Running Head: READING INTERVENTION AND ITS EFFECT ON PRIMARY STUDENTS INSTRUCTIONAL READING LEVELS 61 Appendix E Student Reading Response Notebook

*Cut prompt and paste in Reading Response Notebook. Response in complete sentences.

What is the problem in your story? How was your problem solved?