Strategic Reader Summary

Data was collected from three schools - two schools that offered full-day kindergarten and one one school that offered half-day kindergarten to students in two separate classes. The study’s data sources included quantitative data collected by the participating schools for pre and post assessment of the student’s literacy skills and semistructured interviews with the kindergarten school staff. The quantitative portion of the study used Clay’s (1993) Observation Survey sub-tests to collect student achievement data. Clay’s (1993) Observation Survey is a tool used to asses the development of non-readers and emergent-reader. The six sub-scale tests used in this particular study were Letter Identification, Concepts About Print, Word Vocabulary, Ready to Read Words, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, and Book Reading Level (). The data from Clay’s Observation Survey sub-tests was collected by a district consultant in early October of 1999 (pre-test data) and then once again in late June of 2000 (post-test data). Data was only used from the students who had been present for both pre and post tests. After taking into account the possible confounding variables, on all of Clay’s (1993) Observation

Many students were reading below grade level, and Tyner needed an intensive reading model that could fill in the gaps of each student’s literacy. She began using a basal reading program called Early Steps (Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2000). Tyner decided to use some of the components of Early Steps to develop her own reading model that would focus on the needs of beginning and struggling readers. The Small-Group Differentiated Reading Model consists of a framework specifically designed for beginning and struggling readers so that they may progress through the appropriate developmental stages and become proficient

The two options for identifying students with disabilities are RTI model and the IQ-Achievement discrepancy model. The RTI model is a multi-tiered approach to identifying students with disabilities. With this approach the amount of students who are identified as having a learning disability has decreased because of the support students receive at different tiers and it eliminates inadequate instruction as the reason for reading problems. Universal screening and high quality teaching is done for all students. Students who show that they need additional help receive tier 1 services where frequency and intensity increases. Students are monitored and receive research based instruction in the general education classroom. Some students may still struggle and have to receive more intensive and frequent service. Those students will receive supplemental support from an educational professional. Tier 3 services are provided to students who still struggle and need even more intensive service. Students may also qualify for special education services. The IQ-Achievement discrepancy model is used to determine if a disability is present. Standardized tests are used to eliminate low intellectual ablity as a determining cause for reading problems. With this model, a professional assess whether there is a discrepancy between a student’s scores on an iq test and scores obtained from areas

he most fundamental responsibility of schools is teaching students to read. Indeed, the future success of all students hinges upon their ability to become proficient readers. Recent scientific studies have allowed us to understand more than ever before how literacy develops, why some children have difficulty, and what constitutes best instructional practice. Scientists now estimate that fully 95 percent of all children can be taught to read. Yet, in spite of all our knowledge, statistics reveal an alarming prevalence of struggling and poor readers that is not limited to any one segment of society:

These DIBELS screening assessments were developed to help educators identify struggling, at-risk readers, so that appropriate types and levels of support can be implemented within the school system. They were designed to support efforts at the primary grade levels (K-6th) to prevent reading struggles as the learn progress through the school system. Furthermore, this test was to aid in the elimination in remediation lessons inside of the classroom.

Wilson, Faggella-Luby, & Wei (2013) present a cogent plan for Tier 3 Response to Intervention (RTI) for secondary students with reading disabilities, content, and pedagogy planning tools, content instruction, and instructional method implementation. Both research application lacks concerning Tier 3 RTI in high schools (Wilson et. al). RTI is curriculum that addresses the learning needs of all students that also includes screening and monitoring progress. Continuing, Wilson et. al define Tier 1 RTI, core curriculum for all students serving the needs of 80% of students, Tier 2 RTI, small group instructional intervention, serving the needs of 15% of students, and Tier 3 RTI, an intense one to one intervention for students who continue to struggle beyond Tiers 1 and 2, serving 5% of students. Wilson et al. provides information the reader needs to understand in the article without clutter, expressing their writing with economy (Zinsser, 2013). The article is unified in theme, gives enough information without giving too much, and follows a clear progression (Zinsser). “More simple, than complex” (Henson, 1999, p. 58), Wilson et. al’s article is an example of good writing.

The Wilson Reading System (WRS) is marketed for students from grades 2 to 12 who are not making sufficient progress with their current Tier 2 intervention and need a more intensive intervention at Tier 3. It is used most often with students in upper elementary to high school. The program can also be used with adults who need remedial reading services. Specifically, the program is based on the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. This approach relies on direct instruction, incorporates ideas of “how” and “why” individuals learn to read, and explores multi-sensory methods (auditory, visual, and kinesthetic). It is intended for individuals who have problems with phonological awareness or orthographic processing.

According to the Georgia Department of Education, the Georgia State School Board of Education adopted a new set of standards known as the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts. Since the Common Core Standards State Standards assess the same English Language Arts standards as the Georgia Performance Standards, Georgia’s curriculum is called Common Core Georgia Performance Standards. Of the ELA standards for first grade, one requires that students be able to ask and answer questions based on the details in a text. This standard also requires that the student be able to retell stories, including details, and demonstrate comprehension. This could be an issue for special needs students. Students with a learning disability in reading often have difficulty comprehending texts in books and other reading material that is written at their grade level. However, there are many strategies to use to improve reading comprehension in struggling readers. With the increase use of technology, my review is written to determine if pre-recordings readings are more effective than teacher-led read aloud in improving comprehension skills of students with disabilities.

Objective IV: Ensuring success for all students through high quality engagement strategies that support literacy development

Students with disabilities are at a higher at-risk for dropping out of high school at a greater rate than typically developing peers (Pyle & Wexler, 2012). Students with identified disabilities are required to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) according to law, and these students have unique needs that general education curriculum cannot meet on its own. However, there is abundant research that discusses various literacy interventions and strategies that can be effective. These interventions can be used in a school setting by any certified teacher (regular education or special education). This literature review will discuss some of the various reading and writing strategies as well as best practices for literacy in order to ensure students with disabilities are given the best chance for success. By providing timely interventions, monitoring progress, and analyzing data, it can be possible to increase achievement for those students with identified disabilities.

Connor, C., Alberto, P., Compton, D., O’Connor. (2014, February). Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers. https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20143000/pdf/20143000.pdf

This proposed phenomenological and quantitative study will look into the relationship between an internet based computer program intervention and a curriculum based intervention to increase student fluency among third grade students. The participants of the study will be eighteen struggling third grade students reading below third grade level in a low socioeconomic (Title I) school, in Weatherford Independent School District. The research will be conducted over a period of four weeks. During this timeframe, students will be working daily on either Istation, the internet-based intervention or AIMSweb, a teacher-led, curriculum based intervention to compare fluency results between the two intervention programs. There will be eight male and eight

This study mainly explored System 44 computer-based intervention to help struggling readers in phonics, fluency, and comprehension at the middle school level in Capital School District, William Henry Middle School. According to the findings of this research, the System 44 program looks hopeful. There seems to have been a positive effect on learning of phonics, fluency and comprehension for students with learning difficulties related to System 44. The System 44 model was originally designed for a 90 minute class period. This includes small group, independent reading, and System 44. PASS classes at William Henry Middle School are only half of that time, which is an abbreviated version of the original design. Students receive twenty minutes of

Boardman, A. a., Vaughn, S., Buckley, P., Reutebuch, C., Roberts, G., & Klingner, J. (2016). Collaborative Strategic Reading for Students With Learning Disabilities in Upper Elementary Classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 409-427. doi:10.1177/0014402915625067

"Any kind of education is a matter of training the brain. When poor readers are learning to read, remedial instruction helps to shape that area up." Heineman (2009) stated that it’s not enough to say, “These kids can’t read.” Not being able to read can mean a variety of things and we need to be more specific in order to help each