Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 79–89
2008 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children
!
C
Intervention Provided to Linguistically Diverse Middle School Students
with Severe Reading Difficulties
Carolyn A. Denton
University of Texas Health Science Center Houston
Jade Wexler, Sharon Vaughn, and Deanna Bryan
University of Texas at Austin
This study investigated the effectiveness of a multicomponent reading intervention implemented
with middle school students with severe reading difficulties, all of whom had received remedial
and/or special education for several years with minimal response to intervention. Participants
were 38 students in grades 6–8 who had severe deficits in word reading, reading fluency,
and reading comprehension. Most were Spanish-speaking English language learners (ELLs)
with identified disabilities. Nearly all demonstrated severely limited oral vocabularies in English and, for ELLs, in both English and Spanish. Students were randomly assigned to receive
the research intervention (n = 20) or typical instruction provided in their school’s remedial
reading or special education classes (n = 18). Students in the treatment group received daily
explicit and systematic small-group intervention for 40 minutes over 13 weeks, consisting of
a modified version of a phonics-based remedial program augmented with English as a Second Language practices and instruction in vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension strategies.
Results indicated that treatment students did not demonstrate significantly higher outcomes in
word recognition, comprehension, or fluency than students who received the school’s typical
instruction and that neither group demonstrated significant growth over the course of the study.
Significant correlations were found between scores on teachers’ ratings of students’ social
skills and problem behaviors and posttest decoding and spelling scores, and between English
oral vocabulary scores and scores in word identification and comprehension. The researchers
hypothesize that middle school students with the most severe reading difficulties, particularly
those who are ELLs and those with limited oral vocabularies, may require intervention of considerably greater intensity than that provided in this study. Further research directly addressing
features of effective remediation for these students is needed.
In the last decade considerable knowledge has been synthesized (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001; Khun &
Stahl, 2003; McCardle & Chhabra, 2004; Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998), policy written and implemented (No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001), and guidance provided to schools
(e.g., Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2003; Sénéchal, 2006)
about how to effectively instruct students with reading difficulties and disabilities in the early grades. Though there
are still significant research questions to be addressed, the
research on beginning reading instruction is robust and convincing (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2006). Considerably less is known about effective intervention for older
readers with reading difficulties and disabilities, particularly
those who are English language learners (ELLs). The purpose
of this article is to describe an experimental study conducted
with middle school students with significant reading disabilities, many of whom were also ELLs. The research question
addressed was whether an intervention designed to teach
Requests for reprints should be sent to Carolyn Denton, Children’s Learning Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, 7000 Fannin, UCT 2443, Houston, TX 77030. Electronic inquiries may be sent to
Carolyn.A.Denton@uth.tmc.edu.
code-based skills, fluency, and comprehension, incorporating English as a Second Language (ESL) practices, would be
associated with significantly better reading outcomes for students with significant and persistent reading difficulties than
outcomes demonstrated by students who received the school’s
typical remedial reading or special education instruction.
Older Students with Reading Difficulties:
State of the Research
Several syntheses have examined the effectiveness of reading interventions with older students with reading difficulties
(Edmonds et al., in press; Scammacca et al., 2007) as well
as adults who are learning to read (Kruidenier, 2002). In the
Edmonds et al. synthesis, interventions conducted with older
readers (grades 6–12) that primarily addressed word study,
fluency, comprehension, and multicomponent approaches to
improving reading comprehension were examined. Twentynine studies were located, and 13 of these met criteria for
the synthesis. The synthesis was conducted examining comprehension outcomes for treatment and comparison students.
Results indicated a mean weighted average effect size of .89.
80
SPECIAL ISSUE: ADOLESCENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES
The effects of word-level interventions, comprehension interventions, and multicomponent interventions were examined
separately and were associated with medium to high effects
on reading comprehension. Similarly, Scammacca and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis that included many of the
studies in the Edmonds et al. review but extended the grade
levels from 4th to 12th and included more recent studies. Analyzing approximately 31 studies, they derived similar findings
ranging from moderate to large effects on reading comprehension outcomes when treatment students were compared
with control students. Effect sizes were lower when outcomes
from standardized rather than researcher-developed measures
were considered. They also reported that studies including
participants with learning disabilities yielded moderate to
high effects on reading comprehension. Overall, these syntheses indicate that many students with severe reading disabilities benefit from interventions that address basic word-level
reading and those that integrate word reading with comprehension instruction. Few studies (e.g., Klingner & Vaughn,
1996) reported in these syntheses addressed students with
reading difficulties who were ELLs.
These findings suggest that interventions with older students can be moderately effective in improving reading comprehension outcomes, though the level of intensity needed to
close the gap between struggling older students and their
peers may require extensive and long-term interventions
(Scammacca et al., 2007). These findings lend support to
the notion that older readers are generally responsive to reading interventions, and we need not consider adolescents with
reading difficulties too old for remediation (Ehren, Lenz, &
Deshler, 2004).
ELLs with Reading Difficulties
Older students who are ELLs and demonstrate significant
reading difficulties have unique challenges. Not only are they
struggling with word reading, but they also have difficulty
with word meaning. Furthermore, these students have often
been deprived of adequate background knowledge because
of a lack of reading skills as well as contextual factors more
likely to be present with ELLs that compromise successful reading including: (a) being less likely to attend schools
with highly qualified teachers, (b) being more likely to move
frequently with disconnected learning opportunities, and (c)
lack of access to books and materials in the home and community (Hansen, 1989; Kennedy & Park, 1994).
Instructional Needs of Older Students
with Reading Difficulties
There is a crisis in middle school, with more than 25 percent
of students unable to read well enough to adequately identify
the main idea of passages (Kamil, 2003). Older students with
reading difficulties read less, and teachers typically find ways
to circumvent text reading so that these students’ access to
print is minimal.
The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) was charged by
the U.S. Department of Education with identifying the most
pressing issues related to reading research. They focused at-
tention on reading comprehension with older students largely
because these students (a) are making inadequate progress
on the National Assessment of Educational Progress with no
change in the percentage of eighth-graders scoring at or above
the Proficient level between 1992 and 2005 (U.S. Department
of Education, 2005), (b) are unable to adequately learn from
content area texts, and (c) demonstrate unacceptable achievement gaps among students from various demographic groups.
The RAND Study Group recognized the importance of the
skills and strategies associated with improved outcomes for
older readers with significant reading difficulties.
One possible explanation for the low reading skills of older
learners is that many possess inadequate knowledge of the alphabetic principle and word reading. Curtis and Longo (1999)
indicate that as many as 10 percent of all older readers have
difficulty with word-level reading. When considering the subgroup of students with reading difficulties the number could
be as high as 60 percent (Fletcher, 2007). There are many
older students who have not adequately mastered the foundation skills of word reading, which in turn influences their
fluency and text comprehension. For example, in a recent
study examining the word reading skills, fluency, and comprehension knowledge of middle school students with reading difficulties, more than half of the sample demonstrated
significant difficulties with word reading (Fletcher, 2007).
Another possible explanation for the reading difficulties
of older students is that they lack adequate understanding
of word meaning (i.e., vocabulary) and adequate reasoning
abilities to comprehend text. Engaging students in constructing and interpreting meaning yields improved knowledge of
words, particularly for low achieving students (Dole, Sloan,
& Trathen, 1995; Jenkins, Matlock, & Slocum, 1989). Additionally, older students benefit from learning reading comprehension strategies such as comprehension monitoring, generating and answering questions, and summarization (Edmonds
et al., in press).
A third possible explanation is that older students with
reading difficulties lack the task orientation and disposition
toward reading to effectively acquire reading proficiency.
Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) report that students who are
more engaged in reading are also more likely to use reading
strategies associated with reading comprehension.
METHOD
This study was designed to provide initial findings on the
effectiveness of a multicomponent reading intervention implemented with middle school students with severe reading
difficulties (most identified as having learning disabilities),
including those who are ELLs, and the extent to which their
outcomes in word reading, vocabulary, and comprehension
could be improved. The intervention used in this study was
a significantly modified version of a phonics-based remedial program (Wilson, 1998) that included ESL practices
(Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004), vocabulary instruction
(Beck, McKeowen, & Kukan, 2002; Graves, 2006), fluency
(Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002), and comprehension strategies (Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007).
DENTON ET AL.: MIDDLE SCHOOL READING INTERVENTION
TABLE 1
Student Characteristics
Context
This study was conducted in one middle school that served
about 750 students in grades 6–8 in an urban school district
in the Southwest. During the year of the study the school population was 13.6% African American, 82.2% Hispanic, 3%
White, .9% Asian, and .3% Native American. Ninety-three
percnt of students were identified as economically disadvantaged, and 43.6% had limited English proficiency. Based on
the state’s evaluation system, the school was rated Academically Unacceptable, with 52% of students in grade six, 48%
in grade seven, and 52% in grade eight passing the reading
portion of the state-mandated accountability test during the
previous school year. The study was conducted during the
second semester of the school year.
81
Treatment
Variable
n
N
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
Hispanic
Caucasian/Asian/other
Served by special education
Identified limited English
proficiency
20
Percent
Typical Practice
n
Percent
18
12
8
60%
40%
14
4
78%
22%
5
15
0
16
12
25%
75%
0%
80%
60%
4
14
0
17
10
22%
78%
0%
94%
56%
Participants
Selection
Sixty-four sixth- through eighth-grade students who had
been assigned to eight remedial or special education reading classes were screened using fifth-grade oral reading fluency passages from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2003). Students were selected for the study if they were unable to read
at least 80 words correctly per minute (wcpm) on this passage. This criterion was selected because it is a common
benchmark denoting “at-risk” status for grade five, which
represents one to three grade levels below that of all students. Forty-one students qualified for the study, with scores
ranging from 10 to 79 wcpm. Parent informed consent and
student assent for study participation was obtained from all
except one student. During the course of the study, one student was sent to an alternative school for misbehavior and one
student moved out of the school, resulting in a total of 38 participants who completed the study. Once identified, students
were randomly assigned within classrooms to one of two conditions: (a) the treatment group, who received the research
intervention (n = 20), or (b) the typical practice group, who
continued to attend the remedial reading or special education
classes to which they had been assigned by the school (n =
18). Demographic information for the students is found in
Table 1.
fore, we report English and Spanish test scores for individual
(unidentified) students in Table 2.
Procedures
After students who qualified for the study were randomly assigned to the treatment or typical instruction condition, students assigned to the treatment condition were divided into
instructional groups ranging from two to four students. The
goal was for students to participate in the intervention for a total of 47–55 daily 40-minute sessions over the course of about
13 weeks. Attendance data collected as part of the study indicated that students in the treatment group attended an average
of 43 sessions (SD = 9), receiving an average of 29 hours of
instruction (SD = 6; range 15–35). Students missed intervention primarily because of school absences or disciplinary
actions (i.e., in-school suspension, alternative campus placement, in principal’s office). The treatment groups were taught
by two teachers who participated in at least 10 hours of training and received ongoing coaching and supervision from the
second author of this article, a doctoral student with extensive experience teaching high school students with reading
disabilities. One interventionist was a certified special education teacher with 9 years of experience and the other was
experienced in bilingual education.
Receptive Vocabulary
Measures
At posttest, we administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test (PPVT III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997), a test of receptive vocabulary. The PPVT was given to all students in English (with
the exception of one student who was absent from school
and could not be tested) and in both English and Spanish to
students with school-identified Limited English Proficiency.
The Spanish assessment was administered to 12 students in
the treatment group and 11 in the typical practice group. It
is not possible to report group standard score means for the
Spanish test, because several students performed so poorly
that it was impossible to assign them standard scores. There-
At pre- and posttest the investigators collected data to assess
student growth in the domains of reading fluency, comprehension, word identification, and spelling. All assessments
were administered by trained graduate students. Pretests were
individually administered during the 3 to 4 weeks prior to
the beginning of treatment, while posttesting took place during the week immediately following treatment completion.
The following assessment battery was chosen because it
assesses a broad range of reading and reading-related outcomes and includes only measures with strong psychometric
properties.
82
SPECIAL ISSUE: ADOLESCENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES
TABLE 2
English and Spanish Standard Scores on the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test III, by Participant
Student
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Group
English
Standard Score
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
70
40
95
51
72
79
91
68
86
97
90
56
85
63
110
77
75
74
84
70
72
62
68
49
75
65
63
64
76
71
80
20
73
79
53
61
76
Spanish
Standard Score
<55
75
<55
80
<55
<55
63
61
108
<55
80
71
89
86
71
<55
<55
62
74
91
61
82
subtests. Scores from these subtests were used to derive a
single cluster score in Basic Reading Skills. Timed word
identification was assessed with the Test of Word Reading
Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999)
Sight Word Efficiency subtest. In the TOWRE students are
provided with a list of words presented in order of increasing
difficulty. The raw score is determined by the number of words
read correctly in 45 seconds. Students’ spelling achievement
was assessed using the WJ III Spelling subtest.
Fluency
At pre- and posttest, students’ reading fluency was assessed
via timed reading of fifth-grade-level connected text from the
DIBELS series (Good & Kaminski, 2003). At each administration, students read three passages, and the mean score was
used in the analysis. Oral reading fluency passages assess
both reading accuracy and rate.
Social Skills and Problem Behavior
One time during the semester the teachers who provided intervention to the treatment group and those who provided instruction to the typical practice group completed the teacher
form of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham &
Elliott, 1990) for their respective students. Teachers indicated
whether certain behaviors and characteristics were present for
a student “never,” “sometimes,” or “very often.” The SSRS
yields standard scores in three domains: Social Skills, Problem Behaviors, and Academic Competence. Only scores in
the first two domains were analyzed in this study. Internal consistency reliability is reported for the teacher form at .93–.94
for Social Skills and .82–.86 for Problem Behaviors, and testretest reliability is reported as .85 for Social Skills and .84
for Problem Behaviors.
83
Note. TP = Typical practice group; T = Treatment group.
Reading Comprehension
Students’ comprehension achievement was assessed using
the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ III;
Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) Passage Comprehension subtest. The WJ III is a nationally standardized, individually administered battery of cognitive and achievement
tests. The Passage Comprehension subtest is a measure of
reading comprehension at the sentence level that uses a close
procedure.
Word Identification and Spelling
Students’ untimed word reading achievement was assessed
using the WJ III Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for all measures. Data
were analyzed through the application of a repeated measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with one between-subject factor (assignment to condition) and one within-subject factor
(time in instruction). To inform hypotheses regarding factors
that may have influenced student progress, we examined the
correlations between the dependent variables and (a) standard scores on the SSRS Social Skills and Problem Behavior
rating scales, (b) hours of intervention received, (c) English
PPVT vocabulary scores, and (d) Spanish PPVT vocabulary
scores.
Finally, student scores on the WJ III Basic Skills cluster were compared to a benchmark designating adequate response to intervention (standard score of 93), following a
procedure commonly applied in intervention studies with
younger students (e.g., Mathes et al., 2005). We considered
the WJ III Basic Skills cluster a valid marker for response to
intervention for students in this study based on their extremely
low scores in Basic Reading at pretest, with the assumption
DENTON ET AL.: MIDDLE SCHOOL READING INTERVENTION
TABLE 3
Intervention Lesson Plan
that this decoding indicator would be more sensitive to student response than a reading comprehension assessment for
this sample.
Intervention Description
Intervention was provided to students in the treatment condition in small groups of two to four students with one teacher,
in daily sessions of about 40 minutes over about 13 weeks.
Students received explicit and systematic instruction in wordlevel reading skills as well as comprehension, vocabulary, and
fluency. Minimal emphasis was given to instruction in phonological awareness skills. The intervention was designed to be
individualized, rather than highly prescriptive, to allow response to student needs. Soon after the onset of intervention,
in response to students’ severe word-level reading deficits,
the decision was made to place heavy emphasis on phonics,
word recognition, spelling, and fluency. Instruction in vocabulary and comprehension strategies was integrated into the
intervention, but the majority of lesson time was spent in explicit word-level instruction and practice, with application of
skills in connected text reading with teacher support. Over
the course of the intervention, somewhat greater emphasis
was placed on vocabulary and comprehension strategy instruction, but the primary focus remained on word reading,
spelling, and fluency. ESL instructional practices were incorporated into the intervention, including enhanced vocabulary
instruction using visuals, concrete examples, and explicit instruction. Teachers also took care to provide information to
build background knowledge related to text passages before
and during reading to enhance comprehension.
Decoding instruction was provided using an adaptation
of a published program derived from an Orton Gillingham
reading approach (Wilson, 1998). Students applied decoding
skills in decodable text. For fluency practice, students engaged in repeated reading of nondecodable expository text.
Expository text was selected because it represents the most
common type of text struggling readers in secondary school
are asked to comprehend in their content-area classes. Passages ranged from 133 to 451 words in length. Novels were
also incorporated for fluency practice and comprehension
strategy application and to motivate students to read and actively participate in instruction.
The intervention was structured around a 2-day cycle focusing on decoding and encoding on alternating days. Table 3
illustrates the major components of the intervention on each
day of the cycle.
83
Time
Decoding (Reading) Day
Encoding (Spelling) Day
1–3 minutes
10–15 minutes
Decoding sound practice
Introduce and review
decoding strategies
Word reading practice
Sight words and irregular
words
Sentence reading
Encoding sound practice
Introduce and review
encoding strategies
3–5 minutes
3–5 minutes
5 minutes
15 minutes
Text reading for
comprehension and
vocabulary strategy
practice and
fluency practice
Sight words and Irregular
words
Dictation spelling practice
(8–10 minutes)
Text reading for
comprehension and
vocabulary strategy
practice and
fluency practice
word patterns they had recently learned. Students also read
novels specifically selected to be motivating to middle school
students but to be accessible to students in this study, given
their reading levels. Before, during, and after reading, teachers provided direct instruction in and opportunities to discuss
key vocabulary words. Finally, teachers instructed students in
comprehension strategies such as finding the main idea of a
text or generating questions. Students also practiced reading
connected text aloud to develop oral reading fluency.
Encoding Day
During the encoding days, teachers followed a similar lesson
plan, but students practiced many of the skills in reverse. For
example, during the first segment of the lesson, instead of
seeing a letter and identifying its sound, teachers dictated a
sound and students selected the letter that represented that
sound from a group of letter cards in front of them. During
the second part of the lesson, teachers reviewed the concept
or rule they had taught on the prior decoding day, but focused
on how to use that particular rule in spelling. On the encoding
day, students also spent about 10 minutes practicing spelling
words and writing sentences that teachers dictated. These
words all followed the patterns the students had been previously taught. Finally, students practiced text reading from
novels and other connected text and practiced applying comprehension strategies just as they had during the decoding
day.
Decoding Day
Typical Practice
During a decoding day, students began by briefly reviewing
letter sounds and sound patterns. During the second segment
of the lesson, the teacher introduced or reviewed some rule for
decoding in the English language, such as the “silent e rule.”
Next, students practiced reading words that followed this specific pattern or reviewed previously taught patterns. Students
also reviewed sight words and irregular words. Next, students
practiced reading sentences and connected text that reflected
Instruction in the typical practice condition was delivered
by six teachers. For each teacher, two observations of typical reading instruction were conducted by a single observer
for each teacher, recording lesson activities with running
field notes. Observations revealed a variety of instructional
practices in the different classes. During some observations,
students participated in test preparation (e.g., completing
84
SPECIAL ISSUE: ADOLESCENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES
worksheets related to concepts on state reading tests). These
were usually completed individually and then checked with
the teacher. Other instruction observed included teachers
reading aloud to students, as well as the implementation of a
“newspaper unit” in which students were observed skimming
newspapers, selecting articles they wanted to read, and independently reading and summarizing the articles. In one class
the teacher implemented Corrective Reading (Engelmann,
Hanner, & Johnson, 1999), a Direct Instruction reading program designed to teach decoding and comprehension skills.
During the observations, instructional time in the typical
practice classrooms was sometimes interrupted so teachers
could focus on behavior management issues. During these
periods, students typically worked independently without
teacher feedback.
groups improved on the Sight Word Efficiency subtest of the
TOWRE, with a small effect size (Eta squared .104). After
correction for conducting multiple comparisons, even this
effect was nonsignificant. Tests of within-subjects effects revealed no time by group (treatment vs. typical practice) interactions that were significant at the .05 level. Effect sizes
on all measures for both groups were small, and some were
negative.
Following this analysis, and to inform hypotheses related
to students’ lack of progress, we conducted correlations between posttest scores on several dependent variables (i.e., the
WJ III Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Spelling, and
Passage Comprehension subtests; TOWRE; oral reading fluency) and the Social Skills and Problem Behavior standard
scores from the SSRS, the hours of intervention received by
treatment group students, English PPVT vocabulary scores,
and Spanish PPVT vocabulary scores. Significant correlations were found between students’ SSRS Social Skills and
WJ III Basic Reading Skills Cluster standard scores (r =
.33; p < .05) and between Problem Behavior and WJ III
Spelling scores (r = .36; p < .05). In addition, significant
correlations were detected between students’ English PPVT
standard scores and their scores on the WJ III Letter-Word
Identification (r = .35; p < .05) and Passage Comprehension
subtests (r = .56; p < .01).
Standard score performance of 93 (the 30th percentile)
or above on the WJ III Basic Reading Skills cluster score
has been widely used as a postintervention benchmark to
determine elementary school students’ adequate response
to intervention (Mathes et al., 2005). This benchmark was
deemed applicable to the population of very low-skilled readers who participated in this study, given the severe deficits
in decoding demonstrated by all participants at pretest.
No student met this benchmark at the beginning of the
study, and only one student in the treatment group and
none in the typical practice group met the benchmark at
posttest.
Fidelity of Implementation
A crucial element of scientifically based research is the verification of fidelity of treatment implementation. Also known
as treatment integrity, fidelity of implementation describes
the intervention in sufficient detail to allow for replication,
and provides confidence that the intervention described was
truly implemented in the research. In this study, each teacher
who provided the research intervention was observed by the
second author three times using a treatment integrity checklist to determine the degree that the intervention was implemented as planned. Treatment integrity was calculated as the
percentage of items on the checklist completed correctly. Average fidelity ratings were between 91% and 98% for both
interventionists.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics were calculated for all pre/post measures for the treatment and typical practice groups. These are
reported in Table 4.
The results of the repeated measures ANOVA revealed
only one statistically significant result at the .05 level, a
main effect for time (pretest to posttest) indicating that both
DISCUSSION
In this study we provided an intervention to older students
with severe reading difficulties who could be characterized
TABLE 4
Performance on Outcome Measures by Group
Treatment (n = 20)
Measure
Woodcock–Johnson III
Basic reading
Passage comprehension
Spelling
TOWRE
Sight words
Oral reading fluency
Typical Practice (n = 18)
Pretest
M (SD)
Posttest
M (SD)
Pretest
M (SD)
Posttest
M (SD)
76.48 (9.29)
65.19 (13.39)
67.19 (14.11)
76.45 (8.13)
62.30 (9.36)
68.00 (10.19)
75.21 (8.18)
67.68 (10.73)
67.37 (8.53)
72.06 (10.22)
64.39 (11.52)
68.78 (9.11)
74.29 (7.08)
59.04 (21.09)
75.35 (6.56)
56.06 (17.91)
70.47 (7.74)
51.20 (22.27)
72.94 (7.97)
47.92 (21.53)
Note. All scores are standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) except for Oral Reading Fluency, which is reported as the number of words read correctly per
minute on a fifth grade level passage; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency; Sight Words = Sight Word Efficiency Subtest.
DENTON ET AL.: MIDDLE SCHOOL READING INTERVENTION
as “minimal responders” to previously provided intervention.
While the quality of this previous instruction is not known,
all of these students had participated in special and remedial
education designed to improve their reading; some had received this intervention for several years. The pretest scores
of students who participated in this study indicated performance more than two standard deviations below the mean in
reading comprehension and spelling and nearly as low in decoding. Students also displayed nearly universally low receptive oral language skills, whether their native language was
English or Spanish, with only 7 of 37 students performing
within one standard deviation of the mean in English vocabulary and only 4 of the 23 for whom Spanish was the dominant language performing at this level in Spanish. Despite
the provision of carefully developed, explicit, and systematic small-group (2–4 students) reading instruction in daily
40-minute sessions over the course of several weeks, treatment students did not demonstrate significantly higher outcomes on any reading measure than students who received the
school’s typical remedial reading or special education reading
instruction.
Perhaps most concerning is that neither group of students demonstrated significant standard score growth over
the course of the study. Because neither group had significant
losses of standard score points on the norm-referenced measures, it appears that they did not lag further behind their peers
at the conclusion of the study. However, it is clear that these
severely impaired readers required intervention that would
accelerate their progress toward closing the gap with their
peers rather than maintain their deficit levels, and neither the
typical practice approach nor the research intervention was
successful in accelerating students’ reading growth. A similar finding has been reported in research on student progress
in special education, indicating that placement in special education tends to stabilize the performance levels of students
with learning disabilities rather than accelerate their progress
(Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998).
The minimal response to intervention of students in this
study may be related to individual, instructional, or contextual factors, interactions between these factors, or any
combination of the above. We examine hypotheses related
to each of these dimensions in the following sections. Finally, we consider the possibility that methodological limitations of this study, including the limited duration of the
intervention, resulted in a failure to detect changes in student
performance.
Student Characteristics
The challenges facing secondary-level students with reading
difficulties are complex and multifaceted. Reading deficits at
this level are often evident in students’ lack of progress on assessments of reading comprehension, but these comprehension deficits may stem from impairments in word recognition, reading fluency, vocabulary, motivation to read, and/or
combinations of these factors (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004).
Older students with reading difficulties may also demonstrate
learned helplessness, a compelling belief that they cannot
be successful at reading or reading-related tasks, prevent-
85
ing students from engaging in these activities (Butkowsky
& Willows, 1980; Chan, 1996; Tsovili, 2004). This lack of
self-efficacy may be demonstrated in problem behaviors that
function to enable a struggling reader to escape a potentially aversive situation (e.g., to avoid humiliation in front
of peers, to relieve the boredom that results from lack of participation in classroom activities; Thomas, 1979). In addition,
many students with learning disabilities demonstrate deficits
in working memory, rapid naming, and metacognitive strategies such as those required for monitoring reading for sense
making and organizing knowledge and concepts derived
from text (Hallahan, Lloyd, Kauffman, Weiss, & Martinez,
2005).
Several of the students in this study had limited English
proficiency. Research related to the development of English
literacy for ELLs suggests that these students have a unique
set of challenges, because they typically must develop both
oracy and literacy in a second language while simultaneously developing their first language. Even though ELLs
in middle school may be able to communicate adequately
in English, the demands for academic language to access
content-area subject matter place particular strain on secondlanguage readers, who may struggle with limited vocabulary knowledge, understanding of syntax, and comprehension of complex sentence and text structures (Francis, Rivera,
Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006). Students with severe reading disabilities who are also ELLs may have any or all of the
characteristics described above, making remediation highly
challenging.
In this study, students’ minimal response to intervention may have been related to a complex pattern of habits,
self-efficacy beliefs, language development, and learning
difficulties. Therefore, students may have made greater
progress with an intervention delivered with greater intensity for a longer period of time and/or with an approach that
was more individualized than the one implemented in this
study.
A student characteristic that may be strongly related to the
minimal responsiveness of students to intervention is low oral
vocabulary. Assessments indicated that students in both the
treatment and typical practice groups almost universally displayed low English receptive oral vocabularies. This pattern
of impaired vocabulary knowledge was likewise observed in
Spanish for nearly all students whose dominant language was
Spanish. There is a strong relationship between oral language
proficiency and reading development both in native English
speakers (Nation & Snowling, 2004; Roth, Speece, & Cooper,
2002) and in students learning to read in a second language
(August & Shanahan, 2006).
Researchers have reported that, in Spanish–English bilingual students in the primary grades, Spanish and English
oral language skills contribute significantly to reading both
within and across languages (Gottardo, 2002; Miller et al.,
2006) and that deficits in first language oral development in
the early grades may constitute a risk factor for later reading
difficulties (Miller et al., 2006). Thus, one possible explanation for the lack of significant effects in this study was a
failure to adequately address oral language development, particularly vocabulary, in the intervention. This hypothesis is
supported by the significant correlations between students’
86
SPECIAL ISSUE: ADOLESCENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES
English vocabulary scores and their posttest scores for the
WJ III Letter-Word Identification and Passage Comprehension subtests. Although the correlation with reading comprehension was expected, it is noteworthy that there was also
a significant relationship between students’ oral vocabulary
levels and word reading skills.
Instructional Factors
Students in this study may have had a stronger response to
intervention that implemented a different instructional approach or instructional materials or if intervention had been
delivered with greater intensity or longer duration. The National Literacy Panel (NLP) on Language-Minority Children
and Youth examined research literature related to reading and
writing instruction for ELLs (August & Shanahan, 2006) and
concluded that ELLs learning to read and write in English
generally benefit from approaches similar to those that have
been found effective with native English speakers, but that
educators may need to adapt or augment these approaches.
Specifically, the NLP report emphasized the essential role
of instruction designed to promote English oral proficiency
to support text-level literacy (i.e., comprehension and writing). Although the ELLs in this study demonstrated severely
impaired word reading skills, they may have had a stronger
response to instruction that placed less emphasis on word
identification skills and more emphasis on vocabulary and
reading comprehension.
Alternately, the focus of the intervention may have been
appropriate, but students may have benefited more if it had
been delivered with greater intensity. Given their very low
performance on multiple measures of reading, it is probable
that students required intensive intervention for more than
the one semester provided in this study.
Instructional intensity is determined by several factors,
including group size, frequency of the intervention schedule (i.e., daily, two times per week), and the extent of active
student engagement during instruction. Students in the treatment condition received daily intervention in small groups,
but they may have benefited from intervention with increased
active time on task. Anecdotal reports from the intervention
teachers indicated that some students frequently exhibited
disruptive and off-task behaviors during the lesson time, observations reflected in teachers’ ratings of students’ social
skills and problem behaviors on the SSRS. The hypothesis
that these behaviors may have affected reading outcomes is
supported by the moderate but positive correlations between
SSRS standard scores and WJ III Basic Reading Skills and
Spelling outcomes. Given the substantial amount of intervention time dedicated to decoding and spelling instruction
and practice for the treatment group, these correlations are
noteworthy.
The length of intervention sessions in this study was determined by the school’s schedule; students were provided
instruction for one 40-minute class period per day. In studies
reporting more robust intervention effects for older students
with severe reading difficulties (Simos et al., 2002; Torgesen
et al., 2001), intervention was provided in reading clinics
with considerably greater intensity. Torgesen and colleagues
provided students in grades 3–5 with nearly 2 hours daily
of intensive one-to-one reading intervention over 8 weeks.
Students in this study made large and significant gains on
standard scores in word attack, word identification, and comprehension, maintaining these gains for 2 years following
the intervention. Similarly, in the context of a brain imaging
study, Simos and colleagues provided intensive intervention
to eight students 7–17 years of age in a reading clinic setting
for about 2 hours per day over an 8-week period. Students’
pretest scores in the WJ III Basic Reading composite ranged
from the 1st to the 18th percentile. After 8 weeks of intervention, posttest standard scores ranged from the 38th to the
60th percentile, and six of the eight students had scores at or
above the mean. These studies did not include students with
limited English proficiency.
Contextual Factors
A variety of socio-cultural factors can affect students’ academic progress, including their socioeconomic status, educational histories, and cultural backgrounds as well as the
degree of alignment between their home and school cultures.
For ELLs, factors such as native language levels of language
and literacy development, length of exposure to English, and
the nature of instruction and support in second language development are likewise important (Francis et al., 2006).
Aspects of the school context can also strongly influence
student progress. In this study, students’ failure to make appreciable progress in reading may be related to their attendance at an underperforming school. Specifically, they may
not have been sufficiently supported or encouraged to implement their newly learned effective reading skills and strategies in settings outside of the reading intervention room.
Summary: Intervention with Minimal Responders
Students in this study had failed to demonstrate adequate
response to previous intervention provided in special education and/or remedial reading settings. Pretest scores indicated intractable reading difficulties that may have been more
successfully addressed with intervention of greater intensity
(i.e., longer sessions, reduced group size, increased active
involvement) and/or longer duration.
Designing and implementing appropriate interventions for
the lowest responders is an understudied area of research.
Layering the low English vocabulary development of these
students (for both native English speakers and ELLs) onto
their reading difficulties provides for additional instructional
needs resulting in a group of students who are very difficult
to remediate. We simply know very little about effective interventions and the amount of time required to influence
these students’ reading outcomes. It may be that considerably more intensive interventions (e.g., 2 hours per day) over
considerably longer amounts of time (e.g., 2 years rather than
13 weeks) are required to improve outcomes. This level of
intervention intensity does not fit easily into existing school
routines, but it is likely that to truly leave no child behind
will require educators to find ways to provide students with
DENTON ET AL.: MIDDLE SCHOOL READING INTERVENTION
the most severe reading difficulties with intervention of this
nature.
87
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded in part by a grant from the Meadows
Foundation to Sharon Vaughn, University of Texas.
Study Limitations
This study was limited by its relatively brief duration and
its small sample size. It is possible that an extended intervention would have produced greater gains. Moreover, the
small sample size and resulting low power may have resulted
in a failure to detect significant group differences. Finally,
although we employed measures with strong psychometric
properties, these tools may not have been appropriate for the
ELLs who constituted much of our sample and may not have
had sufficient sensitivity to growth over time to detect significant changes over the relatively brief study duration, particularly in the low ends of the norm distributions in which our
participants fell. Our results should therefore be interpreted
cautiously.
Implications for Future Research
Ultimately, as emphasized by the NLP (August & Shanahan, 2006), “becoming literate in a second language depends
on the quality of teaching, which is a function of the content coverage, intensity, thoroughness of instruction, how
well learning is monitored, and teacher preparation” (p. 4).
This is equally true for native English speakers with severely
impaired reading. The minimal response to intervention of
students in this study is likely to be the result of complex interactions between individual student, instructional, and contextual factors. What is clear is that the successful remediation of severe reading difficulties in middle school students,
particularly those whose native language is not English and
others with low levels of oral vocabulary, will require more
than simple solutions. Those in search of panaceas or quick
fixes are likely to be disappointed and may do a disservice to
students who are in desperate need of effective intervention.
Francis et al. (2006) suggest that, when designing effective reading instruction for ELLs, it is essential to consider the
function of instruction, distinguishing between intervention
designed to prevent reading difficulties, to augment generally
effective instruction with strategies and approaches shown to
be effective with ELLs, or to remediate reading difficulties
that are already established. Although the research base related to effective intervention with younger struggling readers
is well developed, elements of intervention that have been
found effective for the prevention of reading difficulties in
young children may not be effective for the remediation of
reading difficulties in older students. Even with younger students, there is a general lack of research evidence regarding effective intervention for students who have had minimal
response to previous supplemental intervention. Further, research must directly address features of effective remediation
for middle school students with severe reading difficulties,
particularly for ELLs and for students who have had minimal responsiveness to previously provided quality reading
intervention.
NOTES
1. Carolyn A. Denton, Children’s Learning Institute, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center Houston; Jade Wexler and Sharon Vaughn,
Department of Special Education, University of Texas
at Austin; Deanna Bryan, Vaughn Gross Center for
Reading and Language Arts, University of Texas at
Austin.
2. This research was supported by a grant from the Meadows Foundation.
REFERENCES
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The
research building blocks for teaching children to read (2nd ed.). Jessup,
MD: National Institute for Literacy.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Executive summary: Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy
panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Retrieved June 5, 2007 from http://www.cal.org/natl lit panel/reports/
Executive Summary.pdf.
Beck, I. L., McKeowen, M. G., & Kukan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life:
Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action
and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie
Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in
Education.
Butkowsky, I. S., & Willows, D. M. (1980). Cognitive-motivational characteristics of children varying in reading ability: Evidence for learned
helplessness in poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
408–422.
Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Combined strategy and attributional training for seventh grade average and poor readers. Journal of Research in Reading,
19, 111–127.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on
effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
35, 386–406.
Curtis, M. E., & Longo, A. M. (1999). When adolescents can’t read: Methods
and materials that work. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Dole, J. A., Sloan, C., & Trathen, W. (1995). Teaching vocabulary within the
context of literature. Journal of Reading, 38, 452–460.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd
ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Pearson, Allyn
& Bacon.
Edmonds, M. E., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett,
K., & Wick, J. (in press). A synthesis of reading interventions and
effects on reading outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of
Educational Research.
Ehren, B. J., Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. (2004). Enhancing literacy proficiency with adolescents and young adults. In K. Apel, B. J. Ehren, E.
R. Silliman, & C. A. Stone (Series Eds.) & C. A. SC.A. Stone, E. R.
Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Vol. Eds.), Challenges in language
and literacy; Handbook of language and literacy: Development and
disorders (pp. 680–701). New York: Guilford.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Stahl, S., & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics
instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National
Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71,
393–447.
88
SPECIAL ISSUE: ADOLESCENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES
Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1999). Corrective reading series
guide. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Fletcher, J. M. (2007, February). Overview of the Texas Center for Learning
Disabilities. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference,
San Diego, CA.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2006). Learning
disabilities from identification to intervention. New York: Guilford.
Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006).
Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic
interventions. (Under Cooperative agreeement grant for U.S. Department of Education). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1interventions.pdf.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. (2003). Dynamic indicators of basic early
literacy skills (6th ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship between language and reading skills
in bilingual Spanish-English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders,
22, 46–70.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading.
In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol III, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hallahan, D. P., Lloyd, J. W., Kauffman, J. M., Weiss, M. P., & Martinez,
E. A. (2005). Learning disabilities: Foundations, characteristics, and
effective teaching (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Hansen, D. A. (1989). Locating learning: Second language gains and language use in family, peer and classroom contexts. NABE: The Journal
for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 13, 161–180.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1998). Does special education raise academic achievement for students with disabilities? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 6690, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from http://www.nber.org/
papers/w6690
Jenkins, J. R., Matlock, B., & Slocum, T. A. (1989). Two approaches to
vocabulary instruction: The teaching of individual word meanings and
practice in deriving word meaning from context. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24, 215–235.
Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21 st century.
New York: Alliance for Excellent Education, Carnegie Foundation.
Kennedy, E., & Park, H. S. (1994). Home language as a predictor of academic
achievement: A comparative study of Mexican-and Asian-American
youth. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 188–
194.
Khun, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental
and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use
English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–
293.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.
Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education
reading instruction. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D.
J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different
instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers.
Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Bethesda, MD: Brookes.
Miller, J. F., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., & Francis,
D. J. (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual children. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 30–43.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader
language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of
Research in Reading, 27, 342–356.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 20 USC 6301.
(2002).
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an
R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., & Cooper, D. H. (2002). A longitudinal analysis
of the connection between oral language and early reading. Journal of
Educational Research, 95, 259–272.
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J.,
Reutebuch, C. K., & Torgesen, J. (2007). Reading interventions for
adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for
practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on
Instruction.
Sénéchal, M. (2006). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of reading. Jessup, MD National Institute for
Literacy.
Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, E. M.,
Davis, R. N., et al. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile
becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology,
58, 1203–1213.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Thomas, A. (1979). Learned helplessness and expectancy factors: Implications for research in learning disabilities. Review of Education Research, 49(20), 208–221.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word
Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K.,
Conway, T., et al. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for students
with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes
from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
34, 33–58.
Tsovili, T. D. (2004). The relationship between language teachers’ attitudes
and the state-trait anxiety of adolescents with dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 69–86.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Assessment of Educational Progress, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2005). The nation’s report card, reading. Washington, DC.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
Wilson, B. A. (1998). Wilson reading system. Millbury, MA: Wilson Language Training Corporation.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson
III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
About the Authors
Carolyn A. Denton, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, is an Associate Professor in the Children’s Learning Institute (Department
of Pediatrics) of the University of Texas Health Science Center Houston. She is the author of numerous articles and chapters,
and of two books, The Reading Coach: A How-To Manual for Success (with Hasbrouck; Sopris West) and Responsive Reading
Instruction: Flexible Intervention for Struggling Readers in the Early Grades (with Hocker; Sopris West). Her research interests
include reading intervention at the elementary and middle school levels, response to intervention, and the reading coach in
professional development. She is a coprincipal investigator of the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, funded by the National
Institute for Child Health and Human Development.
DENTON ET AL.: MIDDLE SCHOOL READING INTERVENTION
89
Jade Wexler, Ph.D. is a Research Associate at the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of
Texas at Austin. Currently, she helps coordinate research for the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities. Her research interests
include effective practices for adolescents with reading disabilities and teacher preparation.
Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D., University of Arizona holds the H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Corporation Regents Chair in Human
Development. She was the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Learning Disabilities and the Co-Editor of Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice. She is the recipient of the AERA Special Education SIG distinguished researcher award. She is the
author of numerous books and research articles that address the reading and social outcomes of students with learning difficulties
including, Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom (4th ed.) (with Schumm
& Bos; Allyn & Bacon). She is currently the Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator on several Institute for Education
Science, National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, and Office of Special Education Programs research grants
investigating effective interventions for students with learning disabilities and behavior problems as well as students who are
English language learners.
Deanna W. Bryan is an instructional coach at the University of Texas at Austin. After earning a bachelor’s degree in secondary
special education at the University of Texas in 1995, she went on to teach special education reading at the secondary level for
9.5 years. In 2005 she joined the Vaughn Gross Center as a research intervention teacher and then as an instructional coach.