Laura J. Mead, Karen Burke, Lois Lanning, Jennifer F. Mitchell
Department of Education and Educational Psychology
Western Connecticut State University

Abstract

This study examined the impact of the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies (self-regulating, creating meaningful connections, summarizing, and inferring) on comprehension and selfperception of struggling readers. The study also observed the relationship between the intervention and learning-style processing preferences.

The experimental research design utilized random assignment to group and used quantitative measures to explore the research questions. The 63 participants were identified as struggling readers at one elementary school in an urban school district.

There was a non-significant main effect for each dependent variable. The analyses also indicated no significant interaction between the two levels of the independent variable and students’ processing preference in relation to either dependent variable. Although no significant effects were realized, the experimental group performed as well as the control group on the cognitive measure. The significance of this finding supports the effectiveness of a newly implemented intervention for all types of learners. In light of SRBI and differentiation of instruction the findings support an effective intervention for global learners as well as analytic learners.

Introduction

Research consistently indicates that children who initially succeed in reading rarely regress. Those who fall behind tend to stay behind for the rest of their academic lives (Buly & Valencia, 2002; Burns, Griffin, & Snow, 1999; Juel, 1988; Valencia & Buly, 2004). “According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (U.S. Department of Education, 2006), 36% of fourth graders read below the basic level” (Torgesen et al., 2007, p.vii). There is a distinct need to provide explicit reading interventions to meet the needs of these struggling readers.

In the field of education the teaching of reading has been a subject of heated debate for decades. There has been little agreement with regard to the best approach to reading instruction. One theory proclaims a skills-based approach that emphasizes phonemic instruction will produce the best readers. Another theory argues that the only way students learn how to read is through a literature-based approach that has been associated with whole language. Recent literature has suggested that there can be a compromise between these two schools of thought (Baumann & Ivey, 1997; California Department of Education, 1996; Carbo, 2003; Frey, Lee, Tollefson, Pass, & Massengill, 2005; Honig, 1996; Pressley, 2006).

When the teaching of reading and writing is viewed in a holistic manner, the idea of balanced literacy instruction emerges. Balanced literacy is a comprehensive literacy approach that is not confined to a particular philosophy. Several of the components include but are not limited to reading and writing workshop, interactive reading and writing, read-alouds, accountable talk, and small group instruction. “It is an approach that requires and frees a teacher to be a reflective decision maker and to fine tune and modify what he or she is doing each day in order to meet the needs of each child” (Spiegel, 1998, p. 116). In addition to creating a model with an aspect of balanced components, a balance must be maintained between teacher-directed and learner-directed instruction, explicit and indirect instruction, whole group and small group interactions, and between authentic assessment, high-stakes assessment, and norm-referenced assessment (Au et al., 1997; Spiegel, 1998).

Balanced literacy instruction incorporates the various teaching strategies for skills and comprehension to best meet the needs of individual students. This literacy model permits the flexibility of instruction to address individual learning styles (Baumann & Ivey, 1997; Carbo, 2003). Varied instructional methods, grouping, and activities can better support all learning-style preferences (Dunn, Dunn, & Perrin, 1994). One of the most challenging aspects of balanced literacy is structuring an optimal 150-minute daily literacy block that is fluid and meaningful while incorporating each component effectively in a timely manner (Au, Carroll, & Scheu, 1997).

Struggling readers need more explicit instruction from a knowledgeable teacher to break through the cycle of reading failure. The 4 powerful strategies for struggling readers grades 3-8: Small group instruction that improves comprehension specifically target the following four comprehension strategies used in this investigation: self-regulation, creating meaningful connections, summarizing, and inferring (Lanning, 2009). Allington (2001) espouses to improve reading skills students must read extensively and frequently. The theory of selfefficacy and related studies indicate that with increased academic failures a student’s selfperception rapidly declines (Bandura 1977, 1997; Henk & Melnick, 1995; Schunk, 1984).

The review of research revealed a need for further empirical research to specifically address the comprehension deficits and self-perception of struggling readers in intermediate grades. Research also posited the necessity for alignment between student learning-style preferences and instructional methods. The contention of this research was to determine if the Four Powerful Strategies implemented through the gradual release lesson design (Duke & Pearson, 2002) had the potential to increase reading comprehension, address processing-style differences, and enhance students’ self-perception.

Method

This study examined the impact of the two levels of the independent variable, reading comprehension intervention instruction, (Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies/experimental group and no Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies/control group), on the two dependent variables, reading comprehension and reader selfperception of struggling readers in grades 3, 4, and 5. The moderator variable was learning-style processing preference (analytic or global).

Description of the Setting and the Subjects

Research was conducted at an urban school district in the northeast region of the United States. According to the US Bureau of the Census (2000), the socioeconomic background of the city’s population was low to middle class with a median home income of $53,664. The participating school was one of the most socioeconomically- challenged elementary schools in the district with 64% of the total student population eligible for free and reduced lunch. According to the 2007-2008 Strategic School Profile there was a total minority population of 69% and 58% of the total school population lived in homes where English was not the primary language. One full-time bilingual teacher and one full-time English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher provided services to 36% of the total student population ranging from kindergarten to fifth grade.

The target population was a group of students identified as struggling readers in grades 3, 4, and 5. The total population of struggling readers identified from one elementary school in the district comprised the 63 student participants in this sample. There were 11 staff members who participated in the study. Four staff members (three certified teachers and one instructional aide) were trained in the implementation of the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies and the gradual release lesson design during two six-hour training sessions and monthly follow up professional development sessions throughout the course of the research. The four trained staff members provided instruction for the experimental group of students. Seven staff members (six certified teachers and one instructional aide) were not trained in the implementation of the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies or the gradual release lesson design and conducted traditional small group instructional practices for the control group students.

Procedure

The researcher provided the four treatment instructors with two six-hour training sessions. The training included a copy of the book 4 powerful strategies for struggling readers grades 3-8: Small group instruction that improves comprehension (Lanning, 2009), a comprehensive resource binder, activities to review current research on strategy instruction and theoretical background related to the intervention, step-bystep process of the gradual release lesson design, and practice evaluating the teaching of the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies using a gradual release lesson design. At the conclusion of each training session the participants provided feedback used to modify future professional development sessions for the entire group, small groups, and individuals. Follow-up professional development occurred at least monthly for the duration of the treatment.

The Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies identifies the following four essential comprehension strategies: summarizing, creating meaningful connections, self-regulating, and inferring. Each strategy has an accompanying set of supporting skills, which often overlap (Lanning, 2009). The gradual release lesson design delineates Pearson and Gallagher’s (1983) gradual release of responsibility model into a step-by-step process in which teachers are able to plan deliberate instruction at each phase of the release.

In this process the teacher will:

1. Give an explicit description of the strategy and when it should be used;
2. Model the strategy in action;
3. Collaboratively use the strategy in action;
4. Guide practice using the strategy with gradual release of responsibility; and
5. Allow the student independent use of the strategy (Duke & Pearson, 2002).

Trained teachers implemented the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies for 30 minutes a day, 4 times a week for 14 weeks. To ensure accurate implementation, the researcher monitored lessons using a tailored observation form (Lanning, 2009, pp. 143-148), provided written feedback, and conferred with each treatment teacher throughout the 14 weeks. Each teacher provided instruction for all four strategies and several skills over the course of the study. To track the strategies and skills covered, the teachers in the experimental group used the matrix from 4 Powerful Strategies for Struggling Readers Grades 3-8: Small Group Instruction that Improves Comprehension (Lanning, 2009, p. 8). The course of instruction and the order in which the strategies were taught varied from teacher to teacher based upon student need in each group.

Conversely, the focus for the control group students varied between each instructional group and the gradual release lesson design was not utilized as the method of instruction. However, students in the control group were exposed to similar conditions; small-group instruction that occurred 30 minutes daily, 4 times a week for the same14 weeks. Staff members who taught students in the control group were familiar with the materials and knowledgeable of the methods of instruction. Materials ranged from a variety of trade books to leveled commercial resources. Instruction for control group students was predominantly teacher-directed utilizing a calland- response method and isolated skills instruction.

Research touts explicit instruction and guided practice as the most effective methods to ensure comprehension (Duffy et al., 1987; Duke & Pearson, 2002, Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Each lesson conducted using the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies intervention was predicated on the gradual release lesson design (Duke & Pearson, 2002). The design included explicit explanation and teaching of the strategy and underlying skill along with guided practice that allowed greater student responsibility. Guided practice provided the critical step to ensure appropriate use of each of the four strategies and the integration of strategies; the teacher provided corrective action and appropriate scaffolding techniques when observing students using each strategy in the small group. Students and teachers must be confident in their respective roles to best promote transfer of learning to a new situation (Bigge & Shermis, 2004).

Finally, data for the cognitive measure were collected using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, & Dreyer, 2000) for the achievement measure. The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) (Henk & Melnick, 1995) was used for the affective measure. RSPS pretest scores were analyzed to determine that there were no initial differences between group means. The Elementary Learning Style Assessment (Dunn, Rundle, & Burke, 2007) was administered to all student participants to identify each student’s learning-style processing preference (analytic and global) according to the Dunn and Dunn Learning-Styles Model.

Learning-Style Processing Preference

This investigation was concerned with the psychological processing styles of global and analytic as determined by the Elementary Learning Style Assessment. A learner who prefers information presented in an anecdotal manner that initially imparts the “big picture” through stories that can be self-related characterizes the global processing style. Global learners generally prefer to work with a small group in an informal setting with low light. A learner who prefers a step-bystep methodology with specific grading criteria and concise feedback, characterizes the analytic processing style. The analytic learner usually prefers to work alone in a formal setting with bright light. An integrated processing style indicates that a learner utilizes both types of reasoning (Burke, 2003).

Description of the Research Design

The experimental research design utilized a stratified random assignment to form the two groups (experimental and control) and used quantitative measures to explore the research questions using an equivalent group design for both dependent variables. The independent variable was reading comprehension intervention instruction with two levels: (a) students who received instruction using the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies and (b) students who did not receive instruction using the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies. The moderator variable was learning-style processing preference. The two dependent variables were reading comprehension achievement and reader self-perception.

Results

Two-way ANOVAs (p ≤ .025) were conducted to determine a main effect for group (experimental and control) for each dependent variable. Data also were analyzed to determine an interaction effect between the independent variable and processing-preference in relation to each of the dependent variables.

These statistical procedures determined there was a non-significant main effect between group means of the experimental group (M = 467.97, SD = 26.19) and the control group (M = 469.58, SD = 25.44) for reading comprehension F(1, 56) = .068, p = .795, η2 = .001. Also, there was no significant difference between group means of the experimental group (M = 121.48, SD = 16.18) and the control group (M = 113.52, SD = 15.832) for the affective dependent variable (reader self-perception) F(1, 56) = 2.119, p = .151, η2 = .036. In addition, the results indicated no significant interaction between the two independent variables in relation to either of the cognitive F(1, 50) = .012, p = .914,  η2 = .000 or affective F(1, 56) = 2.119, p = .151, η2 = .036 variables. The statistic indicated that global or analytic learners did not perform differently when exposed to either the experimental or control conditions. Although the analyses indicated no statistical significant differences, Table 1 and Table 2 show the mean scores for experimental students identified as having a global processing preference were higher than the experimental students identified as having an analytic processing preference for both the cognitive and affective measures. This finding illustrated the positive impact that the experimental intervention had on global learners.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Comprehension Extended Scale Scores

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Reader Self-Perception Scale Posttest Scores

Discussion

The Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies (self-regulation, creating meaningful connections, summarizing, and inferring) used as an intervention exemplified the ideology of Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development and teaching for transfer (Bigge & Shermis, 2004; Marini & Genereux, 1995). This study supported the assertion that the explicit instruction of a few powerful comprehension strategies, in a gradual release lesson design, would promote transfer of strategy use to new learning situations. The results indicated that the experimental intervention was equally effective for all learners and as effective as the alternative instructional methods.

Implications

This study provided support for the implementation of the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies within a balanced literacy model as an effective intervention for students in grades 3, 4, and 5. The findings represented by the data showed no significant difference in mean scores, but suggested that students who received the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies performed as well as and in the case of integrated learners better on the cognitive measure than their control group counterparts. The findings also indicated the experimental conditions were equally effective for all processing preferences; experimental students identified with global and integrated processing preferences scored slightly higher than students identified with an analytic processing preference. This finding is of interest because a majority of elementary students exhibit a global learning style, but are frequently taught in an analytic manner. The data showed similar findings for the affective measure; global students in the experimental group scored the highest overall score on the Reader Self-Perception Scale.

Response to Intervention

In light of Response to Intervention (RTI), districts nationwide are striving to provide staff with research-based interventions that are manageable to implement and cost-effective. All aspects of the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies are research based (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Lanning, 2009; Pressley, 2006). Professional development can be site-based utilizing resident experts in comprehension instruction. The parameters of the instruction (30 minutes a day, 4 times a week) coincide with RTI expectations. The Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies intervention is not curriculum specific and would complement individual district’s curriculum, materials, and resources. The flexibility of the instruction allows teachers to engage students by choosing a variety of texts of high interest and motivation.

Strategy Instruction for All Texts

The National Reading Panel (NICHHD, 2000) has suggested the need for strategy instruction that is effective for both narrative and expository texts. The strategies and skills presented in the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies are appropriate for either narrative or expository texts and a variety of genres. The National Reading Panel (NICHHD, 2000) also advocated for a variety of procedures to instruct educators in how to use effective comprehension strategies. The step-by-step process of the gradual release lesson design is a critical component for teaching comprehension. Also, it is imperative for teachers to have a comprehensive understanding of the terms strategy and skill. A strategy is a systematic plan consciously adapted and monitored to improve one’s performance in learning (Harris & Hodges, 1995). A skill refers to the parts of acts that are primarily intellectual (Harris & Hodges, 1995). The gradual release lesson design and the discrete teaching of strategies and skills are the mainstay of the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies intervention.

Core Programs Versus Supplemental Support

Dewitz, Jones and Leahy, (2009) informed schools and districts of significant gaps for a multitude of learners in commercially purchased core programs. Many schools use core programs as the sole vehicle for literacy instruction. However, in each of the reviewed core programs, strategy instruction was evaluated as having breadth but not depth. The core programs were viewed as particularly detrimental to struggling readers; over 51 disconnected skills and strategies were coded for five different programs, the terms strategy and skill were often used interchangeably, and there was little to no guided practice or release of responsibility to the student.

The Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies provides supplemental instruction to support struggling readers with explicit instruction using a variety of texts and genres. A noticeable overlap exists in each of the four strategies because comprehension is often attained through many of the same skill sets for the use of the various strategies. Therefore, it is critical for students to understand the difference between strategies and skills, when and how they are used, and that the same skills can be applied with a different focus for each strategy. Lanning’s (2009) book, 4 Powerful Strategies for Struggling Readers Grades 3-8: Small Group Instruction that Improves Comprehension, provides distinct definitions for each term. The definitions of strategies and skills are supported and modeled throughout the book. In addition, the professional development sessions throughout this study continually emphasized the importance of the distinction between these two terms and how to effectively communicate the difference to students.

Implementation Dip

A critical implication of which researchers and practitioners should be cognizant is the implementation dip of a new intervention. Michael Fullen described the implementation dip as “a dip in performance and confidence as one encounters an innovation that requires new skills and new understandings” (2001, p. 124). There are two significant problems faced during a change such as learning a new instructional method: (a) the social-psychological fear of the change itself, and (b) not knowing how to use the new method well enough to make the change work (Fullen, 2001). Adult participants teaching the experimental group expressed these concerns. However, the school was engaged in a process of transformation and viewed the study as an opportunity for professional growth. Using the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies as an intervention tool for the first time required developing new pedagogical skills for instruction and a new understanding of the comprehension process. The implementation dip may explain the cognitive results for the experimental group. Nevertheless, the experimental group performed as well as, and in some cases better than, students in the control group.

Fullen’s ideas were realized in this study when the teachers and principal of a second school that had initially been part of the investigation distinctly expressed the social-psychological fear of change. Ultimately the school withdrew from the study.

Embedded Professional Development

Finally, the individualized and embedded professional development provided the experimental teaching staff with a new pedagogical foundation. The four adult participants who taught the students in the experimental group received intensive short-term training. Professional development sessions based upon the needs of the adult learners were scheduled throughout the 14- week treatment. The results indicated that in a relatively short period of time, the newly introduced intervention was as effective as the traditional instructional strategies that were routine to staff and students. Although no statistical significant difference was realized, the students in the experimental group performed as well as, and in some cases better than, students in the control group. This finding is especially encouraging when considering that strategy instruction “is extremely time intensive, with effects often taking months to occur” (Dole et al., 1996, p. 66).

Summary

This study coupled the theoretical foundations for effective strategy instruction with a practical approach to implement an effective intervention. The data yielded results that indicated the treatment was an effective instructional approach for a variety of learning styles and supported reader self-perceptions. Although no statistical significance was realized, students who received instruction using the experimental intervention scored as well as and in some cases better than students who received alternative methods of reading intervention. This is a substantial finding because the alternative instructional methods were familiar practices historically implemented by teachers to promote comprehension in the upper elementary grades. The fact that the Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies was a new intervention implemented over a 14-week period and had an immediate impact showed promise for continued use and refinement. In addition, all teachers trained in the process expressed the benefits that they believed students yielded that the data did not measure. Many of the students in the experimental group began asking thought-provoking questions and engaging in conversation about the texts with one another without being prompted as the treatment progressed.

Instruction is often delivered in an analytic step-by-step method. It is imperative to find interventions for struggling readers that appeal to all types of learning styles. The Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies instructional practices were conducive to both global and analytic learning styles. The intervention yielded positive results for students who exhibited a global and integrated learning style. Global and integrated learners often need a “big picture” view or holistic manner of instruction. The emphasis on creating meaningful connections and inferring through extensive conversations between students to grasp the meaning of the text at a deeper level was advantageous for the global and integrated learners. Global learners in the experimental group also exhibited a more positive selfperception of themselves at the conclusion of the investigation.

A wealth of information exists on reading comprehension instruction. A variety of authors have provided lists and the theoretical principles on which the lists are founded. Questions remain about which strategies work best, in what combination, and for whom. The Four Powerful Comprehension Strategies used in this study provided a step toward creating practical application information combining a variety of research-based practices.

References

Allington, R. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Longman.

Au, K., Carroll, J., & Scheu, J. (1997). Balanced literacy instruction: A teacher’s resource book. Norwood, NJ: Christopher Gordon.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Baumann, J., & Ivey, G. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for curricular and instructional equilibriums in a second-grade literature/strategy-based classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 244-275.

Bigge, M. L., & Shermis, S. S. (2004). Learning theories for teachers (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Buly, M., & Valencia, S. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219-239.

Burke, K. (2003). Research on processing style: Step-by-step toward a broader perspective. In R. Dunn & S. Griggs (Eds.), Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn learning-style model research: Who, what, when, where, and so what? (pp. 45-47), Jamaica, NY: St. John’s University.

Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

California Department of Education (1996). Teaching reading: A balanced comprehensive approach to teaching reading in prekindergarten through grade three. (Reading Program Advisory Publication No. 95812-0271). Sacramento, CA: Author.

Carbo, M. (2003). Achieving with struggling readers. Principal, 83(2), 20-24.

Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102-126.

Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62-88.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368.

Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205- 242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Perrin, J. (1994). Teaching young children through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades k-2. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Dunn, R., Rundle, S. M., & Burke, K. (2007). Elementary learning styles assessment: Research and implementation manual. Retrieved January 20, 2010 from www.learningstyles.net.

Frey, B., Lee, S., Tollefson, N., Pass, L., & Massengill, D. (2005). Balanced literacy in an urban school district. Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 272-280.

Fullen, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470-482.

Honig, W. (1996). Teaching our children to read: The role of skills in a comprehensive reading program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447.

Lanning, L. (2009). 4 powerful strategies for struggling readers grades 3-8: Small group instruction that improves comprehension. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests: Directions for administration (4th ed.). New York, NY: Riverside Publishing.

Marini, A., & Genereux, R. (1995). The challenge of teaching for transfer. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 1-19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Retrieved September 20, 2009 from Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1159-1169.

Strategic School Profile, 2007-2008 for the Danbury Public School District. Connecticut State Department of Education. Hartford, CT. Retrieved January 20, 2010 from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/site/default.asp.

Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., & Haan, C. (2007). National assessment of title I: Final report: Volume II: Closing the reading gap: Findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers (NCEE 2008-4013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved May 15, 2009 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084013.pdf.

Valencia, S. W., & Buly, M. R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520-531.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Census report. Retrieved August 20, 2009 from http://www.ct.gov/ecd/cwp/view.asp?A=1106&Q=250616

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Diana Sisson and Betsy Sisson
Connecticut Association for Reading Research

Abstract

Federal legislators enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2004 and introduced a new method of academic intervention known as Response to Intervention (RtI) which marked a turning point in special education policy, shifting the focus from accessibility to accountability. Commonly viewed as a reaction to excessive misdiagnoses of students with learning disabilities, RtI represents the culmination of decades of research and advocacy. Connecticut has devised its own model referred to as scientific research-based interventions, or SRBI. Recognizing that this policy is grounded in the work of special education but with broad ramifications on the teaching and learning of all students, the Connecticut Association for Reading Research will be conducting a study on the SRBI model in Connecticut.

Response to Intervention: A Review of the Literature

Emerging from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Response to Intervention (RtI) represents a national paradigm shift in how schools identify children with handicapping conditions, restructuring the delivery of classroom instruction, assessment, and intervention support services to align with research and scientifically-supported practices. Students with learning disabilities (LD) comprise the greatest proportion of handicapped students, but with approximately 80% of students classified as LD also being described as reading disabled (Lyon, 1995), RtI has broad implications not just for the field of special education but also for general education and reading professionals.

Historical Influences

Although RtI represents a federal policy that ostensibly originated in 2004, its roots in American education go much deeper. From as early as the late nineteenth century, psychologists and researchers (e.g., Huey 1908/1968; Orton, 1925) began to study the cognitive processes of reading using scientific experimentation (Berninger, 2006; Reed & Myer, 2007; Smith, 2002), and by the middle of the twentieth century, behavioral psychologists were focusing their research on data analysis and its applications for problem solving in social contexts. Eventually their scope expanded to include monitoring and collecting data on school-based interventions and the impact the instructional setting has on student outcomes (Wright, 2007).

Within this time of developing an understanding of academic achievement and the role interventions play in that process, concerned parents of students who exhibited persistent learning difficulties attended a conference in 1963. Believing that their children were failing to receive appropriate educational services, they approached the keynote speaker, Samuel Kirk, a pioneer in special education. Explaining their desire to form a national organization to advocate for the rights of their children, they sought his advice for a name that would define their cause. Although Kirk did not favor labels, he suggested the designation of “learning disabilities.” Under this umbrella term, these parents united with formidable political influence and set out to achieve legislation that would ensure free and appropriate education (FAPE) for all handicapped children (Berninger, 2006; Hallahan & Mercer, 2001; Kirk, 1976).

RtI in the Context of Federal Policy

The first federal legislation addressing the needs of special education students came with the passage in 1975 of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), later re-codified as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which required public schools to provide equal access to education for children with physical and mental disabilities. Nonetheless, it created problematic situations by failing to delineate specific qualification criteria. Most states complied with the law by adopting the IQ-achievement discrepancy model which identified learning disabled students based on a significant incongruity between IQ and achievement test scores (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).

The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1977 preserved the traditional definition of a learning disability as “a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability” (U.S. Department of Education, 1977, p. G1082), effectively institutionalizing the discrepancy model. This criterion would shape identification approaches for the next 30 years.

Despite the work of the federal government to improve services to all students, the landmark report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (The National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), condemned American schools for not providing quality education and suggested that the country hovered on the precipice of failure. This indictment set in motion the accountability movement that has pervaded national discourse and legislative policy for decades.

Through numerous reauthorizations and amendments (i.e., 1983, 1986, 1990), federal policymakers retained their emphasis on access to education for disabled students (Hardman, 2006). Meanwhile, concern was growing. Over the course of the two decades of this historic legislation, students classified as learning disabled increased by a startling 200% (Vaughn, Linan- Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) with 12% to 14% of American students currently receiving some form of special education services (Hall, 2008). Of these students, 52% to 70% who were identified at the school level fail to meet state and federal eligibility (Gresham, 2001).

The 1997 amendments to IDEA legislation marked a turning point in special education policy, moving from a focus on accessibility to education to accountability for results (Hardman, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Fueled by this perceived lack of accountability to meet the needs of all students, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001, surpassing the tenets of IDEA and usurping state and local autonomy. This legislation demanded the same learning outcomes for all students – regardless of disability.

Building on NCLB’s focus on accountability and scientifically-based decision making (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 responded to concerns over misdiagnosis of students with learning disabilities and encouraged states to discard the discrepancy model. The legislation also instituted four main recommendations. First, IQ testing should not be used as the sole criterion for classification. Second, classroom instructional practices should be research based. Third, appropriate instruction relevant to the needs of students must be documented. Fourth, fifteen percent of IDEA funds could be allocated to provide services to students before they are identified with a disability (Hall, 2008; Holdnack & Weiss, 2006; Wright, 2007). Regulations followed in 2006 that strengthened the 2004 position by permitting states to disallow the discrepancy model but requiring them to implement scientifically-based research interventions.

In reflecting on this issue of identifying students with learning disabilities, Frank Gresham (1991), a noted psychologist working in the field of special education, had referred to students who did not respond positively to supports as “resistant to intervention.” During the 2001 LD Summit, he suggested the “children who fail to respond to empirically validated treatments implemented with integrity might be identified as LD” (Gresham, 2002, p. 499). By 2004, the term “resistant to intervention” was altered to the more positive “response to intervention,” and a new policy found its name.

Putting the Framework in Place

The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) defines Response to Intervention as “a practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals and applying child response data to important educational decisions (NASDSE, 2006, p. 3). Although legislated by the federal government and defined by the field of special education, two identifiable groups advocated for its implementation – behaviorallyoriented school psychologists and early reading researchers (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).

Agreeing on the need to revise current policies and to eliminate the IQ-discrepancy model, behaviorally-oriented school psychologists and early reading researchers differ on how RtI should be implemented. Early reading researchers espouse the notion of following a standard treatment protocol. Although implemented in various forms, one common format is providing group interventions which are based on common student referral concerns and operate outside of the classroom, such as those found in school-based tutoring programs. For example, schools offering interventions that provide the same generic remediation for all referred students exemplify this protocol. While the standard treatment protocol is efficient and can service large numbers of students, it is difficult to customize the group interventions specific to the needs of individual students (Wright, 2007). In contrast, the psychology field promotes the problem-solving model which is based on the scientific model of inquiry and operates within the classroom to offer targeted interventions for individual students. For instance, classroom teachers provide individualized support based on their direct knowledge of each student’s unique needs. This model offers a more individualized approach but requires much more planning, preparation, and resources (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Hale, Kaufman, Naglieri, Kavale, 2006; Wright, 2007). At this juncture, the problem-solving model is the most commonly used approach.

Features of RtI

As an evolving model, there are differing views of the central features of RtI, however, a common thread runs throughout the literature. Predominantly implemented in a sequential, linear pattern, RtI includes the following recognized components.

• Multiple tiers of research-supported interventions: This is one of the principle components of RtI and is based on the public health model of increasingly more intensive interventions for those not responding to general methods. Although there is no set number of tiers, RtI commonly contains three levels of intervention (Davis, Lindo, & Compton, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2008; Sugai & Homer, 2006). Tier I typically involves universal screenings for all students and progress monitoring for classroom-based interventions. Students move to Tier II if they are not successful in Tier I and begin to receive supplementary instruction in small groups with frequent progress monitoring. Tier III is characterized by more intensive and more regular interventions with additional progress monitoring in small groups or individually for those students who did not respond in previous tiers. Although students may be referred for special education evaluation at any juncture of this model, they are generally referred if Tier III is unsuccessful for their needs (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2005; Burns, 2008).
• Universal screenings: The first step in prevention, universal screenings, identifies students who are at risk in general education (Tier I). Screenings typically occur three times a year, focus on targeted skills, and should be predictive of later reading outcomes. Student performance results are compared to benchmark expectations, and students who fail to meet those benchmarks may receive additional intervention support in Tier II (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008).
• Progress monitoring: A critical aspect of accountability, progress monitoring involves evaluating student performance toward a targeted goal. The frequency of the monitoring process fluctuates based on student needs, and it forms part of the data analysis to determine whether students should move to another tier of intervention (Cummings, Atkins, Allison, & Cole, 2008; Wedl, 2005). For example, a student in Tier II might be assessed on a weekly basis to determine if appropriate progress is being made. If the student is responding to the intervention, then progress monitoring would indicate continued support in Tier II, or perhaps, if substantial progress is demonstrated, a move back to Tier I. On the other hand, if the student’s assessments do not illustrate the student is responsive, then progress monitoring would suggest a possible move to Tier III for more frequent interventions at a greater intensity of support.
• Data-based decision making: This permits progress monitoring to be documented and analyzed. The data is then used to make informed decisions regarding moving students among the tiers, altering frequency and intensity of interventions, and determining when students meet exit criteria (Hall, 2008; Wedl, 2005; Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). · Staff development: Building staff capacity is a crucial component to the effectiveness of an RtI model. It should encompass an explanation of the rationale for RtI as well as provide ongoing support and guidance for implementation practices (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008; Danielson, Doolittle, & Bradley, 2007; Hall, 2008; McEneaney, Lose, & Schwartz, 2006).

The International Reading Association Weighs In Having recently formed the IRA Commission on RtI, the International Reading Association released a working draft, suggesting that RtI is a “comprehensive, systemic approach to teaching and learning designed to address language and literacy problems for all students through increasingly differentiated and intensified language and literacy assessment and instruction (“IRA Commission on RtI,” 2009, p. 4). The draft also recommends that reading professionals be active participants in the process and offers six interrelated principles to assist its members in implementing this framework: 1) instruction that optimizes learning, 2) responsive teaching and differentiation, 3) assessment that informs instruction, 4) collaboration, 5) systemic and comprehensive instruction and assessment for all K-12 students, and 6) expertise from teachers and other professionals prepared to teach language and literacy.

Connecticut Transforms RtI into SRBI

A recent survey found that approximately 86% of states are currently developing or implementing RtI in some form to address the needs of their students (Hoover, Baca, Wexler- Love, Saenz, 2008). Connecticut is no exception. Previous state testing results had indicated significant areas of concern: students who entered kindergarten lacked expected literacy skills, reading scores on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT), the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were flat, and English language learners and students with disabilities continued to perform at low levels (Costello, 2008).

In an effort to improve education for all students as well as specifically to attend to the needs of under-performing students, Connecticut formed an RtI advisory panel in 2006 who developed a model referred to as “scientific research-based interventions (SRBI) to emphasize the central role of general education in the intervention process and the importance of educational practices that are scientific and research-based” (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2008, p. 2). The term was selected because “RtI models are dependent on interventions in which evidence is available to attest to their effectiveness” (Costello, 2008, p. 4), and Connecticut’s SRBI model is not forced to operate within such parameters.

In 2007, Connecticut awarded Bristol, Greenwich, and Waterbury three-year grants to develop best practice sites for the SRBI model. Designed to partner with other school districts as they began the implementation process, these school districts agreed to undertake SRBI prior to the state’s full-scale implementation plan. Meanwhile, the state continued to work on their vision of RtI and in 2008 released their executive summary of SRBI (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2008). Similar to other models, the three tiers of intervention create a comprehensive system of structured supports with increasing intensity and individualized services with special education evaluations occurring commonly in Tier III but theoretically at any tier (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Connecticut’s SRBI moel delineating tiered intervention levels.

Next Steps: CARR Investigates

Recognizing the significant restructuring of schooling undertaken by Connecticut’s SRBI model, the Connecticut Association for Reading Research (CARR) is conducting a three-year research study into its implementation process. Over the course of the coming months, researchers will be meeting with focus groups, conducting interviews, and analyzing participant surveys in an effort to describe the performance of the SRBI model within schools and districts across the state. These data should yield a comprehensive report on the status of reform and its implications on teaching and learning in Connecticut.

References

Barnes, A. C., & Herlacher, J. E. (2008). Clearing the confusion: Response-to-intervention as a set of principles. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 417-431.

Berninger, V. W. (2006). Research-supported ideas for implementing reauthorized IDEA with intelligent professional psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 781-796.

Burns, M. (2008, April). The importance of core instruction in the development of multi-tiered interventions. PowerPoint presented at the RtI Training Series 2008: District Consortium, Cromwell, Connecticut.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 485-486.

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2008). Using scientific research-based interventions: Improving education for all students. Connecticut’s framework for RtI – February 2008 executive summary. Hartford, CT: Author.

Costello, K. A. (2008). Connecticut’s response to intervention (RtI) model: A status report. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from National Center on Response to Intervention: RtI State Database Web site: http://state.rti4success. org/index.php?option=com_state& stateId=110

Cummings, K. D., Atkins, T., Allison, R., & Cole, C. (2008). Response to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4), 24- 31.

Danielson, L., Doolittle, J., & Bradley, R. (2007). Professional development, capacity building, and research needs: Critical issues for response to intervention implementation. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 632-637.

Davis, G. N., Lindo, E. J., & Compton, D. L. (2007). Children at risk for reading failure. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 32- 37.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Implementing RtI. District Administration, 44(11), 72-76.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Implementing responsiveness-to-intervention to identify learning disabilities. Perspectives on Dyslexia, 32, 39-43.

Gresham, F.M. (1991). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to intervention. School Psychology Review, 20, 23-36.

Gresham, F. M. (2001). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit, Washington, D. C.

Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 753-770.

Hall, S. L. (2008). Implementing response to intervention: A principals’ guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2001). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 1-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hardman, M. L. (2006). Outlook of special education policy. Focus on Exceptional Children, 38(8), 2-8.

Holdnack, J. A., & Weiss, L. G. (2006). IDEA 2004: Anticipated implications for clinical practice – integrating assessment and intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 871-882.

Hoover, J. J., Baca, L., Wexler-Love, E., & Saenz, L. (2008). National implementation of response to intervention (RtI): Research summary. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, BUENO Center-School of Education.

Huey, E. B. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1908).

IRA Commission on RtI: Working draft of guiding principles. (2009, February/March). Reading Today, 26(4), 1-6.

Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582-600.

Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, J. M., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFever, G. B. (2008). Response-tointervention: Separating the rhetoric of selfcongratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(3), 135-150.

Kirk, S. A. (1976). Samuel A. Kirk. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Teaching children with learning disabilities: Personal perspectives (pp. 239-269). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10(suppl. 1), S120-S126.

McEneaney, J. E., Lose, M. K., & Schwartz, R. M. (2006). A transactional perspective on reading difficulties and response to intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 117-128. Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RtI: A practitioner’s guide to implementing response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mesmer, E. M., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2008). Response to intervention (RtI): What teachers of reading need to know. Reading Teacher, 62(4), 280-290.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Orton, S. T. (1925). “Word-blindness” in school children. Archives of Neurology and Psychology, 14, 581-615.

Reed, J. B., & Meyer, R. J. (2007). Edmund Burke Huey (1870-1913). In S. E. Israel, & E. J. Monaghan (Eds.), Shaping the reading field: The impact of early reading pioneers, scientific research, and progressive ideas (pp. 159-175). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Smith, N. B. (2002). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Sugai, G., & Homer, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-aide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245-259.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Education. (1977). 1977 code of federal regulations. Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Education. (2009). Special education & rehabilitation services archived:A 25 year history of the IDEA archived information. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html

Wedl, R. J. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative to traditional eligibility criteria for students with disabilities. St. Paul, MN: Hamline University, Center for Policy Studies.

Wright, J. (2007). RtI toolkit: A practical guide for schools. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-409.

Zirkel, P. A., & Krohn, N. (2008). RtI after IDEA: A survey of state laws. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 71-73.

Julia Kara-Soteriou, Catherine Kurkjian
Co-chairs of CARR Research Committee

This Connecticut Association for Reading Research (CARR) investigation focuses on what reading scholars refer to as New Literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004) of the Internet and other information and communication technologies. Educators in Connecticut are expected to be teaching their students new literacies skills, including how to assess online resources, how to follow copyright and citation rules, how to demonstrate appropriate network etiquette, and how to use technology to conduct research and communicate information and ideas (Connecticut State Board of Education, 2004; Connecticut State Department of Education, 2006). The purpose of this study was to investigate how high school teachers, who teach in the areas of English, reading/language arts, remedial reading, social studies, and technology education, as well as librarians and media specialists, understand and apply the new literacies. The overall goal of the study is to inform public policy in light of the Connecticut State Department of Education’s published position statement on educational technology and information literacy (CSBE, 2004), as well as the Department’s framework on information and technology literacy (CSDE, 2006) and the increased use of technology by students in and out of school (Levin & Arafeh, 2002).

The Approach

To assess teachers’ understanding and implementation of new literacies, a survey was developed by the CARR research committee with the assistance of experts in the field of reading and the new literacies. The survey was posted online and was available to participants in a paper format, as well.

A randomly selected stratified sample of 1476 participants was selected from a population of 3955 Connecticut high school teachers (grades 9-12). The participants were assigned in three groups, based on their areas of expertise: Group 1 consisted of English teachers, reading/language arts consultants, and remedial reading teachers; group 2 consisted of social studies teachers; and group 3 consisted of librarians, media specialists, and technology education teachers. A total of 465 participants (or 31.5% of the sample) returned the survey. Group 1 represented 49.0% of the sample (versus 53.7% of the population), group 2 represented 28.1% of the sample (versus 30% of the population), and group 3 represented 22.8% of the sample (versus 16.3% of the population).

The collected data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative analysis procedures. In particular, the data analysis focused on how proficient teachers felt they were with the use of certain technologies inside and outside their classrooms, how much access to technology teachers had in their schools, what teachers thought about past professional development as it related to the integration of literacy and technology, what teachers expected from future professional development, and what the teachers’ educational background was with respect to literacy, technology, and the new literacies.

Recommendations for Stakeholders

Based on the results of this investigation and the recommendations made by several professional organizations in the field (i.e., International Reading Association/National Council of Teachers of English, 1996; International Society for Technology in Education, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c), the Connecticut Association for Reading Research offers the following recommendations to the Connecticut State Department of Education and other policymakers, school districts, principals, and other educators, as well as universities that prepare pre- and inservice teachers:

State Department of Education and Other Policymakers

• Offer complete and varied types of support to help school districts, schools, and teachers to ensure that they meet the expectations of the Connecticut State Department of Education with respect to educational technology and information literacy (CSBE, 2004; CSDE, 2006).
• Legislate policies and create funding that support rather than deter teaching, learning, and assessing of technological and new literacies. This may involve a rethinking of the curriculum and what it means to be literate in an informational age, as well as a consideration of the impact that high stakes assessment may have in preparing students for their technological literacy futures.
• Allow for transparent and seamless integration of technology and new literacies in the curriculum through the appropriation of resources and funding. This includes, but goes beyond ready access to computers and technological equipment, and entails securing money for:
  • Sufficient and timely technical support;
  • Management and maintenance of equipment;
  • Support personnel who will engage in collaborative and instructional projects to support the curriculum; and
  • Professional development that addresses ongoing developmental needs during the course of teachers’ careers.

School Districts, Principals, and Other Educators

Curriculum, organizational, and instructional/ assessment structures should be in place or strengthened to support the learning, teaching, and assessment of technology and new literacies. These structures should include a school/district technology plan that is integral to the curriculum and should promote higher academic learning that incorporates new literacies. The development of this plan should comply with federal and state mandates to include key stakeholders and articulate a vision of technology that should include new literacies in a way that is integral to subject areas and overall curriculum. This plan should also incorporate ongoing program evaluation and learning outcome assessments.

As part of a school-wide technology plan, district/school administrators should actively support teachers in a collaborative endeavor to teach the new literacies by creating supportive forums, such as flexible scheduling for team teaching and shared planning, and structures that facilitate teacher collaboration, including time for teachers to help each other develop the new skills, plan, experiment, and teach/assess new literacies skills. Financial support or other incentives to take graduate or non-credit courses with a focus on new literacies, as well as technology and foundational literacies, should be provided to help teachers acquire the technology or literacy instruction skills they are lacking due to a limited educational background in the areas of concern. More specifically, school districts, principals, and other educators should:

• Provide access to courses with a focus on the development of technology skills, particularly for English/reading/language arts and social studies teachers whose technology background is not as strong as the librarians/media specialists and the technology education teachers.
• Provide access to courses on the foundational literacies, as well as the instruction of the new literacies in relation to both technology and the traditional/ foundational literacies, particularly for social studies teachers, librarians, media specialists, and technology education teachers with limited background in literacy instruction.
• Provide professional development that enhances and that is clearly aligned with the school/district technology plan. Our recommendations for professional development are grouped under general and more specific guidelines:

General Guidelines for Professional Development:

• Provide professional development that is ongoing, addressing developmental needs of participants, focusing on teaching, and is hands-on and practical.
• Provide professional development that is supported by learning communities in which participants collaborate on a shared focus that is aligned with their technology plan and is integral to the participants’ content areas and curriculum.
• Provide professional development that offers time for collaborative planning, experimentation, development of a comfort level, and implementation.

Specific Guidelines for Professional Development:

• Provide professional development that makes distinctions between online and offline reading/writing, and places new literacies more as a literacy concern and less as a technological issue.
• Provide professional development that is fine-tuned to address the needs of a variety of marginalized student populations with the goal to differentiate instruction.
• Provide professional development for English teachers, language arts teachers/ consultants, remedial reading teachers, social studies teachers, technology education teachers, librarians, and media specialists, which offers learning opportunities on the pedagogical aspect of the new literacies, rather than simply the use of a new technology.
• Provide professional development that helps teachers to use and teach the use of multimedia and visual information on the Internet for constructing meaning from online texts. Particular support should be offered to the English/reading/language arts teachers.
• Provide professional development that offers opportunities to learn to produce and teach students to produce electronic information that makes use of visuals. Particular support on this skill should be offered to the English/reading/language arts teachers. The social studies teachers will find more useful the learning opportunities that are more focused on the pedagogy of this new literacies skill.
• Provide professional development that helps educators learn how to publish online and how to teach their students to publish online. Particular support could be offered to the social studies teachers.

Universities

• Conduct more research and selfassessment to find out how the new literacies are currently addressed and assessed in literacy, technology, and other content area courses, whether new literacies are embedded, and whether they are seen as a literacy issue. Prepare undergraduate and graduate student populations to use hardware, software, and other technologies that are frequently found in schools. Make the connections between technology tools and new literacies.
• Collaborate with schools to develop field placements that provide best practices in teaching and learning of new literacies.
• Develop and offer literacy and other content area courses that either embed the new literacies or focus primarily on the instruction of the new literacies as they relate to the foundational literacies and the other content areas (i.e., social studies and technology education).
• Develop and offer graduate level courses that explicitly and extensively embed the new literacies.
• Develop and offer graduate level courses that focus on the theoretical underpinnings and the teaching of the new literacies.

References

Connecticut State Board of Education (CSBE). (2004). Position statement on educational technology and information literacy. Hartford, CT: Author.

Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE). (2006). Information and Technology Literacy Framework, PreK-12. Hartford, CT: Author. Available from Connecticut State Department of Education Web site, http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=26 18& q=320870

International Reading Association (IRA) & National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2000a). Educational technology standards and performance indicators for all teachers. Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2000b). Essential conditions for teacher preparation. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_esscond. html

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2000c). Profiles of technologyliterate teachers. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_profiles.html

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other Information and Communication Technologies. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp? HREF=/newliteracies/leu

Levin, D. & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. Washington, DC. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf

====================================

The Full Report of the study (126 pages) is available on CD and in print format for $15 (to cover the cost of printing and postage). A hard copy of the Executive Summary is also available to all CARR members for free. For more information on how to obtain any of these documents, please contact Drs. Catherine Kurkjian and Julia Kara-Soteriou.

Keely Edwards

Abstract

This study examined writing samples in grades 1, 3, and 5 for organization, imagination and content focus, word choice and sentence fluency. Participants in this study were students (n= 93) in grades 1, 3, and 5 that completed an October, January and May writing sample. The students were asked to write a narrative or expository piece according to a prompt. Results revealed significant progress was made in the student writing across the grade levels comparing grades 1, 3, and 5, however, few students scored at the exemplary stage. Slower progress was made within a grade level. The results showed the need for more explicit instruction and broadening background knowledge to develop the writer’s imaginative skills.

Objectives

The objective of this research is to analyze student writing performance in grades 1, 3, and 5, noting strengths and areas for improvement. The main questions of this study, were the following:

• In narrative text, do the students use good organization for a developed story structure?
• Do the students show imaginative ideas while writing narrative text?
• In expository writing, do the students use a high quality of organization?
• Do the students show thought and creativity while presenting ideas in expository writing?

Review of Literature

Writing is a form of communication. “Literacy is a process that begins well before the elementary grades and continues into adulthood, if not throughout life” (Tompkins, 2006, p. 84). Adults use some form of writing daily. “In school, writing is one of the most necessary – and most evaluated – skills” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). The structure of writing should be taught in school. “When children first come to school, they have lots of ideas to share and stories to tell. Most young children tend to communicate these things in a stream of consciousness manner, saying whatever pops into their heads. Their writing often sounds like their speech” (Parsons, 2005, p.1). Organization is a writing trait that needs to be taught explicitly to early writers. “Because fiction stories and personal narratives are made up of moments, sequencing those moments can be a central means for organization and revision” (Lane, 1993, p. 84).

Children need to write everyday, as well as view the teacher writing. This modeling demonstrates not only good writing strategies but the value in writing. “Children need to understand that writing – like reading, tennis, and piano- can be improved by instruction, by practicing specific writing strategies, and just by writing” (Cunningham & Allington, 2003, p. 24). Teachers can also demonstrate rich language through the use of literature. “Have them read and compare the language and images used by this writer to the ones they used in their stories. After they have finished reading the story, discuss specific examples of the language used and the images created by the author” (Cunningham & Allington, 2003, p. 131).

Students should be encouraged to use their imagination. Suspense and details help to create an imaginative writing piece. “Rich detail is the end result of an inquisitive mind (Lane, 1993, p. 29). All of these pieces together complete a finished effective writing product. “The use of writing as a vehicle for expression, persuasion, and learning is essential to the acquisition of written language competence” (Lipson & Wixson, 2003, p. 578).

Methodology

Research Participants
The participants of this study were students from a Title I elementary school in a small urban district. A majority of the students received free breakfast and free or reduced lunch. These students were in grades 1, 3, and 5. The sample consists of students who completed a writing piece in October, January and May. The students completed the writing sample in their classroom within a period of 45 minutes. This assessment was given on the same day across the grade levels. No distinction was made between regular, special or ELL education students.

Texts
Students in the first and third grades received three narrative writing prompts. Fifth grade students received three prompts for expository writing.

Traits
There were four main areas that were analyzed in these writing pieces as noted in Table 1. The first trait was organization. This trait includes the introduction and conclusion, sequencing of details and transitions. The next trait explored was imagination and content focus in the narrative writing and creative ideas and content focus in the expository writing. This trait includes the focus and approach to the topic as well as the story idea. The third trait was word choice. This trait contains the use of vocabulary to enrich the writing. The final trait was sentence fluency. This trait involves the beginnings, length, structure, and overall fluency of the sentences.

Table 1: Writing Traits

Procedure
These common assessments were administered to students to develop a baseline of student achievement. The data is used to help teachers plan for further instruction. It indicates whether students have mastered these skills or if there is a deficiently in these areas. The students completed the wring pieces over a period of one school year. A rubric was developed for each of the three genres of writing. The rubrics were adapted from 6+1 trait writing to serve the purpose of this study. The 6+1 trait writing rubrics are very specific. The purpose of this study was to focus on the organization and imagination/creative ideas and content focus. Word choice and sentence fluency are two other important parts to a writing piece so a rubric was developed with these traits in mind. The prompts were scored by two scorers to provide for inter rater reliability. Unequal scores were then discussed between the scores to agree on a common score. The scores for each grade level were charted according to the trait and month the sample was taken. From these charts, bar graphs were developed and used to analyze the results.

Results
The first question of the study was: In narrative writing do the students use good organization for a developed story structure? To answer this question the narrative rubric for organization was used (see Table 2). Table 3 shows the actual scores for each month across the grade levels of 1, 3, and 5 for the trait organization. The primary results are summarized in the following discussion.

Table 2: Narrative Writing Rubric

Keely Edwards, (2008)
Adapted from 6+1 Trait Writing & Lipson & Wixson, (2003)
All rights reserved.

Table 3: Organization

The results showed that in first grade most students were in the emerging stage, although there was an increase in January and May in the developing stage. In the third grade for organization students stayed at the developing stage, although in January there was a decrease in the developing stage and increase in the emerging stage compared to October and May.

The second question in this study was: Do the students show imaginative ideas while writing narrative text? To test this I used a narrative rubric to examine the imagination and content focus trait. Table 4 shows the actual scores for each month in grades 1, 3, and 5 for the trait imagination/creative ideas and content focus. The results for this study showed that in first grade looking at the trait imagination and content focus that most of the students stayed in the developing stage, although there was a slight increase in the accomplished stage. In third grade for imagination and content focus the results showed that the students stayed in the developing stage, although again in January there was a decrease in the developing stage and increase in the emerging stage compared to October and May.

Table 4: Imagination/Creative Ideas & Content Focus

The third question in this study was: In expository writing do the students use a high quality of organization? To answer this question the expository rubric for organization was used (See Table 5). The results are as followed. In fifth grade for organization most students stayed in the developing stage with growth in May in the accomplished stage.

Table 5: Expository Writing Rubric

Keely Edwards, (2008)
Adapted from 6+1 Trait Writing & Lipson & Wixson, (2003)
All rights reserved.

The last question in this study was: Do the students show thought and creativity while presenting ideas in expository writing? To investigate this question I used an expository rubric looking at the trait creative ideas and content focus. The results of this study showed that in fifth grade for this trait the students stayed in the developing stage. There was a decrease from October to January in the accomplished stage but there was growth in that stage in May.

As a part of this study I also examined two important aspects of writing, word choice and sentence fluency. These two traits were included on both the narrative rubric as well as the expository rubric. Table 6 shows the actual scores for grades 1, 3, and 5 for each of the three months. The results showed that in the first grade that most students were in the emerging stage in word choice with a slight increase in January and May in the developing and accomplished stage. In the third grade for word choice the results showed that the students stayed in the developing stage. The results showed that in fifth grade the students also stayed in the developing stage for word choice. In fifth grade there was a decrease in scores in the accomplished stage in January but there was growth in that stage in May.

Table 6: Word Choice

The results of the study examining sentence fluency (Table 7) showed that first grade students had a great increase in the developing stage and the majority of students stayed in this stage. For the trait sentence fluency in the third grade students also stayed in the developing stage. The results showed that for sentence fluency in fifth grade students stayed in the developing stage. There was also a significant increase in the accomplished stage in May.

Table 7: Sentence Fluency

As a result of this study, trends are evident across the grade levels. Progress is apparent from first through fifth grade in every trait. First grade showed the greatest improvement within the grade level. Grade 5 has mostly developing writers.

Limitations

The expectations of the scorers could have affected the results as well as the expectations set forth for each trait in the rubric. Although all students were administered the writing prompt on the same day, the time of year could have skewed the results. The January prompt was given soon after the return of winter break. The topic of the writing prompt may have also had an impact on the results. Some of the prompts did not lend themselves to good story writing. Some of the prompts were vague and/or confusing. The population of the sample could have also affected the results. Many of the students lack the background knowledge and experiences necessary to produce effective writing pieces. Many of the students’ first language was not English. There was not a modified prompt for the special education students. At the time of the study there was no formal, consistent writing program in place. Some teachers used the old language series as a guide while others used writing ideas from the reading series. And some teachers used programs from previous teaching experiences. In many classrooms there was no explicit instruction in writing. Students were moving from grade to grade without a systematic writing program being followed. There was no progression in skills from year to year. Students had to readjust each year to how the teacher decided to teach writing. All of these factors could have placed limitations on this study.

Implications and Conclusions

The results from this research will help teachers to plan explicit instruction in the deficient areas that will improve the quality of student writing in our school. Writing is used across all subject matters to enhance student learning. Maxwell (1996, p.1) states, “Writing is not used in content areas so that students will improve their writing skill, but because students understand content better when writing becomes part of their learning activities.” Writing serves many different purposes in our daily life. Preparing students to write for these different purposes will be beneficial to their lifelong learning.

The results from this study showed that the following would benefit from:

• In the first grade the instruction needs to focus on moving students from the emerging stage to the developing stage in all four traits. The introduction and conclusion need to be connected. Students need to see an organized piece.
• Teachers need to model good writing. Students will benefit from teacher modeling with developing interesting story ideas and using a fresh approach to writing. The student’s use of word choice will also improve. Students will be able to hear fluid sentences.
• In the third grade the instruction needs to focus on moving students from the developing stage to the accomplished stage. Teachers should continue to model and use guided practice with gradual release of independence in the writing.
• Students need to include a main event with elaboration and suspense in their narrative pieces.
• Instruction in the fifth grade needs to focus on the use of less contrived language. Students should be shown a fresh approach to keeping structure instead of repeating the same sentences throughout the writing. They need to be more concise and less repetitive.

Throughout the grades the use of imaginative/ creative ideas was limited although there was progress across the grades. It seems that video games, clothes and Smiles Recreation Center played a big role in the lives of the students. Many were unable to think beyond these areas and it was the focus of their papers. It was very generic in thought, without any creativity or adventure into the unknown. The students need to take a risk in their writing and use creativity. For example in a narrative writing piece one student talked about a bed made out of cotton candy and his clock was a shell. Another student used his imagination and sought help from the king of clowns in the fairy world. These are the imaginative ideas that we want to encourage in student writing. A suggestion for further research would include a follow up study analyzing the current year’s wring samples. Results could be compared to the results of this study to see if the newly implemented writing program has improved the noted areas of weakness in the student’s writing. Another suggestion for further research would be to analyze the results of the writing samples grouping the various populations, comparing girls to boys or regular education, special education and ELL.

References

Allington, R. and Cunningham, P. (2003). Classrooms that work. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Auray, D. and Mariconda, B. (2004). The comprehensive narrative writing guide. Trumbull, CT: Empowering Writers, LLC.

Boyles, N. (2007). That’s a great answer! Gainesville, FL: Maupin House.

Fountas, I. and Pinnell G. (2001). Guiding readers and writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lane, B. (1993). After the end. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lipson, M. and Wixson, K. (2003). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing difficulty. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Maxwell, R. (1996). Writing across the curriculum in middle and high schools. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

NW Regional Educational Laboratory. (2007) 6+1 Trait writing assessment and instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Parsons, S. (2005). First grade writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Spandel, V. (2005). Creating writers through 6 Trait writing assessment and instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tompkins, G. (2006). Literacy for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.