connecting classrooms and early interventions

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 02 December 2014, At: 03:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Connecting classrooms andearly interventionsRuth A. Short a , Barbara J. Frye b , James R.King c & Susan P. Homan ca James Madison Universityb University of South Florida‐St. Petersburg , St.Petersburgc University of South Florida‐Tampa , TampaPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Ruth A. Short , Barbara J. Frye , James R. King & Susan P.Homan (1999) Connecting classrooms and early interventions, Reading Researchand Instruction, 38:4, 387-400, DOI: 10.1080/19388079909558303

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079909558303

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19388079909558303

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079909558303

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reading Research and InstructionSummer 1999, 38 (4) 387-400

Connecting classrooms and early interventions

Ruth A. ShortJames Madison University

Barbara J. FryeUniversity of South Florida-St. Petersburg

James R. King and Susan P. HomanUniversity of South Florida-Tampa

ABSTRACT

The Accelerated Literacy Learning (A.L.L.) program, an early interventionprogram for at-risk learners, has been effective for a majority of the chil-dren involved. Not all children, however, have benefited from this one-on-one program. Case study research was conducted to illuminate variousrates of progress between students who began the school year with similaracademic profiles but returned to different classroom environments aftertheir daily lessons. Findings suggest that the relationship between an earlyintervention program and program support provided by classroom teachersis a complex issue. A supportive classroom teacher can enhance a student'sliteracy learning, while a non-supportive classroom teacher can impede thesuccess a student experiences.

The relationship between student achievement and teacher expectation hasbeen well-documented by researchers in the field (cf., Badini & Rosenthal, 1989;Ouzts, 1986; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). Children tend to achieve according toteachers' high expectations and succumb to their low estimates in self-fulfillingprophecies. In addition to their expectations, teachers' feedback to studentsregarding their performance appears to be related to children's development ofself-concept and strategic engagement with instruction (Stipek, 1981). Brookover,Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, and Wisenbaker (1977) reported that student belief inthe futility of pursuing school success contributed more than any other compara-ble variable to the variance in achievement. The findings of these and other stud-ies support the notion that students' perceptions of their teachers' feelings towardthem mediate their school achievement.

For first grade "at-risk" students, teacher expectations are critical to a child'sacademic and social/emotional development. In his model, Cooper (1979) sug-gests students, for whom teachers have high expectations, receive positive feed-back contingent upon their effort. In contrast, students for whom teachers have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

388 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol.38 No. 4

low expectations receive more noneffort contingent, or generalized, negativefeedback. So not only do "low expectation" students receive negatively cast feed-back, it is also not specific to the behaviors or performance that elicited the feed-back. Consequently, positively rewarded students can benefit from enhancingtheir targeted behavior, whereas negatively marked students simply collect gener-alized devaluations. This results in low-teacher-expectation students being lesslikely to believe in the value of effort for attaining success in class, and therefore,to show less persistence and ultimately to experience, and expect to experience,less success.

Our interest in the area of effective collaboration has increased over our fiveyear experience with the Accelerated Literacy Learning (A.L.L.) program, anearly intervention program for "at-risk" primary-grade students. By the secondyear of the program, it became apparent that successful reading experiences in theintervention program were often not sufficient to ensure success in learning howto read. When both the classroom teacher and the A.L.L. teacher had high expec-tations and provided appropriate levels of support, students had a greater chanceof achieving reading competency. Communication and collaboration between theclassroom and A.L.L. teacher seemed to increase the chances of these teacherssharing similar perceptions about their students.

After two years of intense involvement with "at-risk" first grade students inthe Accelerated Literacy Learning (A.L.L.) program, differences among class-room teachers in terms of support and expectation became evident. To enhancethe likelihood that a positive shift in teachers' perceptions of students' emergentwork would persist, we attempted to shape a support system for teachers whosestudents received instructional intervention. This precipitated an interest in devel-oping a collaborative team-building model to assist classroom and early interven-tion teachers in their effort to provide the most supportive and enriching learningenvironments for all of their students, and in particular those thought to be "at-risk." It was our belief that both time and effort needed to be devoted to changingclassroom teachers' attitudes toward the accelerated "at-risk" child. Merely accel-erating the progress and improving the self-esteem of these children was oftennot enough to ensure success in the regular classroom without support from theclassroom teacher.

Following is a description of the A.L.L. program, the collaborative team-building model, an account of two students' progress, examples of supportive andnonsupportive teacher behavior, and our overall conclusions. We suggest that, asa case study, these descriptions show how vital these linkings between early inter-vention procedures and teachers' understandings of these procedures are. Afterall,it is largely teachers' perceptions of students' acquired competence that the long-term benefits of an accelerated program are realized.

Accelerated literacy learning backgroundThe Accelerated Literacy Learning (A.L.L.) program is a one-on-one pro-

gram for first-grade students at risk of failing to learn to read. After several

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Connecting classrooms 389

unsuccessful attempts to contract with Reading Recovery to bring the program toFlorida, the University of South Florida and Chapter I programs from two coun-ties decided to collaborate on the development and implementation of their ownprogram. Although Clay's work (1987, 1991), served as a primary influence, thework of Johnston and Allington (1990), Juel (1990), Madden, Slavin, Karweit,Dolan, and Wasik (1993), McCarthy, Newby, and Recht (1995), Pinnell, Fried, andEstice (1991), Slavin, Madden, Karweit, Dolan, and Wasik, (1994), Stanovich(1986), Sulzby and Teale (1990), Taylor, Short, Frye, and Shearer (1992), andWasik and Slavin (1993), also greatly impacted our ongoing planning. We foundthat designing our own program allowed for more flexibility and input from thetrainers and teachers as we made revisions and improvements. The AcceleratedLiteracy Learning program is currently in its sixth year of operation. Presently,nine Florida school districts are involved in the program. During this academicyear, 21 trainers and 288 A.L.L. teachers will provide service and support toapproximately 2,379 children. Additionally, two counties in Kansas are imple-menting the A.L.L. program as well. The major goals and objectives of the A.L.L.program are:

• to accelerate the reading progress of A.L.L. students to a level ofaverage or above

• to support and improve students' self concepts by providing successfulreading and writing experiences

• to lower the rate of first grade referrals for special education classesto lower the number of potential high school drop outs by providingsuccessful reading and writing experiences in first grade

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Student selectionFollowing established district criteria, "at-risk" first grade students who qual-

ify for special services are tested at the beginning of the school year by A.L.L.personnel. The children are assessed on eight different reading and writing tests atthe emergent literacy stage. Using a composite score from selected assessments,children are identified as being eligible for participation in the A.L.L. program.Eligible students are collaboratively ranked by A.L.L. teachers and classroomteachers for services.

Lesson formatAn A.L.L. lesson is 30 minutes in length, and is designed to allow for student

participation in a reading apprenticeship. This is accomplished by intensive inter-action with a teacher who has been trained in instructional scaffolding techniques.Each A.L.L. lesson begins with rereading opportunities of familiar books whichaid in the development of fluency and expression. Immediately following thesesuccess-building rereading activities, the teacher takes a running record to assess

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

390 Reading Research and Instruction Summer] 999 Vol. 38 No. 4

student's progress, strategy use, and selected instructional needs. Child initiatedwriting activities form a second part of each daily lesson. During these sharedwriting activities, students develop word analysis strategies and increase theirawareness and knowledge of print, as writing is viewed as "reading in slowmotion." Additionally, as part of each day's lesson, a new book is introduced.During this third portion of the lesson, the child can acquire and apply new read-ing strategies on unfamiliar little books. All lessons are based on high expecta-tions for the development of independent, strategic readers.

A.L.L. trainersTrainers of Accelerated Literacy Learning (T.A.L.L.s) must register for nine

credit hours of A.L.L. advanced graduate work both semesters of their trainingyear. T.A.L.L.s attend classes at the university for one entire day per week, wheretheir studies focus on emergent literacy theory. Additionally, T.A.L.L.s spendanother full day each week working with university professors and veteran train-ers to gain the knowledge and skills needed for full program implementation intheir home counties the following year. Each new trainer spends the remainingthree days of the week working with two to four children daily. In addition, thetrainers fulfill district requirements in their home counties and prepare for theimplementation year. After successfully completing this rigorous, year-long train-ing, T.A.L.L.s are certified to begin full program implementation, including train-ing new A.L.L. teachers in their home counties in collaboration with universityprofessors.

A.L.L. teacher trainingA.L.L. teachers register for three hours of graduate level coursework both

semesters of their training year and meet monthly during subsequent years. Train-ing classes meet weekly and focus on theories of emergent literacy as well asdevelopment of theory within A.L.L. lesson implementation. On a rotating basis,teachers bring videotapes of A.L.L. lessons for the purpose of class discussion. Inaddition to these taped lessons, teachers are observed regularly by trainedobservers. Immediately following each observation lesson, teachers receive oraland written feedback. In addition, teachers receive myriad support from trainersand peers, including a small group, in-class model.

Implementation modelsThere are currently two implementation models for the A.L.L. Program. In

model A, two teachers share one first-grade classroom. While one teacher worksone-on-one with students in the A.L.L. program, the other teacher instructs theirfirst-grade class. Each teacher works individually with four children daily andspends the other half of the day in the classroom. The advantage of this model isthat each child in the A.L.L. teachers' first-grade classroom receives the benefitsof the teachers' year-long training. In model A, the two trained teachers serve asinservice agents for their primary grade colleagues.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014


In model B, one teacher works one-on-one with eight A.L.L. program chil-dren during the school day. The advantage of model B is that A.L.L. programteachers are freed from classroom responsibilities and can devote all efforts totheir individual A.L.L. students. In model B, the A.L.L. teacher creates an inser-vice network among all first grade teachers, as the first grade students are drawnfrom all classes.

Collaborative team-building model

Each district participating in the A.L.L. program is required to have at leastthree team-building sessions per year. The first session is primarily focused ondeveloping program awareness and is held prior to the beginning of the schoolyear, but after the initial training of the A.L.L. teachers. Concerned personnel(administrators, Chapter I personnel, kindergarten, first and second-grade teach-ers) are invited to attend. The trainers, or T.A.L.L.s, present the group with basicinformation about the A.L.L. program. The A.L.L. teachers begin their work asambassadors by meeting with their school-based teams to discuss critical issuesand collaborative goals.

The second team-building session is held midyear. This session is critical tostudent success. Members of the collaborative team have become more familiarwith the A.L.L. program and the discussions can be designed to be more specificand personal to the individual school settings. Each school-based team is requiredto develop a set of goals and a plan of action for developing the best possiblelearning environment for "at-risk" students. Additionally, classroom teachers andA.L.L. teachers present ideas and suggestions for implementing A.L.L. programstrategies in the regular classroom.

The third team-building session takes place at the end of the school year. Atthis session, the collaborative school-based teams review their goals and evaluatethe impact and result of the A.L.L. program. Teams discuss how they can makethe program more successful the following year. Selected classroom and A.L.L.teachers present additional ideas about how teachers can more effectively support"at-risk" students in the regular classroom.

Feedback from participants of the team-building sessions has been extremelypositive. Following the team-building sessions, classroom teachers not only aremore willing to work with the A.L.L. teachers, they are also eager to implementA.L.L. teaching strategies in their classrooms. Furthermore, the A.L.L. teachersare perceived as invaluable resources to the classroom teachers and are frequentlyasked to work with, and provide inservice for, classroom teachers to help solveinstructional problems.

TWO STUDENTS' PROGRESS

The following two case studies exemplify the needs for classroom teachersupport to enhance the academic success for their "at-risk" children, in the A.L.L.program and those not yet served. Both children in the case studies were students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

392 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol. 38 No. 4

in the A.L.L. program, attended the same elementary school, and had similarbeginning of the year profiles.

MARCY

Marcy had been identified at the beginning of the 1991-92 academic year asbeing at risk of reading failure. Clay's Diagnostic Survey (Clay, 1987), with theaddition of Taylor's Test of Phonemic Segmentation and Blending (Taylor, 1990),was used for the pre- and posttesting. Marcy scored a 46/54 on Letter Identifica-tion, a 1/24 on Concepts About Print, a 0/18 on Phonemic Segmentation andBlending, a 3/37 on the Dictation Test (form A), a 1/15 on the Word Test, and shewas able to successfully write seven words on the Writing Vocabulary Test. Alltests in the survey provided support for her functioning in the middle of the rangeof children accepted into the A.L.L. program at her school. Marcy started the pro-gram as a nonreader. After receiving approximately 70 A.L.L. lessons over a 15week period, Marcy had reached Level 17 and began the process of graduationfrom the A.L.L. program.

RICHARD

Richard, like Marcy, had also been identified at the beginning of the1991-92 academic year of being at risk of reading failure. Clay's Diagnostic Sur-vey (Clay, 1987), with the addition of Taylor's Test of Phonemic Segmentationand Blending (Taylor, 1990), was used for the beginning (pre) and end-of-year(post) testing. Richard scored a 21/54 on Letter Identification, a 13/24 on theConcepts About Print, a 1/18 on the Phonemic Segmentation and Blending, a3/37 on Dictation (form A), a 1/15 on the Word Test, and he was able to success-fully write one word on the Writing Vocabulary Test. All tests in the survey pro-vided support for him functioning in the middle of the range of children acceptedinto the A.L.L. program at his school. Richard started the program as a nonreader.After receiving approximately 70 A.L.L. lessons over a 15 week period from thesame A.L.L. teacher as Marcy, Richard had reached only Level 12 and was notready to begin the process of graduation from the A.L.L. Program. Figure 1shows a comparison of Marcy's and Richard's reading progress over a 15 weekperiod. Book levels refer to a progression of books from easy to difficult, cover-ing emergent reading to early second grade. Figures 2 through 8 (Appendix) pre-sent the pre- and posttest scores for Marcy and Richard on the following mea-sures: Letter Identification, Concepts About Print, Taylor's Phonemic Segmenta-tion and Blending Test, Dictation, Word Tests, Writing Vocabulary, and RunningRecords.

Descriptions of teacher supportWhile Clay (1987) recognizes the different acceleration slopes of at-risk first

graders, the description requires some additional analysis. The effects of unpro-ductive teacher prompting, codependence between teacher-student and limited

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014


20-i

0

CD

Oo

CD

1 0 -

Progress Comparison

MarcyRichard

0 10

Number of Weeks in Program20

Figure 1. Reading progress comparison between Marcy and Richard over a 15week period. Book levels refer to a progression of books from easy to difficultcovering emergent reading to early second grade.

capacity of the at-risk learner have been mentioned as causes for "hard to acceler-ate" readers. Our observations indicate that substantial evidence points in thedirection of classroom teacher support.

Given that Marcy and Richard started the program with similar profiles andhad the same A.L.L. program teacher, what factors influenced the differing ratesof progress made by these two children? One major factor was collaborationbetween the regular classroom and A.L.L. teachers. The high level of collabora-tion between Marcy's teachers appeared to result in a more closely matched per-ception of Marcy's strengths, needs, and abilities. Marcy's teacher, Judy, wasextremely supportive of the program. She was aware of the philosophy behindthe program and believed in it. Her classroom was filled with a variety of tradebooks and other literature sources. She regularly provided guidance andemployed scaffolding techniques complementary to A.L.L. strategies with herstudents. There were many shared reading experiences, opportunities for discus-sion, and approximately 20 minutes provided daily for independent student read-ing. Judy and the A.L.L. teacher met biweekly to discuss Marcy's progress in theA.L.L. program and in the classroom. They frequently planned together andshared strategies which they both employed in their instructional settings. Addi-tionally, Judy observed Marcy engaged in an A.L.L. lesson twice and viewed twovideotaped lessons during her 15 week participation in the A.L.L. program.

In response to A.L.L. program children in her classroom, Judy encouragedthem to read their books to the class, provided verbal praise and support when-ever possible, had children engage in paired readings, and had fifth-grade "reading

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014


buddies" paired with the first-grade students. When Judy observed a positivereading behavior exhibited by an A.L.L. program child, she would praise thechild and make an anecdotal record to share with the A.L.L. teacher. She invitedthe A.L.L. teacher to parent-teacher conferences when they involved children inthe program so the A.L.L. teacher could share the child's success with parents.Judy was excited to see children making progress and celebrated each step alongtheir way to literacy learning.

Richard's teacher, Betty, was nonsupportive of the A.L.L. program. Bettyhad a limited classroom library. She read aloud to her class daily, but allowed lit-tle time for independent student reading, and utilized worksheets and workbookpages for seatwork. There were very few opportunities provided for children topartner read, with the majority of instruction based on whole class grouping.When a child returned to the classroom after an A.L.L. lesson, Betty would notallow him/her to read to the class. Betty seemed easily threatened and was defen-sive. When an article highlighting the program appeared in a local newspaper andthe child in the photograph was from Betty's room, her comment was, "If you canteach the slow ones to read in half an hour, why don't you take the top kids? Youcould teach them to read in 5 minutes!"

Betty observed only one A.L.L. lesson during the course of the year, andmade no comments to the teacher or child after the lesson was completed. She didnot invite the A.L.L. teacher to parent-teacher conferences, and even when askedspecifically by the A.L.L. program teacher to provide positive reinforcement tothe children, Betty did not. The A.L.L. teacher attempted to communicate withand engage Betty in collaborative planning sessions; however, Betty was reluc-tant to participate. It appears that this lack of communication resulted in differentsets of expectations for Richard that became a factor which inhibited his progress.

It is impossible to relate Marcy's and Richard's different progress rates solelyto the teaching methods, attitudes and expectations of their classroom teachers.We believe, however, that the support which Judy exhibited contributed signifi-cantly to Marcy's accelerated progress, while Betty's nonsupport contributed toRichard's slower rate of progress. As an A.L.L. teacher stated, "Lack of supportfor kids prohibits kids from believing in themselves and in their own abilities tosucceed."

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of teacher support and positive encouragement for the suc-cessful acceleration of children is a key component of every early interventionprogram. Marcy and Richard started their intervention programs with similar pro-files of emergent reading status. In mid-December, after 70 lessons, Marcy's levelof reading and writing development had been accelerated to the level of averageor above. The support that Marcy received from her classroom teacher helpedboost her self-esteem and promoted her belief in her own abilities. Richard, onthe other hand, did not experience the same kind of support from his classroom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014


teacher. His lack of self-confidence impeded his progress and inhibited his risk-taking behavior. After 70 lessons Richard's level of reading and writing develop-ment had improved but had not accelerated to the point of average or above.Unlike Marcy, who successfully completed the program and was performing atan above average reading level in the classroom, Richard's program ended at theconclusion of the school year.

Marcy started her intervention program at the beginning of the school year.Richard began his intervention program in January, after experiencing four monthsof first grade. Possibly, these four months worked to Richard's detriment. He mayhave experienced seemingly insurmountable failure during that time. It's alsopossible that given a nurturing, print-rich classroom environment orchestrated bya supportive teacher, Richard would have come into the intervention program inJanuary with a stronger potential for accelerated progress in a 70-lesson timeperiod.

We realize that some children are more difficult to accelerate than others.Classroom teacher support is just one of several elements that influences thedegree of success each child experiences. Fortunately, this is one area that can bepositively influenced through team building efforts. Follow up interviews withthe A.L.L. teachers at Richard's and Marcy's school reveal that Betty, Richard'sfirst-grade teacher, has begun to change her attitudes and behaviors toward herlow achieving students. During the second year of team building efforts and con-tinued communication with the A.L.L. teacher at her school, Betty's attitudetoward the A.L.L. program and her A.L.L. students has shown signs changed. Shehas begun to encourage her students to share their little books with the class, hasallotted more time daily for independent and recreational reading, has attemptedto implement scaffolding techniques complementary to A.L.L. strategies, and haseven invited the A.L.L. teacher to some parent-teacher conferences. We believethese changes may be occurring because she is beginning to feel like a member ofa collaborative team. We are optimistic that as the team building sessions con-tinue throughout the current school year, Betty's openness for change and growthwill continue to evolve. We are hopeful that her support for her students willenhance their literacy learning.

REFERENCES

Badini, A. A., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Visual cues, student sex, material taught, and themagnitude of teacher expectancy effects. Communication Education, 38, 162-166.

Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1977). Schools canmake a difference. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Center for Urban Affairs.

Clay, M. (1987). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland: Heinemann.Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. New Hampshire:

Heinemann.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014


Cooper, H. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation, communication,and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49, 389-410.

Johnston, P. & Allington, R. (1990). Remediation. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 984-1012). NewYork: Longman.

Juel, C. (1990). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson(Eds.), The handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 759-788). New York: Longman.

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Successfor all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city elementaryschools. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123-148.

McCarthy, P., Newby, R. F., & Recht, D. R. (1995). Results of an early intervention pro-gram for first grade children at risk for reading disability. Reading Research andInstruction, 34 (4), 273-294.

Ouzts, D. T. (1986). Teacher expectation: Implications for achievement. Reading Horizons,26(2), 133-139.

Pinnell, G. S., Fried, M. D., & Estice, R. M. (1991). Reading recovery: Learning how tomake a difference. In D. E. DeFord, C. A. Lyons, & G. S. Pinnell (Eds.), Bridges toliteracy: Learning from reading recovery (pp. 11-35). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rine-hart & Winston.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L. Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1994). Successfor all: Getting reading right the first time. In E. Hiebert & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), Get-ting reading right from the start: Effective early literacy interventions (pp. 125-121).Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Stanovich, K. (1986). The Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individualdifferences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Stipek, D. J. (1981). Children's perceptions of their own and their classmates' ability. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 72, 404—410.

Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. (1990). Emergent Literacy. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 984-1012). NewYork: Longman.

Taylor, B. M. (1990). A test of phonemic awareness for classroom use. Unpublished paper,University of Minnesota at Minneapolis.

Taylor, B. M., Short, R. A., Frye, B. J., & Shearer, B. (1992). Classroom teachers preventreading failure among low-achieving first-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 45,592-597.

Wasik, B. A. & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-onetutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179-200.D

ownl

oade

d by

[T

he A

ga K

han

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:15

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIXti

on

coo~cCD

CD

CD_ 1

50 —

-

40 —-

30 —

I20 —

z10 —

n

Letter ID:

51

1

21

Richard and Marcy54

46 r ™ i

j ^ ^ ^ ^ H !

\ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | :

\ ^ | !

. Richard

Fall

j sP r in9

StudentsMarcy

Figure 2. Pre- and posttest scores for Marcy and Richard on the Letter Identifica-tion Test.

Concepts About Print: Richard and Marcy

Richard MarcyStudents

Figure 3. Pre- and posttest scores for Marcy and Richard on the Concepts AboutPrint Test.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

398 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 1999 Vol. 38 No. 4

PS & B: Richard and MarcyCDcT3c

m

co•*=Bc

E

leg

u'E0coQ.

20

10

0

1

1315

• FallD Spring

RichardStudents

Marcy

Figure 4. Pre- and posttest scores for Marcy and Richard on the Taylor PhonemicSegmentation and Blending Test.

20 —

O

1

Word List:

4

r

Richard and Marcy

1

13

B Fall• Spring


Figure 5. Pre- and posttest scores for Marcy and Richard on the Dictation Test.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014


lary

DX!COOO

" >

ing

5

60

50 —

-40 —

-30 —

20 —

10 —

0 —

Writing Vocabulary:

36

iI :

i •x \

Richard and Marcy

45

!i '! *

7

| Fall

1 Spring


Figure 6. Pre- and posttest scores for Marcy and Richard on the Word Test.

Dictation Test: Richard and Marcy

COCD

ion

T

oD

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 I

30 —

20 —

10 —

Q

34

3

_•Richard

Students

3

37

Marcy

Fall

n

Figure 7. Pre- and posttest scores for Marcy and Richard on the Writing Vocabu-lary Test.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014


100 —

>. Iora 8 0 -

3O

Richard and Marcy's End-of-Year Reading

o

D)

roCD

rr

60 —

40—:

20 —

0 —Primer First Reader

Passages2.2 Passage

Richard

Marcy

Figure 8. Pre- and posttest scores for Marcy and Richard on Running Records.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

15 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

connecting classrooms and early interventions

Documents