reading instruction in tier 1: bridging the gaps by nesting evidence-based interventions within...

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 49(3), 2012 C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21591

READING INSTRUCTION IN TIER 1: BRIDGING THE GAPS BY NESTINGEVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS WITHIN DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

RUTH E. JONES, NINA YSSEL, AND CHRISTINA GRANT

Ball State University

Response to Intervention (RtI) has brought about many changes in the way educational services arebeing provided to students who are at risk of school failure. Schools are seeking strategies that willbe beneficial to more and more students, including those students whose instruction is primarilyin the core, or Tier 1. Nesting proven, evidence-based practices more widely in an RtI modelis discussed as an efficient strategy for closing achievement gaps and research–practice gaps. Todifferentiate instruction relative to RtI and the core curriculum, the application of strategies typicallyreserved for Tiers 2 and 3 is suggested. An example of embedding, or nesting, interventions atTier 1 is given. Organizational tools are provided for Tier 1 whole-class, differentiated instructionin fluency training, including repeated readings. The roles of the school psychologist, teacher, andadministrator in the model are considered, along with specific, targeted examples and approaches.C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Many general education teachers who have read about Response to Intervention (RtI) and at-tended professional development sessions targeted at disseminating information on implementationideas such as progress monitoring (PM) and evidence-based practices want to implement the strate-gies they learn. When interested practitioners return to their classrooms, however, they are oftenfaced with a wide variety of materials, strategies, and assessment options that are difficult to sortout and may or may not fit into the RtI concept in general. In addition, seemingly insurmountableobstacles of scheduling time for providing interventions, monitoring progress, and finding personnelto assist in RtI implementation also complicate the application of research-based approaches to dailyclassroom routines.

RtI has been described as a tiered, integrated system of assessment and instruction, withefforts primarily targeted at improving student achievement in the area of reading. The first tierof instruction, or core curriculum, is viewed as being preventative, with its own methods andinterventions (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). Research seems to focus on the moreintensive interventions in Tiers 2 and 3 (Xu & Drame, 2008), but what about the Tier 1 classroomteacher who has to provide good instruction for everybody? Evidence-based instruction is essentialat all levels, not just at the upper tiers. Educators are faced with deciding where the responsibilities ofthe general education classroom teachers start as they attempt to make informed choices, respond tostudents’ needs, and provide what is best for all learners. It is important that a system of scientificallybased strategies and interventions be available to all educators, along with a plan for interveningwith students who do not respond to instruction (Daly, Martens, Barnett, Witt, & Olson, 2007).

The application of research-based practices is a critical component of any RtI plan. Research-based practices are generally mentioned in state guidance documents, but many states have failedto officially identify research-based interventions for the various tiers. Fuchs and Deshler (2007)argued that there is widespread uncertainty about the term scientifically validated instruction andwhat it really means. However, for effective practices to be integrated into the RtI model, a strongTier 1 is needed, and effective practices need to be seamlessly included in everyday instruction(Berkeley et al., 2009).

In this article, we will suggest the possibility of applying empirically validated interventionstrategies in greater measure at the Tier 1 level in elementary school settings. Tier 1 differentiated

Correspondence to: Ruth Jones, Department of Special Education, Ball State University, Teachers College, Room720, Muncie, IN 47306. E-mail: [email protected]

210

Reading Instruction in Tier 1 211

instruction (DI) and reading performance are of particular interest and, by extension, RtI’s promise ofintensive early intervention to prevent later reading failure. We will review existing literature relatedto practices that teachers may apply directly during their daily Tier 1 (core) instruction. If researchindicates that a given intervention is effective with Tier 2 students, we suggest nesting that sameintervention through DI practices at Tier 1. To make such interventions available to teachers and,by extension, to more students, instructional leaders need to be aware of possible innovative uses ofexisting resources. We provide frameworks for adding such interventions to core instruction. Lastly,we also offer suggestions for bridging the research-practice gap by including specific practices fordifferentiation.

Even with instructional supports for RtI in place, many students continue to score belowproficiency levels in basic skills (Batsche et al., 2006). The 2007 National Assessment of EducationalProgress found that both fourth- and eighth-grade students’ reading test results showed higher studentperformance at or above the basic level than in the past. Even with this increase, only about one thirdof the students were scoring at or above the proficiency level for their grade (National Center forEducation Statistics, 2007). To address this ongoing concern, researchers have begun to address theimportance of empirical studies designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Tier 1 core instruction andclassroom interventions that may be effective (Kovaleski, 2007). In fact, one of the most importantdifferences between past and “current models is that the effectiveness of the core academic andbehavior programs for all students are not taken for granted” (Kovaleski, 2007, p. 639). Previousmodels of general education intervention for struggling learners were seen by many educators asstepping stones on the road to a special education placement. RtI scaffolding is bringing a newfocus to all curricular practices and should result in more targeted, meaningful practices, includingat Tier 1.

DIFFERENTIATION IN TIER 1

Identifying evidence-based strategies that may be appropriate to use in Tier 1 is a critical needin schools today; despite much effort on the part of educators, researchers, and policy makers, manychildren still leave elementary school with below-level literacy skills. In fact, 36% of fourth gradersread below the basic level, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (U.S.Department of Education, 2006). In a final report on four interventions implemented in programs forchildren of poverty, Torgesen et al. (2007) noted that schools’ efforts to provide literacy interventionsare often hampered. Interfering factors included a lack of appropriate materials and other resourcesat all levels, as well as the fact that many teachers are unskilled in the area of literacy, especially atthe upper elementary level.

In an effort to address the factors that hamper schools’ efforts, we agree that easily administered,research-based reading activities proven to increase fluency and comprehension in the early years arecritical to advancing students’ literacy skills. Similar, critical components are also needed in uppergrades. Daly et al. (2007) note that students who struggle with grade-level work may experiencegreater gaps in learning as they move through more difficult curricula. They further suggest thatsequential materials, practice opportunities, and a high rate of correct responses are essential forincreases in reading fluency. How, then, might these principles be translated into classroom practice?The RtI challenge for classroom teachers may be how to effectively work with all students to makethe best use of the scarce time available for intervention and practice.

In the Institute of Educational Sciences’ (2009) practice guide report, five components wereidentified as essential elements of an RtI model, including: (1) screening all students, (2) monitoringstudents who are not meeting the benchmark, (3) differentiating instruction, (4) providing Tier 2small-group sessions, and (5) providing Tier 3 intense small-group interventions. One of thosecomponents, DI, is of utmost importance in the Tier 1 core setting. In Tier 1, regular classroom

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

212 Jones, Yssel, and Grant

instruction is provided to all students using whole-group instruction at times, but also using flexiblegrouping and differentiation. Students may work in reading groups, at reading centers, in smallgroups, in pairs, or individually. While the teacher might be conducting explicit, targeted instructionwith one small group of students, the rest of the class could work independently at reading centers.Differentiated groups may be formed based on data and observations, and the teacher determinesthe appropriate structure of the small-group lesson based on the data. Part of this decision-makingprocess also includes determining the size of the groups, the amount of time spent on small-groupinstruction, choosing content, and selecting the level of the lesson (Kosanovich, Ladinsky, Nelson,& Torgesen, 2007).

However, research suggests that implementing DI continues to be problematic for classroomteachers for a variety of reasons. The need for professional development, limited resources, and a lackof administrative support have been identified as blocking the implementation of DI (see Latz, Speirs,Neumeister, Adams, & Pierce, 2009; VanTassel-Baska, 2005; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, &Salvin, 1993). Considering the need for dynamic and effective instruction at all tiers, includingTier 1, we suggest the possibility that there may be benefit from wider application of evidence-basedpractices that are currently used successfully at higher tier levels. Nesting, or embedding, research-based strategies in a Tier 1 DI application is suggested to enhance overall reading skills and scores,beginning at the most basic core level.

Administrative and support staff, including school psychologists, can help empower classroomteachers as they seek to differentiate instruction. For example, school administrators and otherprofessionals can plan and provide professional development based on teacher and student need.Ongoing support has been shown to be most beneficial for effecting carryover into classroompractice, and administrative involvement is crucial in facilitating this requirement. Tracking progressand success is also an important step, as classroom teachers seek to increase student performance atTier 1. Input of school psychologists and data coaches is essential as teachers learn how to administerand interpret PM measures. Making decisions based on available data is an additional area in whichschool psychologists may provide training and ongoing support.

AN EXAMPLE OF AN EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTION EMBEDDED IN TIER 1

The RtI model holds promise as a scaffold within which to organize even Tier 1 core instructionand services, as teachers struggle to respond to the needs of increasingly diverse student populations.Teachers must have an array of interventions in their toolkits as they seek to be responsive tostudents’ needs. Many tools have been reserved primarily for use with students with significantlearning problems but may bear promise in a wider application. We suggest that an example ofone such instructional tool for improving reading achievement may be a systematic application ofrepeated reading (RR), which can be differentiated at Tier 1.

If evidence-based practices are to be more widely applied at Tier 1, literacy interventions are ofprimary importance. Proficient readers must be competent in several areas. One area that has beenidentified in a report by the National Reading Panel (NRP; 2000) is the ability to read fluently (i.e.,reading with speed, accuracy, and prosody). An operational definition of reading fluency suggestedby Pikulski and Chard (2005) describes this skill subset as “efficient, effective word-recognitionskills that permit a reader to construct the meaning of text. Fluency is manifested in accurate, rapid,expressive oral reading and is applied during, and makes possible, silent reading comprehension”(p. 510). Reading fluency is closely linked to automaticity, the automatic decoding of text that freesattention for enhanced comprehension (Kuhn, 2005). In a discussion of the complexity associatedwith reading fluently, Hudson, Pullen, Lane, and Torgesen (2009), noted that reading fluency andcomprehension are reciprocal processes. Further, they suggest that fluency practice that includesa component of comprehension builds both word recognition and comprehension. Studies have



demonstrated that readers who comprehend during reading tasks are also more fluent (Jenkins,Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003). Notwithstanding the relationships between fluency,automaticity, and comprehension, systematic training in reading fluency is missing from routineinstruction in many classrooms (Cartledge & Lo, 2006).

Fluency training requires a variety of instructional approaches (for a discussion of the constructof reading fluency and related issues of fluency instruction, see Pikulski & Chard, 2005.). In dis-cussing evidence-based strategies for working with older elementary and middle-school students,Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, and Scammacca (2008) noted that differentiated practices are essen-tial. Fluency, word knowledge, and automaticity are inter-related reading components that influenceand enhance one another. They note that reading the same passages repeatedly may have benefit ifthe passages contain many familiar words and embedded target words. For students whose wordknowledge is limited, explicit instruction at the word level prior to reading is essential via differen-tiation. In addition, leveled reading passages must be carefully chosen, as passages that are overlydifficult may not be as beneficial as appropriately leveled materials.

Additionally, studies with younger elementary students have identified effective componentsof RR implementation. Begeny, Krouse, Ross, and Mitchell (2009) investigated the effect of RR,listening passage previewing (LPP), and listening only interventions with small groups of at-riskstudents. They concluded that “small group interventions can be effective in improving students’reading fluency of materials practiced for relatively brief periods of time” (p. 224). In addition,the authors noted that RR and LPP may be appropriate for all students at Tier 1 in the formof structured practice activities. Yurick, Robinson, Cartledge, Lo, and Evans (2006) investigatedpeer-mediated RR with urban learners. Although the results were mixed, the investigators didnote that RR appeared to have a positive effect and that the greatest gains were obtained whenstudents (1) knew they were being timed and (2) charted their personal growth data. Researchconducted by Armbruster, Lehr, and Osborn (2003) also suggests that repeated and monitored oralreading improves reading fluency and overall reading achievement. The use of RR has been thefocus of research in a variety of contexts. Several reviews have summarized evidence regardingapproaches to fluency building. Essential elements identified include: (1) corrective feedback onerrors, (2) active participation in oral reading of connected text, and (3) 10 to 20 minutes per dayengaged in reading rate practice (O’Connor, White, & Swanson, 2007). O’Connor et al. (2007)compared growth in reading fluency and other reading subskills using various treatment conditions,including RR of the same text and continuous reading of novel text. Poor readers in grades 2and 4 with and without learning disabilities were randomly assigned to fluency practice groupsor to a control group. Researchers found that, with regard to reading fluency, students in bothtreatment groups demonstrated significant growth in reading rate, word identification, and readingcomprehension. Instruction in the area of comprehension was not included as a part of the treatmentprotocol, however, which suggests that increasing fluency enhances poor readers’ ability to interactmeaningfully with text (O’Connor et al., 2007). In work previously cited, Hudson et al. (2009) notedthat fluency training is a very complex process and suggested that reading for meaning must beencouraged at all levels of instruction. Further, they noted that accurate readers who do not engagein extensive practice may not become fluent enough to read complex text required for academicsuccess.

As we considered these research findings, it became clear that teachers may benefit from rec-ommendations for implementing these strategies easily into their Tier 1 core instructional practices.Synthesizing research findings cited previously, Table 1 gives suggested applications for core instruc-tional components that can be easily differentiated during Tier 1 reading block instruction. Variousevidence-based practices related to RR are paired with specific suggestions for implementation in aclassroom setting.



Table 1Fluency Research Findings Translated to Practice

Research Finding/Source Suggested Application in the Classroom

Fluency practice should include a comprehensioncomponent.Hudson, Pullen, Lane & Torgesen (2009)

Graphic organizers and/or higher-order thinking questionsshould be used.

Vocabulary instruction is essential for students whose wordknowledge is limited.Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman & Scammacca (2008)

Small group instruction in target words which areembedded in RR passages; instruction should includeword recognition and meaning.

Reading passages must be carefully chosen as to level.Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman & Scammacca (2008)

Based on data, placement tests, AR levels, etc. Serial storieswritten at high interest levels may promote motivation.

Students need corrective feedback on errors.O’Connor, White & Swanson (2007)

Peer or adult feedback should be given immediately.

Students need to know that they are being timed.Yurick, Robinson, Cartledge, Lo & Evans (2006)

Provide timers and training.

Students need to chart their own growth.Yurick, Robinson, Cartledge, Lo & Evans (2006)

Provide charting training and materials for students.

Students need to actively participate in oral reading ofconnected text.O’Connor, White & Swanson (2007)

Students should be accountable to an adult for participationin RR.

Students need to spend 10–20 minutes per day engaged inreading rate practice.O’Connor, White & Swanson (2007)

RR should be carefully organized and implemented withfidelity.

Teachers working with a group of diverse learners must organize their classrooms for systematicinstruction and learning. Studies have shown that many formats using RR may be effective (see Chard,Vaughn & Tyler, 2002; Meyer & Felton,1999; Therrien, 2004). McDaniel, Duchaine and Jolivette(2010) investigated the perceptions of teachers and students who used a DI program that includedRR. Researchers reported that teachers’ comments suggested that the program “should clearly beimplemented across all levels and other teachers should do it every day” (p. 593).

Feazell (2004) investigated the use of a research-based practice as a Tier 1 schoolwide in-tervention. Fluency training was combined with phonics instruction and practice of other decod-ing/encoding skills. Students were chosen for the intervention sessions based on data and thengiven explicit and systematic instruction along with reading practice from grade-level literature.Passages were read three times, and students also practiced with audiotapes at home. Althoughfurther investigation would be appropriate using this model, initial results appear to be promising.

Research has demonstrated that reading fluency and comprehension are linked. Macaruso,Hook, and McCabe (2006) noted that difficulties in automaticity and fluent reading negatively affectcomprehension. In fact, researchers have long known that reading is a very complex process, witheach component affecting the others. The NRP (2000) identified the importance of including directinstruction in vocabulary to improve students’ comprehension of text. Combining targeted, directinstruction in word attack and vocabulary, paired with fluency practice in a differentiated classroommodel, may be valuable in bridging the gap between research and classroom application at the Tier 1level. Table 2 is a sample DI Tier 1 fluency and vocabulary practice schedule using RR.

This differentiated instructional delivery model could be easily varied to meet students’ needsby altering the skills targeted during teacher-led sessions. With the organization and scaffold inplace, teachers would be able to quickly and easily regroup students according to skill need andprogress as measured through fluency probes and other data. Assistance from school psychology



Tabl

e2

Sam

ple

Tabl

efo

rR

epea

ted

Rea

ding

sD

IO

rgan

izat

ion

***

Mon

day

Tue

sday

Wed

nesd

ayT

hurs

day

Frid

ay

Gro

up1

(Sig

nific

antl

yA

bove

Ben

chm

ark

–20

Poi

nts

orM

ore)

Stud

ents

part

ner

read

inle

vele

dpa

ssag

esba

sed

onin

tere

st/p

lace

men

tte

sts

from

mat

eria

ls.

Stud

ents

part

ner

re-r

ead

insa

me

leve

led

pass

ages

.Fl

uenc

yco

unts

/cha

rtin

g

Stud

ents

part

ner

read

inne

wle

vele

dpa

ssag

es.

Voc

abul

ary

Bui

ldin

gA

ctiv

ities

(Cen

ters

)

Stud

ents

part

ner

re-r

ead

inle

vele

dpa

ssag

es.

Flue

ncy

coun

ts/c

hart

ing

Teac

her

sche

dule

sch

ecko

uts

with

indi

vidu

alst

uden

tsor

smal

lgro

ups

from

Gro

ups

1an

d2

ona

rota

ting

basi

s.

Gro

up2

(At

orSl

ight

lyA

bove

Ben

chm

ark)

Stud

ents

part

ner

read

inle

vele

dpa

ssag

esba

sed

onin

tere

st/p

lace

men

tte

sts

from

mat

eria

ls.

Stud

ents

part

ner

re-r

ead

insa

me

leve

led

pass

ages

.Fl

uenc

y/co

unts

/cha

rtin

g

Stud

ents

part

ner

read

inne

wle

vele

dpa

ssag

es.

Voc

abul

ary

Bui

ldin

gA

ctiv

ities

(Cen

ters

)

Stud

ents

part

ner

re-r

ead

inle

vele

dpa

ssag

es.

Flue

ncy

coun

ts/c

hart

ing

Gro

up3

(Bel

owB

ench

mar

kan

dN

eed

Flu

ency

Pra

ctic

e–

Acc

urac

y95

%or

Mor

e)

Stud

ents

part

ner

read

inle

vele

dpa

ssag

esba

sed

onin

tere

st/p

lace

men

tte

sts

from

mat

eria

ls.

Teac

her

Dir

ecte

dV

ocab

ular

ySt

udy

ofpa

ssag

e-re

late

dw

ords

Re-

read

ing

ofpa

ssag

ew

ithflu

ency

coun

t.

Stud

ents

part

ner

read

insa

me

leve

led

pass

ages

,or

new

one

base

don

Tue

sday

’sflu

ency

scor

e.

Teac

her

Dir

ecte

dV

ocab

ular

ySt

udy

ofpa

ssag

e-re

late

dw

ords

Re-

read

ing

ofpa

ssag

ew

ithflu

ency

coun

t.

Gro

ups

3an

d4

play

wor

dga

mes

and

time/

char

tone

anot

hers

’re

adin

gfo

rflu

ency

coun

ts.

Gro

up4

(Bel

owB

ench

mar

kan

dN

eed

Exp

licit

Voc

abul

ary/

Wor

dA

ttac

kIn

stru

ctio

n)

Teac

her

Dir

ecte

dV

ocab

ular

yan

dPh

onic

sSt

udy

ofpa

ssag

e-re

late

dw

ords

Stud

ents

part

ner

read

inle

vele

dpa

ssag

esba

sed

onin

tere

st/p

lace

men

tte

sts

from

mat

eria

ls.

Teac

her

Dir

ecte

dV

ocab

ular

yan

dPh

onic

sSt

udy

ofpa

ssag

e-re

late

dw

ords

Stud

ents

part

ner

read

insa

me

leve

led

pass

ages

.

∗∗∗ G

roup

sar

ede

term

ined

byda

ta,b

ased

onO

RF

mea

sure

san

dot

her

info

rmal

diag

nost

icto

ols.

Supp

lem

enta

lins

truc

tiona

ltim

em

aybe

aslit

tleas

20m

inut

espe

rda

yor

long

erat

the

teac

her’

sdi

scre

tion.



professionals would be essential in this measurement aspect of differentiation. Assistance could takethe form of training in PM and other informal measures, as well as providing training and ongoingsupport as teachers and administrators interpret current data.

REDESIGNED ROLES FOR THE TEACHER, THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST, AND THE PRINCIPAL

What, then, would be an appropriate next-step response on the part of concerned educators whowould like to improve classroom instruction for all students by enhancing Tier 1 DI for reading?Professional development is key in the success of differentiated, tiered intervention systems. Ateam of educators can help bring this needed training to the table, as research indicates that well-intentioned initiatives are destined to die on the vine unless accompanied by a vibrant supportsystem (Public Education Network, 2004). In this time of scarce resources, schools are in need ofadministrative strategies that provide insights about RtI in general, evidence-based interventions inparticular, and DI.

One suggestion may be that classroom teachers work with an interested colleague, the schoolpsychologist, and the principal to ensure access to high-quality professional development with acontinuing support component. The development of a steering committee led by knowledgeableadministrators or outside consultants is usually an appropriate starting place for districts and schoolsjust beginning the process (Wright, 2007). Classroom teachers could also pilot and demonstrateTier 1 interventions, such as the RR weekly model suggested previously in Tables 1 and 2 in theirclassrooms, while the rest of the staff are being trained on the basics of RtI.

Ongoing support and administrative buy-in are also essential. We applaud school administrators’interest in and support of innovative practices, and we encourage school psychology personnel totake an active role in RtI implementation. Principals and other school leaders should provide strategicguidance that has been proven to be effective in positive change initiatives. This may include:

• facilitating frequent and intensive training to allow teachers to develop requisite skills and theability to independently apply them in the classroom;

• providing professional development that is also durable, that is, of sufficient duration to enableteachers to access ongoing, intensive support from experts and/or consultants; and

• accepting the responsibility for ensuring the fidelity of intervention implementation (e.g.,Glover & DiPerna, 2007; Kovaleski, 2007).

Other suggestions to add to these strategies may include:

• providing encouragement for teachers’ problem solving and their own use of tools to meet thedemands of their classroom and of the students they teach;

• freeing time for teachers to implement skills and critically evaluate their usefulness, alongwith collaboration time with fellow educators to discuss the evaluations; and

• providing a resource library for teachers to use in the development and extension of their skillsin the area of RtI.

There is no question that much work remains to be done in the effort to bring more studentsto grade-level proficiency in reading. Early intervention is well documented as being effective andnecessary. Educators are being asked to do more with less and are in need of proven practices thatwill help accelerate all students, beginning at Tier 1. It is important that existing resources andproven strategies be made available to more learners.



CONCLUSION

Interventions already available in schools may provide enhanced educational opportunities forstudents not formally identified as struggling or at risk, but who may not be performing up to theirpotential, particularly in the area of reading. Nesting evidence-based materials and programs inTier 1 instruction could bring those proven interventions to additional populations of students. DIcould provide teachers with interventions and resources, enabling them to enhance Tier 1 instructionand student performance (e.g. Chard et al., 2002). Research into this wider application may beuseful in helping teachers faced with a task that can appear daunting at best (i.e., equipping studentswith needed literacy skills and thus preventing reading referrals to Tier 2). We examined literatureregarding RtI and reading fluency instruction to identify evidence-based strategies that may beappropriate to use as first-line interventions in Tier 1. Much literature and evidence was foundthat supported DI and RR. We would suggest that additional research needs to be completed onembedding evidence-based intervention models into DI at the Tier 1 level.

In an RtI model, it is appropriate, at Tier 1, to explore the application of carefully chosenevidence-based practices typically reserved for more intensive interventions. These practices maybe useful when applied as supplemental and preventative efforts aimed at differentiating core readinginstruction. RR of leveled materials is one such strategy and could be implemented in a differentiatedclassroom, using assessment data to form groups and plan activities. Materials that have beencarefully constructed for gradually increasing difficulty and vocabulary control could serve as theinstructional materials as well.

We would suggest to all levels of school personnel that, as educators, we must make the most ofthe instructional time available at all tiers. We urge administrators, teachers, and school psychologiststo respond to current trends and research, fully using every available resource. School psychologistshave comprehensive opportunities to collaborate with and provide support to classroom teachersseeking to provide data-driven, evidenced-based instruction to all students at all tiers.

REFERENCES

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks or teaching children to read,kindergarten through grade 3. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2006). IDEA 2004 and response tointervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors ofSpecial Education.

Begeny, J. C., Krouse, H. E., Ross, S. G., & Mitchell, R. C. (2009). Increasing elementary-aged students’ reading fluency withsmall-group interventions: A comparison of repeated reading, listening passage preview, and listening only strategies.Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 211 – 228.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 42, 85 – 95.

Cartledge, G., & Lo, Y. (2006). Teaching urban learners: Culturally responsive strategies for developing academic andbehavioral competence. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluencywith elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386 – 406.

Daly III, E. J., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response tointervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School PsychologyReview, 36, 562 – 581.

Feazell, V. S. (2004). Reading acceleration program: A schoolwide intervention. The Reading Teacher, 58, 66 – 72.Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to

ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129 – 136.Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention: Core components and directions for

future research. School Psychology Review, 36, 526 – 540.Hudson, R., Pullen, P., Lane, H. B., & Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The complex nature of reading fluency: A multidimensional

view. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 4 – 32.



Institute of Educational Sciences. (2009), Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention (RTI) andmulti-tier intervention in the primary grades. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee

Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in readingcomprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719 – 729.

Kosanovich, M., Ladinsky, K., Nelson, L., & Torgesen, J. (2007). Differentiated reading instruction: Small group al-ternative lesson structures for all students. Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved June 11, 2011, fromhttp://www.fcrr.org/assessment/pdf/smallgroupalternativelessonstructures.pdf

Kovaleski, J. F. (2007). Response to intervention: Considerations for research and systems change. School PsychologyReview, 36, 638 – 646.

Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 127 – 146.Latz, A. O., Spiers Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation

perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31, 27 – 39.Macaruso, P., Hook, P. E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for

advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 162 – 172.McDaniel, S. C., Duchaine, E. L., & Jolivette, K. (2010). Struggling readers with emotional and behavioral disorders and

their teachers: Perceptions of corrective reading. Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 585 – 599.Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of

Dyslexia, 49, 283 – 306.National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The nation’s report card on reading 2007. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/ 2007496.pdfNational Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature

on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National institute ofChild Health and Human Development.

O’Connor, R. E., White, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences of readingfluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 74, 31 – 46.

Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher,58, 510 – 519.

Public Education Network. (2004). Teacher professional development: A primer for parents & community members. RetrievedAugust 15, 2010, from http://www.publiceducation.org/pdf/publications/teacher quality/teacher prof dev.pdf

Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence based strategies for reading instruction ofolder students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 63 – 69.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial and Special Education,25, 252 – 261.

Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., et al. (2007). National assessment of TitleI, final report: Volume II: Closing the reading gap, findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventionsfor striving readers (NCEE 2008-4013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and RegionalAssistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Thenation’s report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). Washington, DC: NCES. Retrieved July 18, 2011, fromhttp://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2006451.pdf

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom.Theory into Practice, 44, 211 – 217.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. J. (1993). The classroom practices observation study.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120 – 146.

Wright, J. (2007). RTI toolkit: A practical guide for schools. Port Chester, NY: DUDE Publishing.Xu, Y., & Drame, E. (2008). Culturally appropriate context: Unlocking the potential of response to intervention for English

language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 305 – 311.Yurick, A. L., Robinson, P. D., Cartledge, G., Lo, Y., & Evans, T. L. (2006). Using peer-mediated repeated readings as a

fluency-building activity for urban learners. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 469 – 506.


reading instruction in tier 1: bridging the gaps by nesting evidence-based interventions within...

Documents