Considerable research evidence supports the provision of explicit instruction for students

Considerable research evidence supports the provision of explicit instruction for students at risk for reading difficulties; however one of the most widely implemented approaches to early reading instruction is Guided Reading (GR; Fountas & Pinnel 1996 which deemphasizes explicit instruction and practice of reading skills in favor of extended time reading text. decoding and one measure of comprehension. Outcomes for the intervention groups did not differ significantly from each other; however an analysis of the added value of providing each intervention relative to expected growth with typical instruction indicated that EX is more likely to substantially accelerate student progress in phonemic decoding text reading fluency and Leukadherin 1 reading comprehension than GR. Implications for selection of Tier 2 interventions within a response-to-intervention format are discussed. = 886) Rabbit Polyclonal to DGKI. and 2010 (= 1 56 to identify those at risk for reading difficulties. In the fall of 2010 a small number of students who were new to the participating schools were screened at the beginning of Grade 2. Two years of recruitment were needed to establish an adequately sized sample for a three-group study. All students who met the criteria of a composite standard score on the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) a Basic Skills Cluster standard score on the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III; Woodcock McGrew & Mather 2001 less than 93 (i.e. below the 30th percentile) were selected for participation (= 218). This benchmark has been validated against external criteria as an indicator of adequate response to reading intervention at the end of Grade 1 (Fletcher et al. 2014 and used in several previous studies (Mathes et al. 1995 Torgesen 2000 These students were randomly assigned to receive supplemental small-group intervention using a GR approach (GR group; = 74) or an explicit instruction approach (EX group; = 73) Leukadherin 1 or the typical reading instruction and intervention provided by their schools with no researcher-provided intervention (TSI group; = 71). These three groups constituted the intent-to-treat sample. As an intent-to-treat sample all randomized students were included in the analysis dataset. However not all students completed the study. Five of the 218 selected students were lost to attrition during summer break. An additional 29 moved away from their schools during the school year. Two additional students were removed from the study by their parents two others were removed by their schools due to scheduling conflicts and a final student was removed due to special education Leukadherin 1 placement and the decision of the individualized education program committee. Seventeen more students were lost when two schools in the urban district withdrew from the study due to changes in school administration prior to the onset of intervention. The resulting sample sizes by condition were EX = 59 GR = 50 and TSI = 53. To examine the effects of attrition the 56 attritted students were compared to the 162 who completed posttesting. The two groups did not differ in treatment assignment χ2(1) = 3.39 > .05 gender χ2(1) = 0.13 > .05; race χ2(3) = 7.04 > .05; or free lunch status χ2(1) = 2.01 > .05 nor did they differ on baseline scores on TOWRE > .05; WJ III Basic Reading Skills > .05; Gates-MacGinitie Passage Comprehension > .05; or age > .05. The groups did differ on site χ2(1) = 4.72 = .03. The difference in attrition for site can be attributed to the withdrawal of two schools in the urban site. Omitting the students lost to school withdrawal and testing for differences between the 39 attritted students and the 162 who completed posttesting shows no differences by site χ2(1) = 0.29 > .05. Table 1 provides the demographic characteristics of participants by condition. Although most students were in Grade 2 during the study some that were identified at the end of first grade were subsequently retained in and were repeating Grade 1. There were no significant demographic differences between the treatment conditions on grade χ2(2) = 0.82 > .05; gender χ2(2) = 0.09 > Leukadherin 1 .05; race/ethnicity χ2(4) = 2.32 > .05; free/reduced lunch qualification χ2(2) = 5.15 > .05; Limited English Proficient status χ2(2) = 2.06 > .05; special education status χ2(2) = 1.91 > .05; or site χ2(2) = 0.32 > .05. The groups did not differ on age > .05. Altogether the randomization was successful with no.