Responsive Reading Instruction

Study: Mathes, Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, Francis, et al. (2005)

Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005).The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly 40, 148-18
Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

Responsive Reading Instruction (RRI) was created to help the lowest-performing first and second graders learn to read competently and within the average range for their age groups. RRI small-group lessons are based on six elements that research has shown are important for effective instruction of struggling readers:

  1. Instruction in Key Domains of Reading
  2. Explicit Instruction
  3. Opportunities to Practice
  4. Targeted Instruction Based on Assessment
  5. Scaffolding and Feedback
  6. The Home-School Connection

In the classroom, RRI teachers follow a consistent lesson structure that includes: Word Work, Print Concepts and Fluency, Assessment, Supported Reading, and Supported Writing. Optional DVD includes modeling of 34 of the RRI activities

 

Responsive Reading Instruction is intended for use in first and second grades. It is designed for use with students with learning disabilities and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic area of focus is reading (including phonics/word study, comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary) and writing (including sentence construction, planning and revising, and writing in response to text).

Based on an analysis of purchased items, RRI has been implemented in approximately 50 locations since it was published in 2006. Implementations are primarily concentrated in Illinois and Texas.

 

Where to obtain:
Cambium Learning Sopris
4185 Salazar Way
Frederick, CO 80504
Phone: 800-547-6747
Website: www.cambiumlearninggroup.com
 

Cost: Initial cost per student for implementing program (2 options):

  • 5 Students & 1 Teacher: $18.99 per student (Includes teacher materials without DVD)
  • 5 Students & 1 Teacher: $23.90/student (Includes teachers materials with DVD)

Replacement cost per student for subsequent use: $ 0.00

Essentially, Responsive Reading Instruction comprises a single instructional manual/resource guide. This guide includes everything needed to begin instruction: embedded professional development, planning/implementation guides, and reproducible.

An optional component is a DVD that contains models of 34 RRI methods.

Manipulatives (e.g., sentence strips, sticky notes), big books, and leveled readers are not included.

 

Responsive Reading Instruction is designed for use with small groups of three to five students.

Responsive Reading Instruction takes 40 minutes per session with approximately five sessions per week for an unspecified number of weeks.

The program includes a highly specified teacher’s manual.

Technology is not required, but there is an optional DVD, which models instructional strategies, available for teachers.

 

Although training is not required, it is available if needed. Some districts have opted to have one day of initial training paired with on-going support (coaching/observations).

Instructors must be professionals. There are currently no training materials available; the professional development is embedded within the Teacher’s Guide.

Ongoing teacher support is not required, but is available.

 

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Sample size: 206 students in first grade in six schools (92 students in the treatment group and 114 students in the control group).

Risk Status: (A) students were screened with the TPRI at the end of Kindergarten or the beginning of 1st grade; (B) the Woodcock Johnson III Word Identification subtest (any student who could read ≥ 5 words was eliminated) and Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement text reading subtest (any student who could read Level D texts or higher with 90% accuracy was eliminated) was administered; (C) 1 minute, end-of-1st grade-leveled Oral Reading Fluency passage was administered (any student who was reading > 5 words was eliminated from the sample). This multiple part identification of at-risk students was also used in the second study included in this protocol, Effectiveness of a Supplemental Early Reading Intervention Scaled Up in Multiple Schools by Denton, et al. (2010).

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 1

 92

100% 

114 

100% 

 

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

41

45%

52

45%

 

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

21

23%

27

24%

 

  White

30

32%

34

30%

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

 

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

3

3%

8

7%

 

  Learning disabilities

2

2%

3

3%

 

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Intellectual disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

  Not identified with a disability

 

 

 

 

 

ELL status

  English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

Female

29

32%

46

40%

 

Male

53

58%

68

60%

 

Training of Instructors: Background and Experience: master's degrees, teaching certifications in multiple areas, mean years of experience = 6 (includes teachers not under review).

Training and Ongoing Support: 42 hours of professional development from the author of the intervention prior to instruction (Year 1) and an additional 12 hours in Year 2 of the study. Monthly half-day in-service meetings during the school year, onsite coaching.

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: Yes.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences?: Not applicable.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Was there attrition bias1 ?: Yes.

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: Yes.

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf

 

Fidelity of Implementation: Convincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Classroom observations were conducted every 8 weeks, for a total of four observations for each participating teacher. A 3-point rating scale was used (3 = exact, 1 = poor). Prior to each wave of data collection, two or more observers established reliability by co-observing lessons, rating them independently, and comparing and discussing the ratings during a consensus meeting.  Reliability was calculated by comparing the ratio of absolute agreements and disagreements.  These co-observations continued until agreement between raters reached at least 85%.  This was repeated at each wave of data collection (4 times each year).

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: Having materials ready 96% of the time; having students seated 96% of the time, being warm and enthusiastic 100% of the time. They were rated as having appropriate pacing (mean = 2.5), following procedures for each section of the lesson routine (mean = 2.6), scaffolding student responses appropriately (mean = 2.7), and maintaining student attentiveness mean = 2.7.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Measures Broader: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure Score type & range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) 

 

Sound Matching subtest range: 0 to 20 – number of initial and final sounds correctly identified
Blending words range: 0 to 20 – number of sounds correctly blended
Blending nonwords range: 0 to 18 – number of sounds correctly blended
Elision range: 0 to 20 – number of words correctly spoken with the phoneme removed

Rapid Letter naming range: 0 to 72 – number of seconds taken to name all of the letter stimuli

Internal Consistency r = 0.70 to 0.91 for all subtests

 

During the third component, letter and word work, students received 10 to 12 minutes of explicit instruction and practice related to phonemic awareness, letter–sound relationships, word reading, or spelling. Teachers explicitly taught phonological awareness skills, letter–sound correspondences, and how to sound out words, and students reviewed and practiced these skills daily. Students were taught to manipulate onsets and rimes to arrive at new words through analogy with known words, but they were also asked to segment the phonemes within each onset and rime before applying these larger units to read words. Students practiced decoding and encoding skills in several formats, including blending and sounding out words presented by the teacher and segmenting and writing dictated words.

Untimed Word Reading

N/A

 

Internal Consistency r =0.90

 

The fourth component, supported reading, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. During this time, students read a text they had not previously read. Each day, the focus student read a portion of the book alone, while the teacher coached, scaffolded, and prompted the student to apply skills and strategies. Next the entire group read the same book, either chorally or individually. Prior to the reading of a new book, teachers pretaught potentially difficult vocabulary words, discussed potentially confusing subject matter, and encouraged students to make predictions to link the book’s subject matter to prior knowledge and to establish a purpose for reading. During and after reading, teachers frequently asked questions referring to the text meaning and asked students to retell or summarize portions of the story. Teachers provided feedback and supported students as they discussed the meaning of text.

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)

 

Sight Word Efficiency Subtest Range: 0 to 104 – number of words accurately identified
Phonemic Decoding Efficiency: 0 to 63 – number of nonwords accurately decoded

 

Internal Consistency r > 0.95 for both subtests

 

During the first two components, fluency building and assessment, which lasted 8 to 10 minutes, students engaged in repeated reading with teacher modeling and prompting to support passage reading fluency. The teacher modeled fluent and expressive reading, explicitly taught the meaning and oral interpretation of punctuation marks, and prompted students to read smoothly and in phrases. The instruction and modeling were directed to the daily focus student, while the other two students in the group engaged in partner reading. Following the fluency activities, the teacher observed one student reading a book that had been introduced on the previous day, using running record procedures (see Clay, 2002). The teacher individually assessed the reading strengths and needs of each student in the group one to two times per week.

Oral Reading Fluency - TCARE

Words correct per minute

 

Field-tested to determine equivalence of difficulty

 

During the first two components, fluency building and assessment, which lasted 8 to 10 minutes, students engaged in repeated reading with teacher modeling and prompting to support passage reading fluency. The teacher modeled fluent and expressive reading, explicitly taught the meaning and oral interpretation of punctuation marks, and prompted students to read smoothly and in phrases. The instruction and modeling were directed to the daily focus student, while the other two students in the group engaged in partner reading. Following the fluency activities, the teacher observed one student reading a book that had been introduced on the previous day, using running record procedures (see Clay, 2002). The teacher individually assessed the reading strengths and needs of each student in the group one to two times per week.

Woodcock-Johnson III Word Attack WJ-II W score and standard score The Basic Reading composite, composed of the WJ-III Letter Word ID and Word Attack subtests has split-half reliability of 0.91 to 0.97 in the age range of the study.  
Woodcock-Johnson III Word Identification Standard Score (mean=100; sd = 15; age range = 5 to 75+; grades = K-16) Internal consistency reliability = 0.91 and 0.92 respectively for the fall and spring  
Woodcock-Johnson III Passage Comprehension WJ-II W score and standard score Split-half reliabilities range from 0.83 to 0.96 in the age range of the study.  
Broader Measure Score type & range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content

Woodcock-Johnson III Spelling

 

WJ-II W score and standard score

Split-half reliabilities range from 0.87 to 0.91 in the age range of the study.

 

 

Woodcock-Johnson III Calculations

Calculations subtest from WJIII requires students to perform mathematical calculations of increasing difficulty until they miss a certain number of problems in a row

Internal consistency = 0.85

 

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 3 Reading, 1 Writing, 1 Math

Mean ES - Targeted: Data Unavailable

Mean ES - Broader: Data Unavailable

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading WJ-III Word Attack
Reading WJ-III Word Identification
Reading WJ-III Passage Comprehension

Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Writing WJ-III Spelling
Math WJ-III Calculations

 

Key
*        p ≤ 0.05
**      p ≤ 0.01
***    p ≤ 0.001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): N/A

Disaggregated Data for Demographic Subgroups: No

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: No

Administration Group Size: Small Group, (n=3)

Duration of Intervention: 40 minutes, 5 times a week, 32 weeks

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Professional, 42 hours of training

Reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA: E-ESSA

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

No studies considered met Evidence for ESSA's inclusion requirements.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies