Your search found 6712 results.

Descriptors:
School Personnel; Reading Fluency; Emergent Literacy; Psychometrics; Equated Scores; Grade 2; Oral Reading; Elementary School Students; Factor Analysis; Measurement; Scores; Comparative Analysis; Error of Measurement; True Scores; Test Construction; Curriculum Based Assessment; Literacy; Validity; Reading Instruction; Reading Programs

Abstract:
Lack of psychometric equivalence of oral reading fluency (ORF) passages used within a grade for screening and progress monitoring has recently become an issue with calls for the use of equating methods to ensure equivalence. To investigate the nature of the nonequivalence and to guide the choice of equating method to correct for nonequivalence, the authors fit linear and nonlinear confirmatory factor analytic measurement models to Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) second-grade ORF passages routinely used for spring testing. They found evidence of nonlinear relations among passage scores that indicated equipercentile equating would be the best choice of equating method compared with mean or linear equating. The standard error of equating (SEE) with a sample of 600 participants was acceptable and less then two correct words per minute for equated scores from 0 to 150, which covers 95% and the useful range of scores. Consistent with the small SEE, the equating table also successfully removed all form differences in an independent sample of second graders. Given the widespread adoption of DIBELS in thousands of schools serving millions of students, equating all passages within a grade would substantially improve the quality of the tool and dramatically lower the assessment burden on school personnel. (Contains 5 tables and 5 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Individualized Instruction; Response to Intervention; Benchmarking; Reading Instruction; Reading Programs; Screening Tests; Curriculum Based Assessment; Progress Monitoring; Models; Program Effectiveness; Outcomes of Education; Program Implementation; Program Descriptions; Elementary Schools; Time Factors (Learning); Teacher Surveys; Special Education; Program Design; Accessibility (for Disabled)

Abstract:
This article describes how a purposeful sample of 62 elementary schools from 17 states implemented a Response to Intervention (RtI) framework for reading. School informants answered surveys and were interviewed about differentiated instruction in Tier 1, screening/benchmarking, where Tier 2 interventions were located, typical group size and the minutes/day of intervention in Tiers 2 and 3 groups, and how students with individualized educational programs (IEPs) in reading were served in the school's RtI model. Schools reported using differentiated instruction in Tier 1, favored curriculum-based measures for screening/benchmarking and progress monitoring, reported more intensive interventions and more progress monitoring in Tier 3, and used a wide variety of models for serving students with IEPs within the schools' RtI models. (Contains 3 tables and 5 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Social Justice; Ethnography; Discourse Analysis; Inclusion; Visual Impairments; Library Services; Reading Programs; Educational Practices; Accessibility (for Disabled); Phenomenology; Disability Discrimination; Library Policy; Longitudinal Studies; Program Attitudes; Discussion Groups; Group Dynamics; Observation; Semi Structured Interviews; Library Role

Abstract:
Inclusive practice is well embedded across society and has developed over time. However, although policy and public view have moved forward, the way organisations address the agenda for inclusion often represents a superficial interpretation of this concept. Qualitative data were gathered using new ethnography to explore the experiences of a library-based reading group for visually impaired readers. The voices of the individuals shed light on the individual and collective experience of reading. These insights challenge the traditional views of distinct provision that are designed to address targets for inclusion of individuals with disabilities. We argue for a clearer focus on the unintentional consequences of practice in the name of inclusion that leave individuals feeling marginalised. This paper suggests the alternative focus on social justice as offering a discourse that focuses on society and away from the individual. (Contains 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Reading Programs; Computer Assisted Instruction; Beginning Reading; Alphabets; Reading Fluency; Reading Comprehension; Elementary School Students; Kindergarten; Grade 1; Grade 2; Grade 3; Intervention; Educational Research; Foreign Countries

Abstract:
"Fast ForWord"[R] is a computer-based reading program intended to help students develop and strengthen the cognitive skills necessary for successful reading and learning. The program, which is designed to be used 30-100 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 4-16 weeks, includes three series. The "Fast ForWord[R] Language" series and the "Fast ForWord[R] Literacy" series aim to build cognitive skills such as memory, attention, processing, and sequencing. They also strive to build language and reading skills, including listening accuracy, phonological awareness, and knowledge of language structures. The "Fast ForWord[R] to Reading" series (also known as the "Fast ForWord[R] Reading" series) aims to increase processing efficiency and further improve reading skills such as sound-letter associations, phonological awareness, word recognition, knowledge of English language conventions, vocabulary, and comprehension. The program is designed to adapt the nature and difficulty of the content based on individual student's responses. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 342 studies that investigated the effects of "Fast ForWord"[R] on the reading skills of beginning readers. The WWC reviewed 25 of those studies against group design evidence standards. Seven studies (Borman, Benson, & Overman, 2009; Scientific Learning Corporation, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2007) are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC evidence standards without reservations, and two studies (Overbay & Baenen, 2003; Scientific Learning Corporation, 2008) are quasi-experimental designs that meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. Those nine studies are summarized in this report. Sixteen studies do not meet WWC evidence standards. The remaining 317 studies do not meet WWC eligibility screens for review in this topic area. Appended are: (1) Research details for Borman, Benson, & Overman, 2009; (2) Research details for Scientific Learning Corporation, 2004; (3) Research details for Scientific Learning Corporation, 2005a; (4) Research details for Scientific Learning Corporation, 2005b; (5) Research details for Scientific Learning Corporation, 2005c; (6) Research details for Scientific Learning Corporation, 2006; (7) Research details for Scientific Learning Corporation, 2007; (8) Research details for Overbay and Baenen, 2003; (9) Research details for Scientific Learning Corporation, 2008; (10) Outcome measures for each domain; (11) Findings included in the rating for the alphabetics domain; (12) Findings included in the rating for the reading fluency domain; (13) Findings included in the rating for the comprehension domain; (14) Description of subgroup findings for the alphabetics domain; and (15) Description of subgroup findings for the reading fluency domain. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 14 tables and 23 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (403K)

Descriptors:
Reading Programs; Supplementary Education; Literacy; Adolescents; Elementary School Students; Grade 3; Grade 4; Grade 5; Intervention; Educational Research

Abstract:
"Read Naturally" is a supplemental reading program designed to improve reading fluency, accuracy, and comprehension of elementary and middle school students using a combination of books, audio CDs, and computer software. The program combines three main strategies: modeling of story reading, repeated reading of text for developing oral reading fluency, and systematic monitoring of student progress by teachers and the students themselves. Students work at a reading level appropriate for their achievement level, progress through the program at their own rate, and work (for the most part) on an independent basis. The program has two versions: one in which students use audio CDs with hard-copy reading materials, and one in which students use the "Read Naturally" computer program alone. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 56 studies that investigated the effects of "Read Naturally" on the literacy skills of adolescent readers. The WWC reviewed four of those studies against group design evidence standards. One study (Heistad, 2008) is a quasi-experimental design that meets WWC evidence standards with reservations. The study is summarized in this report. Three studies do not meet WWC evidence standards. The remaining 52 studies do not meet WWC eligibility screens for review in this topic area. Appended are: (1) Research details for Heistad (2008); (2) Outcome measure for the general literacy achievement domain; (3) Findings included in the rating for the general literacy achievement domain; and (4) Description of supplemental findings for the general literacy achievement domain. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 3 tables and 4 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (190K)

Descriptors:
Summer Programs; Reading Programs; Intervention; Kindergarten; Grade 1; Elementary School Students; At Risk Students; Reading Difficulties; Alphabets; Reading Fluency; Reading Achievement; Program Effectiveness; Educational Research

Abstract:
The study reviewed in this report examined the impact of a summer literacy program on kindergarten and first-grade students who were at moderate risk for reading difficulties in one Pacific Northwest school district. The study took place through a limited expansion of an existing summer program for high-risk students that was modified to include moderate-risk students. Study authors randomly assigned 49 kindergarten students (25 intervention, 24 comparison) and 51 first-grade students (26 intervention, 25 comparison) identified as moderate-risk to either an intervention group that was invited to participate in the summer reading program, or a comparison group that did not receive the intervention. The final analytic sample consisted of 46 kindergarten students (24 intervention, 22 comparison) and 47 first-grade students (23 intervention, 24 comparison). The study found, and the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) confirmed, a statistically significant positive effect of the summer school intervention on student outcomes in the fall of the implementation year for students in both kindergarten (effect size on the alphabetic assessment = 0.69) and first grade (effect size on the reading fluency assessment = 0.61). The research described in this report meets WWC evidence standards without reservations. Appended are: (1) Study details; (2) Outcome Measures for each domain; and (3) Study findings for each domain. A glossary is included. (Contains 2 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (166K)

Descriptors:
Instructional Effectiveness; Reading Achievement; Evidence; Outcome Measures; Reading; Auditory Training; Reading Fluency; Reading Processes; Reading Comprehension; Reading Skills; Reading Difficulties; Intervention; Phonological Awareness; Reading Instruction; Adolescents; Reading Programs; Program Effectiveness

Abstract:
"SpellRead"[TM], formerly known as "SpellRead Phonological Auditory Training"[R], is a small-group literacy program for struggling readers in grades 2-12. "SpellRead"[TM] integrates the auditory and visual aspects of the reading process and emphasizes specific skill mastery through systematic and explicit instruction. Students are taught to recognize and manipulate English sounds; to practice, apply, and transfer their skills using texts at their reading level; and to write about their reading. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 14 studies on the effects of "SpellRead"[TM] on the reading achievement of adolescent readers. Two studies (Rashotte, MacPhee, & Torgesen, 2001; Torgesen et al., 2006) are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC evidence standards without reservations. These two studies are summarized in this report. The remaining 12 studies do not meet either WWC eligibility screens or evidence standards. Appended are: (1) Research details for Rashotte, MacPhee, & Torgesen, 2001 and Torgesen et al. (2006); (2) Outcome measures for each domain; (3) Findings included in the rating for the alphabetics domain, reading fluency domain, and comprehension domain; and (4) Supplemental findings for the alphabetics domain, reading fluency domain, and comprehension domain. A glossary of terms is included. (Contains 7 tables, 9 endnotes and 1 additional source.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (422K)

Descriptors:
Reading Programs; Reading; Foreign Countries; Word Recognition; Control Groups; Experimental Groups; Reading Fluency; Reading Aloud to Others; Parent Child Relationship; Parent Participation; Preschool Children; Program Effectiveness; Comparative Analysis; Self Efficacy; Parent Attitudes

Abstract:
A paired reading program was implemented for 195 Hong Kong preschoolers (mean age = 4.7 years) and their parents from families with a wide range of family income. The preschoolers were randomly assigned to experimental or waitlist control groups. The parents in the experimental group received 12 sessions of school-based training on paired reading in 7 weeks. They were required to do paired reading with their children for at least four times in each of these 7 weeks. At the end of the program, the preschoolers in the experimental group had better performance in word recognition and reading fluency than their counterparts in the control group. They were also reported as more competent and motivated in reading by their parents. More importantly, the program had many favorable effects on parents. Parents in the experimental group had higher self-efficacy in helping their children to be better readers and learners. They also reported that they had better relationships with their children. Their changes in relationships and self-efficacy were found to mediate the program impact on some of the child outcomes. However, family income did not moderate the effectiveness of the program. Families with high and low income both benefited from the program alike. (Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Tutoring; Adult Literacy; Adult Learning; Adult Students; Reading Instruction; Reading Programs; Phonological Awareness; Scores; Pretests Posttests; Adults; Literacy; Reading; Intervention; Decoding (Reading); Reading Skills; Reading Fluency

Abstract:
To obtain a fuller picture of the efficacy of reading instruction programs for adult literacy learners, gains by individual students were examined in a sample (n = 148) in which weak to moderate gains at the group level had been obtained in response to tutoring interventions that focused on strengthening basic decoding and fluency skills of low literate adults (Sabatini, Shore, Holtzman, & Scarborough, 2011). Learners were randomly assigned to receive one of three tutoring programs for an average of 44 h of instruction. We used within-individual gains replicated over tests (WIGROT) as the method for identifying gainers, who were defined as students whose reading levels increased from pretest to posttest by a half year or more on at least two of four measured aspects of reading proficiency. The 46 % of the sample who met the criterion had higher pretest scores than non-gainers on measures of reading (d = 0.42, p less than 0.01) and phonological awareness (d = 0.47, p less than 0.01), and included fewer adults with a history of special education (43 vs. 61 %, phi = 0.19, p less than 0.05), regardless of which instructional condition had been received. The findings suggest that basic skills instruction can lead to a meaningful degree of benefit for many adult learners who persist in reading programs for several months. Supplementing group level results with analyses of individual growth, such as WIGROT, appears to be useful in evaluating the efficacy of literacy interventions. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Reading Achievement; Reading Programs; Remedial Reading; Middle School Students; Middle Schools; Adolescents; Grade 6; Grade 7; Grade 8; Decoding (Reading); Spelling; Reading Fluency; Reading Comprehension; Scores; Reading; Reading Instruction; Reading Difficulties

Abstract:
The purpose of this project was to examine group- and individual-level responses by struggling adolescents readers (6th-8th grades; N = 155) to three different modalities of the same reading program, Reading Achievement Multi-Component Program. The three modalities differ in the combination of reading components (phonological decoding, spelling, fluency, comprehension) that are taught and their organization. Latent change scores were used to examine changes in phonological decoding, fluency, and comprehension for each modality at the group level. In addition, individual students were classified as gainers versus non-gainers (a reading level increase of a year or more vs. less than 1 year) so that characteristics of gainers and differential sensitivity to instructional modality could be investigated. Findings from both group and individual analyses indicated that reading outcomes were related to modalities of reading instruction. Furthermore, differences in reading gains were seen between students who began treatment with higher reading scores than those with lower reading scores; dependent on modality of treatment. Results, examining group and individual analyses similarities and differences, and the effect the different modalities have on reading outcomes for older struggling readers will be discussed. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website