An Evaluation of Close Reading with At-Risk Fourth-Grade Students in Science Content.

The study’s primary purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of a widely promoted close reading instructional routine for elementary grades students at risk for reading failure. Close reading is designed to help students read complex text independently and proficiently. Participants were six fourth-grade students receiving supplemental instruction in a rural public school. A single subject alternating treatments design was implemented to compare the close reading instructional routine to a validated reading comprehension strategy instruction intervention over a six-week intervention time frame. Results determined through visual inspection of a general outcome reading comprehension measure were mixed, seemingly favoring the validated intervention and not close reading. Limitations of the research and implications for use of close reading with students at risk are discussed. In the most functional United States public school systems today, students at risk for academic failure receive preventive supports in what have been called responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) systems (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). The stated goal of RTI is to provide appropriate academic services to the most students through a tiered support system. Most students receive the core instructional program (i.e., Tier 1), with periodic assessment included, to identify objective success or failure in meeting core expectations and allowances for classroom-level differentiation of instruction if warranted. Generally core instructional programs are based on research, rather than validated through a true experiment (e.g., randomized control trial; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). In reading curricula, for example, program components likely include phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension development. In functional RTI systems, students identified as failing in the core program are provided additional academic intervention(s) in the area of identified need, and their progress is monitored more frequently than Tier 1 only students in order to determine if the supplemental (i.e., Tier 2) efforts are working (i.e., moving students closer to being successful in the core curriculum without supports). Supplemental intervention efforts for at-risk students in Tier 2 programs are designed to be different from the core curriculum by incorporating empirically validated interventions in the area of need (e.g., phonemic awareness or comprehension) and delivered to small-group formats for a specified time frame. Tier 2 progress monitoring is more frequent, with the assessment tools validated to serve the function of determining whether the combination of Tier 1 and 2 services is preventing additional academic and/or behavioral failure (Fuchs et al., 2012). The implementation of RTI in schools has coincided with employment of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English Language Arts-Literacy (ELA-L) in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices/Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). From the outset of CCSS, proponents of the newly designed standards wanted to ensure that students graduating from high school were prepared to take college courses or enter the workforce. Changes to the ELA-L curriculum have included emphases on (a) a deeper understanding of the content of challenging or complex texts; (b) literary (i.e., reading, writing, and speaking) tasks that demand documentation of text-based evidence; and (c) a greater emphasis on the reading of informational texts in ELA classrooms. Close Reading One literary practice that has been featured prominently in the promotion and implementation of the CCSS and the accompanying national assessments (e.g., Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) is close reading. Also described as analytical reading, close reading has been defined as an in-depth analysis of a short piece of complex (i.e., at or above grade level) text conducted over multiple readings or lessons that stress attention to multiple textual aspects (Brown & Kappes, 2012). The instructional routine generally consists of teacher selection of short, complex texts that students read multiple times, with each subsequent reading having a different emphasis. Along with the multiple readings, there are discussions of teacher-developed questions that also serve to develop deeper understandings of the text than would likely be gained through single readings. Moreover, during the reading and discussion process, students annotate texts as another way to engage with what can be complex material (Brown & Kappes, 2012; Fisher & Frey, 2014b; Shanahan, 2014). Close reading has been promoted as an essential element of the implementation of the CCSS ELA-L for all students. However, the public school evidence base, particularly in the younger grades, remains scant. Fisher and Frey (2012) conducted an observational study of close reading implementation in secondary school settings. The stated goals of the inquiry were to evaluate the appropriateness of the close reading instructional routine for use with elementary school students and to determine modifications that would be useful in implementing close reading with students in elementary school. Fisher and Frey (2012) indicated that findings supported the assertion that close reading practices were appropriate for elementary school settings. Use of short, varied, complex (at or above grade level) texts was described as an appropriate instructional