Improving Reading Outcomes forStudents with or at Risk for
Reading Disabilities:

A Synthesis of the Contributions from the Institute of Education
Sciences Research Centers
FEBRUARY 2014

Carol M. Connor (Chair)
Arizona State University
Paul A. Alberto
Georgia State University
Donald L. Compton
Vanderbilt University
Rollanda E. O’Connor
University of California, Riverside

NCSER 2014-3000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

This report was prepared for the National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of
Education Sciences under Contract ED-IES-12-D-0014.

Disclaimer
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S. Department of Education contracted with
National Capitol Contracting, LLC to develop a report that describes what has been learned
regarding the improvement of reading outcomes for children with or at risk for reading
disabilities through research funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) National Center
for Education Research and National Center for Special Education Research and published inpeer-reviewed outlets through December 2011. The views expressed in this report are those of
the authors and they do not necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of
Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education
Arne Duncan, Secretary
Institute of Education Sciences
John Q. Easton, Director
National Center for Special Education Research
Joan McLaughlin, Commissioner

February 2014
This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary,the citation should be:
Connor, C.M., Alberto, P.A., Compton, D.L., O’Connor, R.E. (2014). Improving Reading
Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A Synthesis of theContributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers (NCSER 2014-3000).
Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. This report is available on the IES website at
http://ies.ed.gov/.
Alternate Formats
Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, audiotape,or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format
Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.

iii

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Research synthesis panels are composed of individuals who are nationally recognized experts on
the topics that they are synthesizing. IES expects that such experts will be involved
professionally in a variety of matters that relate to their work as a panel. Panel members are
asked to disclose their professional involvements and to institute deliberative processes thatencourage critical examination of the views of panel members as they relate to the content of theresearch synthesis. The research synthesis is subjected to independent external peer review prior
to publication, with particular focus on whether the evidence related to the conclusions in the
research synthesis has been appropriately presented.
The professional engagements reported by each panel member that appear most closely
associated with the panel findings are noted below.
Dr. Connor is Professor in the Department of Psychology, and Senior Research Scientist in the
Learning Sciences Institute at Arizona State University. Her expertise is in examining the links
between young children’s language and literacy development with the goal of illuminating
reasons for the perplexing difficulties children who are atypical and diverse learners havedeveloping basic and advanced literacy skills. She has served as the Principal Investigator (PI)for IES grants R305H040013, R305B070074, R305A130058, and R305A130517. She is Co-PI
for R305F100027 and R324C120001. She has developed the Individualizing Student Instruction
intervention as well as the Assessment to Instruction (A2i) software described in the research
synthesis. These interventions are not currently available commercially. However, they may beavailable in the future. To date, she has not discussed distributing the interventions with any
publisher. She has also developed and delivered the professional development for teachers who
were implementing the Individualizing Student Instruction intervention and using the Assessment
to Instruction (A2i) software. No conflicts of interest are present.
Dr. Alberto is Interim Dean and Regents' Professor in Intellectual Disabilities in the College of
Education, Georgia State University. Dr. Alberto’s expertise is in the areas of functional literacy,
behavioral instruction strategies, and functional analysis. He is currently developing acurriculum intended to improve literacy outcomes for students with moderate and severe
disabilities. Dr. Alberto and his team provide training to teachers within the context of theircurriculum development project. Findings from this development study are reported in the
research synthesis. He has served as the Principal Investigator for IES grant R324A070144. No
conflicts of interest are present.
Dr. O’Connor is Professor and Eady/Hendrick Chair in Learning Disabilities in the Graduate
School of Education at the University of California, Riverside. Her expertise is in readingintervention. Specifically, she has addressed issues of early identification of reading disability,
professional development of teachers in research-based practices, effects of multiple layers of
support to children over the first few years of schooling, instructional issues for older students
with reading difficulties, and transfer and generalization of phonemic manipulation skills toivImproving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

reading words. She has developed procedures for improving the reading rate of slow readers.
These are instructional processes and not an intervention that will be marketed. Studies reporting
the effects of using these instructional processes are included in the research synthesis. She hasserved as the Principal Investigator for IES grants R305G050122, R324B070098, and
R324A120173, and Co-PI for IES grant R324A090002. No conflicts of interest are present.
Dr. Compton is Professor and Chair of Special Education Department and a John F. Kennedy
Center Investigator at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. His research expertise involves
modeling individual differences in the development of children’s reading skills and theidentification of children with reading disabilities. Findings from his studies related to
identifying students at risk for reading difficulties are included in the research synthesis. He hasserved as the Principal Investigator (PI) for IES grants R305G050101, R324G060036,
R305A100034, and Co-PI for IES grants R305G040104 and R324A090052. No conflicts ofinterest are present.

v

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... viii
Preamble from the Institute of Education Sciences .............................................................................. xii
Context and Organization of this Report ................................................................................................ 1

I. Assessment: What have we learned about effective identification and assessment ofstudents who have or are at risk for reading difficulties or disabilities?................................. 2
Universal Screening ............................................................................................................................... 3
Progress Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 6
Assessment for English Learners ........................................................................................................... 9
Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities .............................................................. 11
Summary of Contributions for Research Question I: Assessment ....................................................... 13

II. Basic Cognitive and Linguistic Processes: What are the basic cognitive and linguistic
processes that support successful reading and how can these skills be improved for students
who have or who are at risk for reading disabilities?.............................................................. 14
Enactive Representation; Oddity, Seriation, and Conservation; Working Memory; and Coherent
Mental Representations and Higher Order Cognitive Processes .......................................................... 15
Enactive Representation ................................................................................................................ 15
Oddity, Seriation, and Conservation ............................................................................................. 17
Working Memory ........................................................................................................................... 18
Coherent Mental Representations and Higher Order Cognitive Processes .................................. 21
Word Knowledge, Dialects, and Fluency....................................................................................... 22
Unique Skill Profiles ...................................................................................................................... 26
Summary of Contributions for Research Question II: Basic Cognitive and Linguistic Processes ....... 28

viImproving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

III. Intervention: How do we make reading instruction more effective for students who
have or are at risk for developing reading disabilities? How do we teach reading tostudents with low incidence disabilities?................................................................................... 28
Prevention through Intensity of Instruction .......................................................................................... 29
Fluency Interventions May Increase Fluency and Comprehension...................................................... 32
Vocabulary Interventions ..................................................................................................................... 34
Delivering Intervention Through Peer-Assisted or Collaborative Learning ........................................ 37
Differentiated (also called Personalized or Individualized) Instruction ............................................... 39
Instruction for Students with Low Incidence Disabilities .................................................................... 41
Children with Mild Intellectual Disabilities .................................................................................. 42
Children with Moderate Intellectual Disabilities .......................................................................... 44Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing .................................................................................. 47
Summary of Contributions for Research Question III: Intervention .................................................... 49

IV. Professional Development: How do we bring research-based instructional practices tothe classroom? ............................................................................................................................. 50
Specialized Knowledge and Long-Term Support ................................................................................ 51
Multifaceted Teacher Professional Development................................................................................. 53
Summary of Contributions for Research Question IV: Professional Development ............................. 56

IES Contributions and Implications ......................................................................................... 58
References .................................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix A: IES Funded Research Reviewed by the Panel ................................................... 78

vii

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Executive Summary
Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A
Synthesis of the Contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers

Reading difficulties present serious and potentially lifelong challenges. Children who do notread well are more likely to be retained a grade in school, drop out of high school, become teen
parents, or enter the juvenile justice system. Thus, preventing reading difficulties early inchildren’s school careers has potential long-term benefits to the individual as well as society. 1 In
this report, we review the results of the first eight years of IES-funded research that focused on
ways to prevent and remediate reading difficulties in students with or at risk for reading
disabilities. Supporting investigations on assessment, cognitive and linguistic processes ofreading, effective interventions, and teacher professional development, IES-funded research has
made substantive contributions to answering some of the most pressing research questions inreading. These projects have elucidated ways to identify and help children who may struggle
with reading before the problems become entrenched. IES research has also identified criticalcomponent skills that support proficient reading, found ways to assess these skills, anddeveloped and tested interventions for children at risk of developing reading disabilities,
including children with who are deaf or hard of hearing or who have intellectual disabilities.
Importantly, IES-funded research has funded projects that investigate ways to bring effective
interventions into our nation’s classrooms. This includes designing professional developmenttraining that increases teachers’ knowledge about literacy and deepens their understanding of
how to teach reading effectively to all students, including students who are struggling to learn toread.

I. Assessment

Enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2002) along with the reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), significantly changed the assessment
landscape for all students in public schools and in particular those who are at risk for poor
reading outcomes. One of the more significant provisions of NCLB was the requirement thatstates adopt standards and conduct annual assessments to gauge school districts' progress in
improving students’ academic achievement. States were similarly required to test and report the
progress of the various subgroups of students, including English learners and students withdisabilities. In addition, states were responsible for holding schools accountable fordocumenting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of these subgroups based on the state
assessments. As a result, states needed to know how to identify students who struggle withreading using fair and valid assessments.

1

Reynolds et al. (2002).
viii

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

IES-funded research has provided knowledge on the following important guiding principles forreading assessment:•

Screening all students’ reading skills (i.e., universal screening) at the beginning of
the school year, especially in the early grades, and then using assessments tomonitor their progress can be a valid and efficient way to: (1) identify children
who are at risk for poor reading outcomes and (2) guide the decision making
process, for example, through a Response to Intervention (RtI) approach, fordetermining whether an intervention is improving a student’s reading skills.

•

Reading assessments can be tailored to a wider range of diverse learners to
support accurate calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and to identify
failing schools.

II. Basic Cognitive and Linguistic Processes Support Reading Skills and Can be Improved
through Intervention

IES supports basic research to understand the underlying processes and mechanisms of reading.
By applying cognitive and developmental perspectives to reading, this interdisciplinary research
has studied the cognitive and linguistic skills that distinguish children with typical reading skills
from children with or at risk for reading disabilities and examined the extent to which those skills
are changeable through targeted interventions and the points of the developmental trajectory that
may be most amenable to change.
IES-funded researchers identified important targets for intervention based on the cognitive andlinguistic skills children bring to the classroom.
•

Malleable linguistic processes such as oral language skills and vocabularycontribute to children’s reading performance.

•

Several important cognitive processes such as working memory, grasp of theprinciples of conservation and seriation, and abstract and inferential reasoning are
critical for students’ reading success.

•Although the same sets of linguistic and cognitive skills are involved in learning
to read, children bring unique constellations of these skills to the classroom with
important implications for instruction.

III. Intervention, Including Reading Instruction for Children with Low Incidence Disabilities

IES has funded rigorous, causal research that identifies the types of interventions that improvestudents’ reading outcomes, along with the optimal timing for delivering these interventions andthe likely effects of improved instructional intensity for students with different profiles ofcomponent skills. This work builds on the foundation set over the last two decades by reading
researchers.
ixImproving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities•

Increasing the intensity of interventions in kindergarten and first grade can prevent
reading difficulties for many students.

•

Fluency interventions that focus on repeated reading of text, opportunities to practicereading in the classroom, and reading a range of texts can generally improve students’fluency and comprehension.

•

Language outcomes for many preschool children at risk for language disabilities canimprove if they are provided extensive opportunities to hear and use complex oral
language.

•

Peer-assisted or cooperative learning is a promising method to increase the intensity of
instruction for students and improving their reading outcomes.

•

Interventions that are differentiated to target an individual student’s profile of component
skills are effective in improving students’ reading development.

Children who have intellectual disabilities or who are deaf or hard of hearing face serious
challenges when they are learning to read. For example, children who are deaf or hard ofhearing cannot easily access the auditory aspects of reading, such as phonological awareness andletter-sound associations. Children with intellectual disabilities face cognitive challenges that
impact their reading progress. At the same time, children with disabilities are being served in thegeneral education classroom.
IES-funded research has moved the field forward in practical ways with newly developed andpromising instructional interventions for children with low incidence disabilities.
•

The developmental sequence of learning to read and reading theories, such as the Simple
View of Reading, which inform effective instruction for typical readers, also hold forstudents with low incidence disabilities, including children with mild and moderateintellectual disabilities and children who are deaf or hard of hearing. This means that
effective interventions can be developed based on this research, and implemented to
improve achievement.

V. Supporting Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching of Reading

We cannot bring research into the classroom and improve students’ reading skills if we cannot
effectively support teachers’ efforts to use efficacious or evidence-based interventions andinstructional strategies. The No Child Left Behind Act specifically called for students to havehighly qualified teachers. In the past, teacher quality was defined in terms of academic degree or
years of experience. However, these teacher characteristics are rarely associated with gains instudent achievement. 2
2Goldhaber, and Brewer (1999).
x

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

IES-funded research has identified ways to support teachers’ implementation of evidence-based
reading instruction and interventions.
•

Developing teachers’ specialized knowledge and supporting consistent long-term
implementation of evidence-based instructional practices can improve delivery ofcomplex, evidence-based instruction and interventions.

•

Combining multiple professional development strategies, including coaching,linking student assessment data to instruction, using technology, and participatingin communities of practice, can support teachers’ learning and implementation ofresearch-based reading instruction.

Summary

For this research synthesis, we examined peer-reviewed journal articles and chapters that were
products of IES funded research projects that focused on improving reading for children with orat risk for reading disabilities. We reviewed research from grants that were initially awarded
from 2002 through 2008 through the National Center for Education Research and the National
Center for Special Education Research. Based on this review, we found that these research
projects have extended our knowledge about how to help students with or at risk for reading
disabilities. We have learned more about how to prevent reading difficulties through valid andreliable assessments. Such assessments can accurately identify students who need additional
instruction. Other research projects have developed and tested interventions that are targeted,intensive, and based on rigorous evaluations so that schools can support learning to read for all
students. Through IES-funded research, we are gaining a better understanding of thecomponents of reading comprehension and how underlying cognitive and linguistic processes
operate in a coordinated fashion to support reading. This research has also helped to illuminate
how children bring different and developing profiles of skills to the classroom with implications
for assessment and instruction. Additionally, IES-funded research is improving reading
instruction for children who are deaf or hard of hearing, who have intellectual disabilities, orother low incidence disabilities. Finally, IES-funded research has helped to provide newknowledge on ways for bringing research-based assessment and instructional practices into theclassroom by identifying and testing ways to improve the effectiveness of teachers and theirpractice.
The research centers in IES continue to support rigorous research that will enable schools to
implement effective instructional practices and interventions to help all students become better
readers.

xi

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Preamble from the Institute of Education Sciences
In 1999, the National Research Council published a report on the state of education research in
the United States. The panel concluded,
One striking fact is that the complex world of education—unlike defense, health care, orindustrial production—does not rest on a strong research base. In no other field are
personal experience and ideology so frequently relied on to make policy choices, and in
no other field is the research base so inadequate and little used.
National Research Council (1999, p. 1)
Three years later with the passage of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Congress
established the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and charged it with supporting rigorous,
scientifically valid research that is relevant to education practice and policy. To meet thischarge, IES established long-term programs of research that focused on topics of importance toeducation practitioners and leaders (e.g., reading, teacher quality, education systems), clearlyspecified methodological requirements for projects, and established a scientific peer review
system for reviewing grant proposals.
Since 2002, IES’ National Center for Education Research has funded a broad range of worktargeted toward providing solutions to the education problems in our nation. In 2006, IES’National Center for Special Education Research began funding a comprehensive program of
special education research designed to expand the knowledge and understanding of infants,
toddlers and children with or at risk for disabilities. In both IES Centers, the funds are provided
for exploratory research, development of education interventions, development and validation of
measurement instruments, and evaluation of the impact of interventions. Exploratory research
examines the relations between education outcomes and malleable factors (i.e., factors that canbe changed, such as child behaviors, teacher practices, school management strategies), as well as
the mediators and moderators of those relations. Exploratory research can inform thedevelopment of new education interventions or identify those interventions that are associatedwith better education outcomes and should be rigorously evaluated. Development andinnovation projects are intended to create potent and robust interventions that may be effective
for improving education outcomes. Development research is important because we have not yet
solved old problems (e.g., closing achievement gaps), and we continue to face new challenges
and opportunities (e.g., integrating new technologies into education systems). In addition todeveloping interventions, IES supports research to develop and validate measurement
instruments, including screening tools, progress monitoring instruments, measures of childoutcomes, and assessments of teachers' and administrators' knowledge and skills.
A critical component of IES research has been rigorous evaluation of the impact of programs,
practices, and policies on education outcomes. Education has always produced new ideas, newinnovations, and new approaches, but as in any field, new may not always be better. Historicallyeducation research has not rigorously tested whether programs and policies actually producexiiImproving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

positive effects on education outcomes. The research enterprise has not provided education
leaders and practitioners with scientifically valid information on which interventions appear to beeffective in achieving their intended goals, which need more work to become more potent ormore robust, and which appear ineffective and should perhaps be discarded. Since its inception,
IES has been committed to supporting rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations
to answer the questions of what works, for whom under what conditions; and why something
does or does not work. This document is an effort to stock of what we have learned thus far.

IES Research Syntheses

As part of our assessment of the work that IES is doing, we are asking panels of eminent scholars
to review peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters that are products of IES-funded
research grants in a specific area (e.g., reading, early childhood). These papers include empiricalstudies as well as theoretical pieces. The task for each panel of scholars is to synthesize what wehave learned from IES-funded research on their topic and to summarize the results for a generalaudience that includes policymakers and other stakeholders. The syntheses are not intended tobe typical research reviews, which provides a grand overview of research in a field. Rather, thetask is to look across the research projects that IES has funded to determine what has beenlearned and where empirical and theoretical progress has been made as a result of IES funding,and to provide suggestions for further research in order to improve education in our country.
The first step involved in producing an IES research synthesis is to select a topic. Topics are
determined by IES staff members who review the overall research portfolio to identify topics that
include multiple projects that have been completed and from which peer-reviewed articles andbook chapters have already been published. A panel chair is selected who is a nationallyrecognized researcher in the topic area. Next, IES staff works with the chair to identify a small
number of panelists to co-author the research synthesis. These are people the chair believes arenationally recognized experts in the topic area, and are, in many cases, themselves recipients of
IES grants. IES identifies the research grants that are relevant to the topic and gathers the peerreviewed journal articles and book chapters that were produced under these grants relevant to the
topic being reviewed. IES staff consults with grantees when appropriate in order to ascertain therelevance of the funded project to the topic of the synthesis and to confirm that all peer-reviewed
articles emerging from these projects are included. The panel meets several times, either inperson or via conference calls, to discuss the focus of the synthesis and to identify organizing
questions or themes.
The panel is given a relatively short deadline of 4 to 6 months to produce a draft document.
Under the broad question of what has been learned from IES-supported research, the panel
reviews the published research and organizes the synthesis under topics or questions that reflect
the work that has been published. The panel may also include non-IES research in the synthesis,
to provide the background or context for the IES-sponsored research or to describe the work on
which IES research builds. The expert panel interacts with and receives feedback from IES staff
during the development of the research synthesis. However, the panel uses their collectivexiiiImproving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

expertise to determine the foci of the written report, and the synthesis reflects the panel
members’ expert judgment as to the strength of the evidence presented in the published work andthe contribution of the reviewed articles and book chapters to the synthesis topic. The panel
members are the authors of the synthesis and thus responsible for the final product.
Before the research synthesis can be published, it is subjected to rigorous external peer review
through the IES Standards and Review Office, which is responsible for independent review of
IES publications. The panel then responds to the peer-reviewer comments and makes
appropriate revisions.
This focus of the present synthesis reflects the Institute’s emphasis on research on programs,
practices, and policies intended to improve reading outcomes for children with or at risk forreading disabilities. IES-funded projects whose primary emphasis was improving the reading
skills of children with typical reading abilities were not included in the studies selected forreview. IES has funded research on improving reading outcomes since 2002 through the
National Center for Education Research (NCER) and since 2006 through the National Center forSpecial Education Research (NCSER). NCER funds reading research through multiple topics,
including Reading and Writing, Interventions for Struggling Adolescent and Adult Readers andWriters, Cognition and Student Learning, and Teacher Quality. NCSER funds reading research
primarily under the Reading, Writing, and Language Development, Cognition and Student
Learning in Special Education topics.
In reading this synthesis, readers should remember that it is not intended to be an overview of theexisting research on improving reading for children with or at risk for reading disabilities. Panelmembers were only asked to review those published articles or book chapters that had emerged
from IES-funded projects. Specifically, the panel was asked to review articles from peerreviewed journals and book chapters from funded projects that were published or in press as ofDecember 2011 (thus some articles that were in press in 2011 will have published dates in 2012or 2013). Thus, there is a great deal of ongoing research that is not represented in this synthesis
because some grants are not yet at the stage in the research process where findings are in andsummarized for publication. Note also that reports of IES-funded research that have not been
subjected to the peer-review process in publication are not included in this review. Appendix A
lists the projects and publications that were reviewed for this synthesis.
Given panel members were only asked to review those peer-reviewed articles and book chaptersthat emerged from IES-funded projects available at the time this synthesis was written, there
likely are peer-reviewed articles or book chapters emerging from ongoing IES-funded research
relevant to the synthesis topic. IES plans to include those articles and book chapters in future
updates of this synthesis.

xivImproving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Context and Organization of this Report
Reading difficulties and disabilities present serious and potentially lifelong challenges. Children
who do not read well are more likely to be retained a grade in school, drop out of high school,
become a teen parent, or enter the juvenile justice system. 3 Building on the extant research andseminal studies including the National Reading Panel and the National Early Literacy Panelreports, 4 research supported by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has expanded ourunderstanding of ways to identify and help children who are at risk for reading disabilities. Thisbody of work has also contributed to the identification of critical component skills that support
proficient reading (e.g., phonological awareness, word knowledge, working memory), betterways to assess these skills, and more effective interventions for children at risk of developing
reading difficulties, including children who are deaf or have intellectual disabilities. 5 Research
funded by IES has investigated ways to bring these efficacious interventions into our nation’sclassrooms by developing and evaluating professional development training that increases
teachers’ knowledge about literacy and how to teach reading effectively to all students, including
students who are struggling to learn how to read. This is important because the most recent
National Assessment of Educational Progress 6 reports that by fourth grade, one-third of ourstudents are failing to attain basic reading skills. In this synthesis, we, the panel convened by
IES, connect the building blocks of assessment, cognitive and linguistic components of reading,effective interventions, and teacher professional development to show how IES-funded researchis contributing to solutions for improving reading and preventing reading difficulties.
Based on our initial reading of the papers, and following an initial in-person meeting to discuss
the articles that we read, we organized the contributions into four broad categories withcomponent research questions:
I.

Assessment: What have we learned about effective identification and assessment ofstudents who have or are at risk for reading difficulties or disabilities?

II.

Basic Cognitive and Linguistic Processes: What are the basic cognitive and linguistic
processes that support successful reading and how can these skills be improved forstudents who have or who are at risk for reading disabilities?

III.

Intervention: How do we make reading instruction more effective for students who
have or are at risk for developing reading disabilities? How do we teach reading tostudents with low incidence disabilities?

3

Hernandez (2011); Reynolds et al. (2002).
NICHD (2000); National Early Literacy Panel (2008).
5
We use the term intellectual disability instead of the term mental retardation in response to Rosa’s Law of 2010.
6
NAEP (2011).
4

1

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

IV.

Professional Development: How do we bring research-based instructional practices tothe classroom?

These categories emerged directly from the articles that we read and reflect the areas in which
we believe that IES-supported research has made contributions to advancing our understandingof how to improve reading outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities. For eachquestion, the panel synthesized the available research findings and highlighted key contributions.

Scope of the Research Synthesis

For this research synthesis, we examined 111 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chaptersthat were products of 48 research projects focused on improving reading for children with or at
risk for reading disabilities funded by IES with initial awards (i.e., first year of funding) from2002 through 2008. 7 These papers included both empirical studies as well as theoretical pieces.
(Appendix A provides a list of all of the projects and publications included in our review.) Ourtask was to synthesize what has been learned thus far through IES research grant activities
focused on improving reading for children with or at risk for disabilities. This is not a typicalsynthesis intended to provide a grand overview of research in a field, nor is it a meta-analysis
that quantitatively synthesizes a specific body of work. Rather, our task was to look across therange of projects that IES has funded in this area to determine what has been learned, where
progress has been made as a result of IES funding, and to provide suggestions for further
research in improving reading skills of children with or at risk for reading disabilities.

I. Assessment: What have we learned about effective identification andassessment of students who have or are at risk for reading difficulties ordisabilities?
Enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) along with the reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) substantially changed the assessment
landscape for all students in public schools. In particular, assessment for those who are atelevated risk for poor reading outcomes, including students with limited English proficiency,
students from minority racial or ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students from lowincome families, was brought to the forefront. The shift in focus to include all students inaccountability testing has led to increased scrutiny of state assessments from an accessibility
standpoint. An accessible and valid assessment is one that evaluates the targeted knowledge and7

Projects with initial funding dates after 2008 (i.e., 2009-2013) were not included in this review because most IES
funded research projects are 3 to 4 years in length, and therefore projects funded after 2008 may not be far enoughalong to disseminate results through peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. This synthesis also includes
discussion of five grants originally awarded through the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S.
Department of Education, prior to the establishment of the National Center for Special Education Research(NCSER). These five awards include funds from both OSEP and NCSER. They became the responsibility of
NCSER when NCSER was established in 2006, and are considered in this review.
2

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

skills of all students, including students whose characteristics create challenges for accurate
measurement using traditional assessments. 8 Implicit within this definition of accessibility is thepresumption that the assessments are valid measures of performance for students with very
different skills and challenges. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing 9 calls
for testing professionals to investigate the validity of the intended score interpretation for all
students, with special rules for students with disabilities because tests can be less valid andreliable when used for students with limited English proficiency or students with disabilities. As
a result, IES has made significant investments into research exploring the psychometricproperties of alternative or accommodated assessments of reading to explore ways to ensure
testing validity when assessing children who are at significant risk for very poor reading
outcomes.
Results from IES-sponsored research examining reading assessment questions related to NCLB
and IDEA contributes to the evidence base showing that universal screening and progress
monitoring assessments can work for identifying students in need of early reading intervention
and for making instructional decisions. A broad range of assessments and accommodations arealso being developed and evaluated for use with a wider range of diverse learners. Below we
present the following contributions from IES-funded research through 2011 in the area ofassessment including: (1) the use of universal screening to identify students at risk for poor
reading outcomes who are eligible for early reading intervention; (2) methods for quantifying
actual or potential response to research-based intervention (i.e., progress monitoring); (3) valid
assessments for English learners; and (4) evaluation of testing accommodations for students withlearning disabilities or other disabilities.

Universal Screening
Background. The success of early intervening service models such as RtI hinge on an accurate
determination of which students are at risk for reading disabilities, according to several
professional organizations. 10 RtI uses a process where students who fail to respond to
instruction, based on assessment results, receive increasingly intensive interventions, movingfrom Tier 1 (general education) to Tier 2 (typically small group instruction) to Tier 3 (individual
instruction). Correct identification of students at risk for reading disability in preschool throughfirst grade can trigger early reading intervention prior to the onset of significant problems, which
in turn can place students on the path of adequate reading development. Universal screening is aprincipal means of identifying students as being at risk for reading difficulties. 11 In both researchand practice, it usually involves measures of early literacy and foundational reading skills,
including phonemic awareness, letter naming fluency, concepts about print, word reading, and8

Thurlow et al. (2009).
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on
Measurement in Education (1999).
10e.g., Compton et al. (2010); Compton et al. (2006); McCardle, Scarborough, and Catts (2001).
11
see Glover and Albers (2007).
93

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

oral language ability, including vocabulary. Frequently a score cut-point is established wherechildren with scores falling below the cut-point are considered at risk for reading difficulties andhence in need of additional intervention. 12
Predicting which preliterate children are at risk for developing reading disabilities has provenproblematic. 13 Initial differences among preschool and kindergarten children associated withfamily literacy practices may diminish with formal instruction, 14 however, once children begin
reading instruction, the screening measures expand to include skills that are more closely aligned
to reading 15 and measurement precision increases with age as intra-child stability increases. 16
The vast majority of studies examining preschool and kindergarten screening tools haveidentified too many children who do not develop reading problems (false positive cases), 17 withestimates ranging from 20 percent to 60 percent. 18 At the same time, children who do develop
reading problems are missed (false negatives cases), with percentages ranging from 10 percent to
50 percent. 19 However, expanding the screening battery beyond measures of phonologicalprocessing, alphabetic knowledge, general language ability, and print concepts has yielded
limited improvements in predictive utility. 20
Because accurately assessing reading improves as children experience more reading instruction,other reading researchers argue that screening should occur at the beginning of first grade rather
than in preschool and kindergarten. 21 Despite the benefits of waiting, the accuracy ofdetermining risk among first graders remains relatively low, with false negative rates
approaching minimally acceptable levels; unfortunately, false positive rates fall well outside theacceptable range, 22 yielding unmanageable risk pools for an RtI framework. More optimistically,
these false positive rates may reflect children’s response to the instruction they receive.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 1. Screening all students’ reading skills (i.e., universal screening) at the beginningof the school year, especially in the early grades, can be a valid and efficient way to identify
students who are at risk for poor reading outcomes. Several IES-funded researchers are
examining the use of universal screening for young children. In general, the IES investment
exploring applied issues related to screening for eligibility for intervening services among
12

for a review, see Jenkins, Hudson, and Johnson (2007).
Torgesen (2002a, 2002b).
14
e.g., Scarborough (1998).
15
see Speece (2005).
16
Fletcher et al. (2002); Tymms (1999).
17
e.g., Badian (1994); Catts (1991); Torgesen et al. (1999).
18
Torgesen (2002a).
19
Catts (1991); Scarborough (1998); Torgesen (2002a, 2002b).
20
McCardle, Scarborough, and Catts (2001).
21
Compton et al. (2006, 2010); Fletcher et al. (2002); Foorman et al. (1998).
22
Jenkins and O’Connor (2002); McCardle, Scarborough, and Catts (2001); O’Connor and Jenkins (1999);
Scarborough (1998); Speece and Case (2001).
13

4

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilitiespreschool through first grade children has resulted in important increases in the knowledge baseand furthered our understanding of universal screening procedures.
In an attempt to improve the screening accuracy of preliterate children IES-funded researchers
are further developing, evaluating, and refining two screening measures, Individual Growth andDevelopment Indicators (IGDI) and Get Ready to Read!. Both the IGDI 23 and Get Ready to
Read! 24 measurement systems were designed to screen preschool children to identify those atelevated risk for poor reading outcomes. The Get Ready to Read! screening tool is a 20-item
task that measures print knowledge and phonological awareness whereas the IGDI system
contains a number of tasks designed to measure a more diverse array of developmental domains
from birth to 8 years. As such, the Get Ready to Read! assessment is more focused on reading
and therefore potentially more sensitive to the identification of early literacy problems. The
IGDI system also differs from Get Ready to Read! in that it is designed to allow skills to bemonitored across time and allow the use of estimated growth rates to identify the need for andmonitor response to early intervention.
In an IES-supported study, Wilson and Lonigan (2009) administered the Get Ready to Read! andIGDI screening tools to preschoolers. Get Ready to Read! and IGDI measures were used toclassify children identified as at risk on a diagnostic measure of early reading skill administered
3 months later. In general, both the Get Ready to Read! and IGDI systems showed promise as
early screening tools with Get Ready to Read! out-performing IGDI on predicting overall
emergent literacy skill, although neither reached the level of accuracy recommended by Jenkins(2003).
As well as supporting research examining screening young children, IES has invested in
exploring basic measurement issues surrounding universal screening procedures in first grade. In
a series of studies supported by IES as well as NICHD and OSEP, Compton et al. (2006, 2010,2012) 25 explored ways of improving screening batteries to (a) increase the overall classification
rates, (b) decrease the number of false positive cases, (c) improve the efficiency of universal
screening procedures, and (d) accelerate the movement of the most at-risk readers to more
intensive levels of intervention services. In the initial NICHD supported study of classification
models, based on an evaluation of 206 first-grade children followed through the end of second
grade, Compton et al. (2006) reported that a multivariate screening battery containing measuresof phonological awareness, rapid naming, oral vocabulary, and word identification fluency skills
produced classification accuracies (sensitivity of .90 and specificity of .83) consistent with therecommendation of Jenkins (2003). In an IES-supported follow-up study of 355 first grade
children followed through the end of second grade, Compton et al. (2010) replicated the initialmodel developed in the 2006 study. Measures designed to directly assess (progress monitoring)
23

Luze and Hughes (2008); McConnell, McEvoy and Priest (2002).
Wilson and Lonigan (2009).
25
The 2010 and 2012 articles report findings from IES-supported research.
24

5

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

or forecast (dynamic assessment) children’s response to classroom instruction added
significantly to prediction accuracy by reducing the rate of false positives. Models adding
progress monitoring measures to the base multivariate screening battery developed in the 2006
study significantly increased classification accuracy (sensitivity of .90 and specificity of .91).
As part of the 2010 study, Compton et al. extended the screening literature by examining the useof a two-step screening procedure, hoping that it might yield an efficient overall screening
system that would accurately classify students. In the two-step procedure, all children areadministered a single, brief measure, and only children who score within the risk range on that
initial measure complete the longer screening battery. A measure of phonemic decoding
efficiency eliminated the greatest number of true negatives (40% of the sample) from screening.
Phonemic decoding efficiency significantly outperformed measures of sight word efficiency,
word identification, and word attack in reducing the sample to be screened further. The
researchers therefore recommended the use of a two-step gated procedure where all students aretested and then only those falling below a cut-point receive a longer battery of assessments, as ameans to increase the efficiency of one-step universal screening procedures.
Finally, Compton and colleagues (2012) working with first-grade children determined to be
unresponsive to general education who were enrolled in a small group intervention found that
Tier 2 response data may not be necessary to accurately predict a group of children for whom
Tier 2 interventions were unlikely to be effective. Rather, by using local norms on first-grade
word identification fluency growth and linking those norms to distal outcomes of reading
disability at the end of second grade, the team was able to accurately predict students who did
and did not respond to the intervention. This suggests that students can be identified accurately
for Tier 3 intervention without participating in (and failing to benefit from) Tier 2 interventions.
Future Directions. Results of the preschool studies are encouraging and suggest that we may beable to apply universal screening for reading disability risk to preschool children. More work is
warranted at this age level to meet the screening accuracy defined by Jenkins (2003). As
children move into formal reading instruction (i.e., first grade), results from these funded
projects indicate that we can achieve classification accuracy levels that exceed thoserecommended through the use of two-stage multivariate screening batteries, however more work
is still needed to continue to optimize these systems across larger and more diverse samples ofchildren.

Progress Monitoring
Background. A cornerstone of alternative approaches to learning disabilities identification,
outlined in the reauthorization of IDEA (2004), is the provision requiring the measurement ofchildren’s outcome gains in response to scientific, research-based intervention. Progress
monitoring assessments allow us to gauge students’ progress. For example, within RtI models,progress-monitoring assessment results are used to make a series of decisions that move students
6Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

between more and less intensive levels of intervention. Given the importance of these decisions
within an RtI framework, validity and measurement issues associated with progress monitoringprocedures need to be explored. IES has funded studies to further develop, evaluate thepsychometrics, and explore the predictive utility of various progress monitoring measures thatcan be used to accurately judge children’s response to research-based interventions.
Two progress monitoring measures are frequently used for indexing and monitoring first-grade
reading development: Word Identification Fluency 26 and Nonsense Word Fluency. 27 These
measures were developed to be sensitive to early reading development skills. With Word
Identification Fluency, students have one minute to read isolated high-frequency words presented
in a list containing 50 words. With Nonsense Word Fluency, the child is presented with a single
page of 50 consonant-vowel-consonant or vowel-consonant pseudo-words. Fuchs et al. (2004)
compared the predictive validity of Nonsense Word Fluency in 151 at-risk first-grade children
who were monitored for 20 weeks (including fall and spring semesters) using alternate forms of
Word Identification Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency. In the spring of first-grade children
received standardized measures of decoding, word identification, passage fluency, and reading
comprehension. Overall, results favored Word Identification Fluency over Nonsense Word
Fluency as a predictor of end of year reading skill.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 2. Using assessments to monitor students’ progress can be a valid and efficient
way to guide the decision making process –for example, through a Response to Intervention(RtI) approach-for determining whether an intervention is improving a student's reading skills.
Given the advantage of Word Identification Fluency over Nonsense Word Fluency as a firstgrade progress monitoring measure, Zumeta, Compton, and Fuchs (2012) examined whether
sampling procedures for developing Word Identification Fluency lists might have an effect on
growth parameter estimates and the correlation between student outcome growth estimates andtheir future reading skills. Three samples of students were drawn from an overall pool: arepresentative sample which reflected the distribution of readers in the study, and included low,
average, and high achieving students, a second sample that included all students with low
reading achievement, and a third sample with high/average achievement. Word Identification
Fluency data were collected weekly for 15 weeks using two different lists, broad lists and narrowlists. Broad lists were developed by sampling words from 500 high-frequency words, whereas
narrow lists were created by sampling from the 133 words from Dolch preprimer, primer, andfirst-grade word lists. Overall, narrow sampling was found to be better for screening therepresentative group and the high/average subgroup. Broad sampling was superior for screening
the low-achieving subgroup and for progress monitoring across groups. Evidence continues tomount indicating that Word Identification Fluency is well suited as a screening and progress-

26
27

Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton (2004).
Good et al. (2001).
7

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

monitoring mechanism that can be used to make accurate decisions regarding children’s
movement within a tiered RtI model.
Dynamic assessment has been used to determine whether interventions are working and,potentially, as an alternative to actually putting children through long and potentially ineffective
interventions. In such a model, dynamic assessment is used as a very short and focused sessionof instruction that is intended to gauge whether a particular intervention strategy actually helps aparticular student. 28 In three IES-funded studies 29 researchers used 45 minute dynamic
assessments to index students’ potential to benefit from kindergarten phonological awareness,
first grade decoding, and second grade listening comprehension instruction, respectively.
Bridges and Catts (2011) developed and examined the predictive validity of a dynamic
assessment screening of phonological awareness in two samples of children who wereadministered the dynamic assessment in the beginning of kindergarten and standardized
measures of reading achievement at the conclusion of the school year. In the first sample thepredictive utility of dynamic assessment was compared to a static version of the same screening
assessment, where no feedback or support was provided. Results provided initial evidence of thepromise of dynamic assessment to forecast future reading ability in young developing readersmore accurately than static measures. In the second sample (N=96), the predictive utility ofdynamic assessment was compared to Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills(DIBELS) Initial Sound Fluency, a commonly used screening measure. Findings revealed thatdynamic assessment predicted kindergarteners’ end of year reading skills over and above what
was measured by the Initial Sound Fluency alone.
In a study of first grade students, Fuchs and colleagues (2011) examined the predictive validityof dynamic assessment of decoding skill learning. Students were assessed in the fall on an arrayof instruments that were given with the aim of forecasting students’ responsiveness to earlyreading instruction. Factor analysis indicated that dynamic assessment loaded on a factor that
included language ability and IQ and was distinct from factors representing speeded alphabetic
knowledge and task oriented behavior. Multilevel modeling indicated that dynamic assessment
significantly predicted future end-of-first-grade reading performance. Results support theconstruct and the predictive utility of dynamic assessment and reveal that dynamic assessment
may have value as part of a first grade test battery to identify young children with severe learningneeds who require the most intensive treatment in RtI frameworks.
Elleman et al. (2011) explored a listening comprehension dynamic assessment intended to tap
students’ inference making skills. The researchers hypothesized that such skills might bepredictive of future reading comprehension performance. The dynamic portion of theassessment taught children to be “reading detectives” by using text clues to solve what was
28
29

Bridges and Catts (2011); Elleman et al. (2011); Fuchs et al. (2011).
Ibid.
8

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

happening in the story. The dynamic assessment was administered to second-grade children
along with standardized measures of reading comprehension. Results showed that students who
had lower dynamic assessment scores also had generally lower reading comprehension scores.
Plus, the dynamic assessment measure predicted reading comprehension skills even after
considering students’ vocabulary and word identification skills. In addition, results suggested
that dynamic assessment may be more effective than the standardized measures of reading
comprehension at identifying the different profiles of literacy skills found among young students.
Another research team supported by IES 30 has begun to examine the use of the Individual
Growth and Development Indicators (IGDI) progress monitoring system combined with a webbased decision making tool to guide teachers and other service providers through a decisionmaking process for early intervention. Results suggest that linking the progress monitoring data
to a web-based decision making system may improve practitioners’ ability to implement
effective early childhood intervention with at-risk children.
Future Directions. In the area of progress monitoring, IES-funded projects have further
developed and evaluated the psychometrics and explored the predictive utility of various
progress monitoring measures that can be used to more accurately judge children’s response toresearch-based interventions. This research has revealed that Word Identification Fluency is astrong progress-monitoring tool that can be used to make more accurate decisions regardingchildren’s need for more or less intensive interventions. However the research suggests that item
sampling issues must be considered when developing new forms of Word Identification Fluency.
The use of dynamic assessment within RtI models is a new and potentially exciting line ofresearch currently supported by IES. Dynamic assessment has the potential advantage ofindexing response to intervention without actually putting children through long, costlyinterventions that may not meet their individual needs. Given increased use of multi-tier systems
in schools to prevent early reading problems in children more work on assessment systems
designed to quantify actual response or predict potential response progress of children tovalidated instruction may promote more effective instruction for students who are at risk or havereading disabilities by helping to ensure they are receiving individualized intervention at theintensity and RtI tier they need to progress.

Assessment for English Learners
Background. Many children who are English learners are at serious risk for reading disabilities
but present specific challenges with regard to assessment and identification of disabilities versus
differences. Moreover, NCLB requires that state assessment data of students who are English
learners be disaggregated and that schools document Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of
English learners. IDEA and its regulations include the Child Find mandate that requires school
districts to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities, regardless of the severity of
30

Buzhardt et al. (2010).
9

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

their disabilities. The Child Find mandate applies to all children who reside within a state,including children who attend private schools and public schools, highly mobile children,
migrant children, homeless children, and children who are wards of the state. As the number ofEnglish learners in US schools increases, threats to the validity of assessing and properly
determining schools’ AYP along with accurately identifying English learners who also have adisability in the Child Find Mandate remains high. IES has invested research funds to develop
and evaluate alternative assessments for students with limited English proficiency to be used inestimating educational progress and identifying children with disabilities. A variety of linguistic
and cultural factors affect assessment outcomes of English learners. The risk of misrepresenting
educational progress and misclassifying English learners with disabilities increases as English
skill proficiency decreases, 31 with improper identification of English learners potentiallyresulting in inappropriate instruction and violation of their rights protected under IDEA.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 3. New assessments for English learners indicate that reading comprehension canbe assessed without overburdening word reading and oral language skills. With support from
IES, Francis, Snow, and colleagues 32 designed and evaluated the Diagnostic Assessment of
Reading Comprehension for assessment of English learners in kindergarten through third grade.
By minimizing the need for high levels of English oral proficiency or decoding ability, theDiagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension has the potential to accurately reflect thecomprehension skills of English learners who are reading text in English. Students’ performanceis assessed on four central processes: remembering newly read text, making inferences within thetext, accessing relevant background knowledge, and making inferences that require integratingbackground knowledge with the text (text memory, text inferencing, background knowledge, andknowledge integration). In a study of Spanish-speaking students in kindergarten through third
grade, 33 the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension was found to measure the four
separate comprehension processes and scores on the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading
Comprehension were less influenced by word reading skills compared to comprehension cloze
tasks where students provide a missing word in a phrase, sentence or passage. Francis andcolleagues (2006) compared the performance of third grade Spanish-speaking English learners
on the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension and a cloze task. Results suggest thatthe two measures were moderately correlated (r= .61) and influenced by different factors. As in
the previous study, the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension was less strongly
related to word-level skills and more strongly related to measures of narrative language
production and memory.
Future Directions. IES investment in the development and evaluation of alternative readingassessments for English learners represents an important line of inquiry at its early stages of31

Abedi (2007); Abedi, Leon, and Kao (2008).
August et al. (2006); Francis et al. (2006).
33
August et al. (2006).
32

10

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

development. As we move forward with accountability schemes that mandate assessment anddisaggregation of progress data of all student groups, we will need continued research to informthe use of alternative reading assessments.

Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
Background. As a result of NCLB, a majority of school-age students with disabilities are now
assessed in reading as part of large-scale standards-based reading assessments. 34 The challenge
for test developers of large-scale reading assessments is to develop accessible tests that “measure
only those student characteristics that are essential parts of the reading proficiency the test
intends to measure, and not those characteristics that could be related to the student’s
disability”. 35 Thus, a major research question is whether the scores obtained on anaccommodated test have the same meaning as scores on a standardized administration of the test.
A change in the way a test is administered to a student is usually designated as either amodification or an accommodation. A modification to a test administration procedure changes
the measurement of the test construct and therefore the interpretation, which is not ideal. An
accommodation, on the other hand, is a change in the test administration that does not change thetest construct or the interpretation of the score, which is ideal. An important question asked oftest accommodations is whether they level the playing field by providing differential boosts tostudents with disabilities. That is, students with disabilities show an increase in their score but
students without disabilities do not. Differential boost favoring students with disabilities
indicates that an accommodation is valid and does not change the meaning of the test results.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 4. Assessment accommodations can be made for students with disabilities that do
not modify the construct being measured, and therefore represent a valid measure of thisconstruct. To address a wide range of test accommodation issues for students with disabilities,
IES provided support for the National Accessible Reading Assessment Project, a collaboration of
three projects 36 intended to: (a) identify assumptions underlying test accessibility, (b) consider
the characteristics of students with disabilities and how their abilities affect reading andperformance on reading assessments, (c) generate possible ways to create fully accessible
reading assessments, and (d) develop a set of accessibility principles and guidelines to guide thedevelopment of reading assessments. Results from the various projects are summarized in what
follows.

34

Thurlow (2010).
Thurlow et al. (2009).
36
Two of these projects were originally awarded through the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), prior to
the establishment of the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER). These two awards include funds
from both OSEP and NCSER. They became the responsibility of NCSER when it was established in 2006 and areconsidered in this review. The third project was awarded by NCSER (R324A060034).
35

11

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

One area of focus in the three IES-funded projects has been on examining the appropriate
assignment of testing accommodations to students with disabilities and the accompanying impact
these accommodations have on the interpretation of scores. A series of studies have examinedthe effects of various reading test accommodations on the performance of students with andwithout disabilities. Laitusis (2010) examined the impact of a read-aloud accommodation (i.e.,
students listen to the test) on the standardized test scores of a reading comprehension test, theGates-McGinitie Reading Test, for typically developing students and students with reading
disabilities at grades four and eight. Mean comprehension scores for the audio version of the test
were higher at each grade level with differential boost at both grade levels reported on the audio
version for the students with reading disabilities. Results suggest that an audio version of areading comprehension test represents an accommodation, as opposed to a modification, forstudents with reading disabilities.
A study by Cook, Eignor, Steinberg, Sawaki, and Cline (2010) employed a multi-groupconfirmatory factor analysis of the Level 4 Gates-McGinitie Reading Test given with andwithout a read-aloud accommodation to typically developing students and students with reading
disabilities. Results suggest that the Gates-McGinitie Reading Test measured the sameunderlying construct of comprehension in both groups. In a second study, Cook, et al. (2010)
administered a fourth grade English-Language Arts assessment to four different groups: (a)students without disabilities taking the test under standard conditions; (b) students with learning
disabilities who took the test under standard conditions; (c) students with learning disabilities
who took the test with accommodations specified in their 504 plan or Individualized Education
Program (IEP); (d) students with learning disabilities who took the test with a read-aloudaccommodation/modification. Again, results suggest that the same underlying construct was
being measured for typical students or students with learning disabilities whether given with orwithout accommodation. In a related study with fourth and eighth grade students who were blindor have visual impairments, Stone, Cook, Laitusis, and Cline (2010) demonstrated that usinglarge print or Braille to present a standards-based English-language arts assessment to students
with visual impairments served as valid accommodations. Results support the accessibility andvalidity of large print or Braille accommodations for students who are blind or have visual
impairments.
Kato, Moen, and Thurlow (2009) examined performance differences between students with arange of disabilities and students without disabilities on the state reading assessment in third andfifth grade. While results indicated a lack of test bias, there were minor differences in item
functioning across disability groups, suggesting that some test items are unfairly difficult for
students with disabilities.
Abedi, Kao, Leon, Mastergeorge, Sullivan, Herman, and Pope (2010) examined the effects ofassessing eighth grade students using reading comprehension passages that were presented in
shorter segments to accommodate working memory deficits and fatigue in students withdisabilities. Results indicated that segmenting did not differentially affect performance of12Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilitiesstudents with or without disabilities and improved the overall reliability of the test for students
with disabilities, suggesting a valid accommodation.
Dillon, O’Brien, Kato, Scharber, Kelly, Beaton, and Biggs (2009) developed a reading
comprehension assessment that addresses students’ interests and their sense of self-efficacy withthe goal of making the assessment more accessible to fourth and eighth graders with a range of
disabilities that affect their reading of typical large-scale comprehension tests. The goal was to
examine whether improving the motivational characteristics of a large-scale reading assessment
increased its accessibility for students with disabilities by making it more interesting to them.
Results indicated that expository texts containing more interesting topics (e.g., literary texts
about young people their own age working through daily challenges and life issues) were ofhigher interest to readers in both fourth- and eighth-grade, compared to texts topics that were lessinteresting. In particular, fourth graders were drawn to expository texts about animals; eighth
graders were drawn to expository texts on unusual and sometimes gruesome topics. The results
also indicate that creating motivating assessments using interesting passages was positively
correlated with reading performance, especially for low-performing students at fourth grade andto some extent, students at grade eight, which indicates this is a valid accommodation.
Finally, Moen, Liu, Thurlow, Lekwa, Scullin, and Hausmann (2009) attempted to identify childcharacteristics of students for whom reading assessments tended to be less valid and reliable.
Students who were less accurately measured tended to have globally slow processing, very poor
decoding skills, and exceptional difficulty staying on task.
Future Directions. Results from these studies suggest that reading tests can be adapted toaccommodate students with a range of disabilities and increase the accessibility of standardized
measures of reading. Overall, studies suggest that a variety of accommodations are valid and canlead to a differential boost on reading assessments for students with disabilities compared totypically developing students.

Summary of Contributions for Research Question I: Assessment
Assessment issues associated with the enactment of NCLB and reauthorization of IDEA have put
pressure on test developers to investigate the validity of assessment systems designed to estimate
schools’ AYP including all students, particularly those groups with longstanding achievement
gaps and students with disabilities. Also critical, as part of IDEA, is the support of new ways ofidentifying students with learning disabilities, including RtI models. This means that valid andreliable assessments to monitor students’ response to different scientifically-based interventions
are needed. Meeting these challenges, IES has funded a number of assessment projects designed
to investigate the validity of various assessment measures, and of accommodations to them, sothat we are assessing students’ reading skills accurately. Important lessons learned from these
IES-funded projects include the following:

13

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

1. The science of universal screening is evolving to where it is possible to identify first
grade students who may be at risk for developing reading disabilities and who may needreading interventions, and that this can be done precisely so that students who needintervention and those who do not are more accurately identified. At the same time,
additional research is needed to develop assessments that can identify kindergarten andpreschool students who may be at risk for learning disabilities.
2. In terms of monitoring response to research validated intervention, various progress
monitoring tools have been shown to be sensitive to reading development growth as wellas predictive of future reading difficulties. New dynamic assessment measures showpromise in allowing intervention strategies to be tested quickly prior to implementing
long term interventions and hence permitting interventions to be tailored to individual
students.
3. In terms of students who are English learners, new reading comprehension measures havebeen developed that reduce word reading and oral language demands and tap more
central comprehension processes so that students’ comprehension skills are assessedmore accurately.
4. Finally, multiple IES-funded studies have reported test accommodations that measure thesame underlying construct in students with and without disabilities, with several
demonstrating differential boost in the students with disabilities.
Although important advances have been made, continued research is warranted in each of thesefour assessment areas in order to continue the strong scientific advances made and further
support the achievement of children at risk or with reading disabilities.

II. Basic Cognitive and Linguistic Processes: What are the basic cognitiveand linguistic processes that support successful reading and how canthese skills be improved for students who have or who are at risk forreading disabilities?
A key contribution of IES funding has been to provide support for the application of basic
research carried out by cognitive and developmental psychologists that have helped ourunderstanding of the underlying processes and mechanisms of reading. This interdisciplinary
research has endeavored to identify key components of reading, such as word knowledge andworking memory; to test their contribution to students’ reading comprehension, distinguishing
between children with typical reading skills, and children with or at risk for reading disabilities;
and, notably, the extent to which basic processes can be changed (i.e., are malleable) andtherefore are potential targets for intervention. This work is important because, as Juel (1988)
14

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

noted, it was not until researchers focused on the basic components of successful reading, and in
this case decoding, that real progress was made in understanding how to prevent and remediatebasic reading difficulties. This early work summarized by Adams (1990) and Torgesen et al.
(1999) focused on the act of decoding and identified phonological awareness and grasp of thealphabetic principle as malleable sources of influence on young students’ foundational reading
skills. Research has also focused on the more complex skills required for reading
comprehension including oral language skills, vocabulary, background and academic knowledge
among others (Snow 2001).
Although for all children the same skills are involved in learning to read, each child brings aunique constellation of these skills to the classroom with implications for instruction. In thissection, we describe underlying theories that have motivated the work on complex processes andthe results of studies that have been informed by these theories. These studies have helped
identify profiles of skills that children bring to the process of reading. Others have examined
how multiple underlying components of reading work together to predict reading
comprehension. Specifically, we describe IES-funded research in (1) cognitive processes andskills (e.g., enacted representations, the oddity principle, working memory), (2) linguistic
processes and skills (e.g., word knowledge, use of non-mainstream English dialects), and (3)unique skill profiles that differentiate children who are typically developing readers versus
children who have or are at risk for reading disabilities.

Enactive Representation; Oddity, Seriation, and Conservation; Working Memory; andCoherent Mental Representations and Higher Order Cognitive Processes
IES has funded research that begins with well established general cognitive theories of learningand seeks to understand whether changes in how children learn might lead to changes in theirreading outcomes. These studies focused on the cognitive constructs of enactive representation,
the oddity principle, working memory, and developing coherent mental representations, which
are further explained below.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 5. Several basic cognitive processes, including working memory and abstract andinferential reasoning, have been found to be critical for students’ reading success.

Enactive Representation
Background. Researchers Glenberg, Levin and Marley applied Piagetian principles 37 andtheories offered by Bruner 38 to extend our understanding about cognitive development and how it
relates to children’s oral language and reading comprehension development. These researchers
proposed that many children under 8 years of age cannot fully understand complex events, such
37
38

Piaget (1960).
Bruner (1975).
15

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

as those described in story narratives, unless they can act them out. This is a process referred toas enactive representation. As children grow older and gain more experience, they are better
able to understand such events without concrete representations like acting out stories because
they can mentally process more abstract ideas. 39 For example, Glenberg and colleagues
hypothesized that it should be easier for young children to read and retell instructions on how tobuild a block house if they were allowed to actually act out building the block house as theyread. They suggested that such acts allowed children to develop internal images, index symbols(i.e., words) to objects, and create better understanding or more coherent mental representationsof the text they were listening to or reading.

Contributions from IES-Supported Research

Glenberg and colleagues (2004) conducted 3 different experiments with first and second graders.
Across these experiments, these researchers discovered that manipulating toys, watching toys
being manipulated, and imagining the toys generally increased children’s comprehension of thestory when compared to the students in the control conditions. That is, they were better able toremember what they had read, even after some time had passed.

The researchers then explored whether they could replicate these results when the intervention
was provided to small groups of children rather than individually. 40 In this experiment, first andsecond graders, Glenberg and colleagues found that children who had the opportunity to enact
the stories and watch their group members enact stories were better able to recall the stories after
time had passed than did the children in the re-reading condition.
Next, the researchers examined whether enacting stories with toys or watching someone enact
stories would improve the listening comprehension skills of Native American students who were
struggling readers. 41 Native American children are at high risk for developing reading
disabilities because they frequently are learning English as a second language and are
disproportionately more likely to live in poverty. Results were similar to those found forstudents with typical reading skills. Students who either manipulated or watched the researcher
manipulate toys to enact stories were generally better able to recall details of the stories thanwere students who just listened to stories. Thus, enacting the stories and enacting complex
language by creating concrete representations helped Native American students with reading
difficulties better understand complex stories. Unfortunately, struggling readers in the treatment
conditions were not able to generalize the idea of using their imagination instead ofmanipulatives to enact the stories, which the first and second graders who were typical readers in
the treatment group were able to do.
Future Directions. The results from this set of IES-supported studies suggest that reading
comprehension interventions that make abstract and complex stories more concrete by enacting
39

Glenberg et al. (2004); Marley and Levin (2006).
Glenberg, Brown, and Levin (2007).
41
Marley, Levin, and Glenberg (2007).
40

16

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

them with toys or other visual imagery should support all students’ reading and listening
comprehension skills, including students with or at risk for reading disabilities.

Oddity, Seriation, and Conservation
Background. Pasnak and colleagues also relied on Piaget and cognitive theories to develop the
hypothesis that improving children’s ability to understand abstract principles, specifically oddity,
seriation, and conservation, would lead to better general learning. 42 Young children who do notunderstand the oddity principle have difficulty finding an object that does not belong when theobjects in a set are all different colors and the dimension of difference is shape or size. They
focus on the color rather than the crucial information that is different. Children who do not grasp
the seriation principle can put objects in size order but have difficulty figuring where an object
goes in a series they have already constructed. Children use the wrong strategies or focus on thewrong aspect of the object (e.g., color rather than size) to decide where the extra object should goin the series. Conservation is the ability to understand that just because objects are physicallyrearranged or liquid is poured from a tall container to a short and wide container that the numberof objects or the amount of liquid has not changed. Although most children have grasped theseconcepts by kindergarten, the researchers argued that children who have not mastered them may
have more difficulty learning in the classroom.
Pasnak and colleagues created interventions that were designed to teach these abstract principles
to kindergartners who had not already mastered them. For example, while playing a game inwhich a toy dinosaur would only eat the object that was different from three other objects,
children learned to understand the oddity principle through repeated episodes of success andfailure. These games are called learning sets.

Contributions from IES-Supported Research

Pasnak and colleagues, in a series of IES-funded experiments, moved their laboratory
experiments into schools. In one study, 43 they conducted an experiment with kindergartners who
had not mastered the abstract principles (i.e., oddity principle, seriation, conservation). Children
who were taught the oddity principle, seriation, and conservation learning set intervention
showed greater gains in learning all three principles than did children in numeracy, reading or art
interventions. They also achieved stronger number and reading skills compared to the art groupand their number skills generally equaled the kindergarteners who received the numeracy
intervention. Plus, their reading skills equaled kindergarteners who received the readingintervention. These results are highly similar to those found in their other IES-funded studies. 44
Future Directions. Learning these abstract principles appears to help children learn numbers
and reading more generally although they were not the target of the intervention. The
42

Pasnak et al. (2007); Pasnak et al. (2008); Pasnak et al. (2009); Pasnak, MacCubbin, and Ferral-Like (2007).
Pasnak et al. (2009).
44
Pasnak, Kidd, et al. (2007); Pasnak, et al. (2008); Pasnak, MacCubbin, and Ferral-Like (2007).
43

17

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

researchers offer a number of ideas for this finding. First, most instruction provided to typicalkindergarteners assumes that they have grasped these abstract principles. Remember, theintervention was delivered only to children who had not mastered them. It is likely that
instruction in numbers and basic reading rely implicitly on grasp of these principles. For
example, to develop phonological awareness, children have to understand how phonemes(certainly an abstract principle to kindergartners) relate to each other, how changing one
phoneme can change the word “pin” to “pan” and how reversing the order of phonemes alsochanges the word “tip” to “pit”. Learning numbers also requires grasp of these abstract
principles.
It appears that understanding the oddity principle, seriation, and conservation helps students
better understand the reading and mathematics instruction they were receiving.

Working Memory
Background. There is compelling evidence from the cognitive literature that children who havedifficulty comprehending what they read, frequently have less working memory capacity than dochildren who do not have difficulty. 45 Working memory is the ability to keep an idea (or a set ofideas) in mind while performing another task or remembering something else. For example, atypical working memory task involves reading a number of sentences that tell a story, recallingthe story, and then remembering what the last word in each sentence was.
Working memory is considered one component of the executive system. Another is short term
memory, which is the ability to remember phone numbers or the ability to recite a series ofwords or letters. These skills, along with others, are thought to represent basic cognitive abilities
that generally impact reading as well as other academic skills, such as mathematics. Other
cognitive skills include inhibition and updating. Inhibition is the ability to inhibit informationthat is no longer needed. Updating involves the ability to stop remembering one thing and begin
to remember another.

Contributions from IES-Supported Research

Swanson and colleagues sought to better understand the relationship between cognitive factors
and reading ability in a prospective study. 46 They tested the working memory, short term
memory, inhibition and updating, processing speed, IQ, and reading skills (both decoding andcomprehension) of students who ranged in age from 7 to 17 years. Based on reading scores, they
identified four reading ability groups: low word reading and low comprehension with typicalverbal IQ scores (reading disabilities); high word reading but low comprehension(comprehension deficits only) with typical verbal IQ scores; strong reading overall (skilled
readers) with typical verbal IQ scores; and children who had low word reading, comprehensions,and verbal IQ scores (poor readers). Children with only comprehension deficits had stronger
45
46

Swanson, Howard, and Saez (2006); Swanson, Zheng, and Jerman (2009).
Swanson, Howard, and Saez (2006).
18

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

working memory skills than did children with reading disabilities. These students had stronger
working memory skills compared to poor readers. Skilled readers had the strongest working
memory skills among the groups. Results also indicated that working memory and short term
memory may share some underlying components such as processing speed and updating.
Indeed, individual differences in updating and short term memory predicted working memory
skills consistently across the reading skill classifications. This is important because it supports
the idea that stronger working memory skills are not a result of reading comprehension but are an
independent cognitive skill. Swanson and colleagues also reported that the biggest difference in
executive function for children with reading disabilities and low comprehension readers was thatchildren classified as having reading disabilities had less storage capacity (i.e., less short term
memory capacity) than did children classified as having only a comprehension deficit. Thisdifference was principally a function of the phonological system (the ability to repeat nonsensewords, for example).
In an IES-supported meta-analysis that reviewed almost 90 studies exploring the relationshipbetween cognitive processes and reading ability, Swanson and colleagues (2009) observed thatstudents and adults with reading disabilities performed more poorly on tests of working and shortterm memory than did typical readers, that these deficits persisted across the age groups, and thatworking and short term memory were not moderated by students’ IQ or the severity of theirreading disability. Moreover, stronger working memory and short term memory were both
associated with reading skill. Students with stronger working memory skills tended to havestronger reading comprehension skills than did students with weaker working memory skills. In
contrast, short term memory skills were more highly associated with students’ decoding andword reading.
This is a particularly important finding: if working memory can be improved as a result ofintervention (i.e., is malleable), then interventions might be developed to improve working
memory and, in turn, improve reading. IES-supported researchers, Swanson and colleagues,
pursued two potentially promising avenues to improve working memory and reading
comprehension. First, they proposed that learning comprehension strategies, such as rehearsal,
clustering, association and elaboration, might improve working memory and comprehension. 47
In two studies comparing the performance of 10-year-old students with and without reading
disabilities (i.e., RD vs. typical readers), with the second study a randomized control trial wherestudents were randomly assigned within RD and typical groups to an intervention or control
condition, they hypothesized that children with reading disabilities would show greater
improvement in working memory when they received strategy training than would typicalreaders because it would allow them to improve or to compensate more for their weaker working
memory skills. The results revealed that children with reading disabilities did indeed improvetheir skills when they received strategy instruction compared to peers in the control condition but
so did typical readers. Gains were greater for children who chose from a more stable set of47

Swanson, Kehler, and Jerman (2010).
19

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

strategies compared to children who chose a wide range of frequently less optimal strategies.
Moreover, strategy instruction with fifth and sixth graders led to stronger working memory skills
for both groups relative to a randomly assigned control group – not, as hypothesized, more forthe reading disability group than the typical reading group. Thus, working memory does appear,at least in this study, to be somewhat malleable for children with reading disabilities – but not tothe extent of bringing their working memory skills to the same level found for children who are
typical readers – typical readers still had stronger working memory skills after the intervention.
Thus, the researchers state, “the evidence is still not clear as to whether increases in working
memory might have a direct influence on higher order skills such as reading comprehension”(p. 43).
In their IES-funded study, Swanson and O’Connor (2009) conjectured that improving children’s
fluency might improve or help compensate for weak working memory. Fluency is the ability toread rapidly with accuracy and appropriate prosody. The researchers cited three different
theories that they wanted to test. The first theory was the Decoding Proficiency Hypothesis –that proficiency in word decoding is more important than working memory in explaining reading
comprehension skills. 48 By improving fluency, the ability to understand text should improve
regardless of working memory skills because working memory is a secondary system. Second
are theories that suggest that dysfluent reading uses up working memory capacity and reduces
resources for understanding what is read. 49 For example, the Compensatory Hypothesis statesthat improving fluency skills may help children compensate for weak working memory skills. 50
Thus dysfluent readers with weaker working memory may be especially responsive to fluency
interventions compared to children with stronger working memory skills. The third theory, theWorking Memory Resource Hypothesis, states that working memory is a basic cognitive processthat will operate independently of fluency. 51 In this theory, working memory is unlikely to bevery malleable and will operate independently of fluency to predict reading comprehension
outcomes.
Setting out to test these hypotheses, Swanson and O'Connor conducted an experiment withsecond and fourth grade children with poor reading fluency to a control group (no intervention)or one of two fluency interventions – a repeated reading intervention or a continuous readingintervention. Based on assessment of children’s working memory, fluency, and comprehension,
results revealed that, in general, both fluency interventions resulted in stronger fluency skills
compared to the control group for both grades. However, when reading comprehension
outcomes were compared, students in the continuous reading fluency intervention made greater
gains overall than did students in the repeated reading fluency intervention. Children in the latterintervention performed no better than did the students in the control condition. However, neither
48

Shankweiler et al.(1992).
LaBerge and Samuels (1974).
50
Stanovich (1980).
51
Swanson and Ashbaker (2000).
4920

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

fluency training intervention led to stronger working memory skills. Moreover, fluency andworking memory operated independently to predict reading comprehension outcomes. Thus,
neither the Decoding Proficiency Hypothesis nor the Compensatory Hypothesis was supported.
Instead, the third theory, the Working Memory Resource Hypothesis, was best supported by the
results.
Future Directions. Taking these IES-funded studies altogether, the results have helped toextend our understanding of working memory as an important cognitive process that is weak formany children with reading difficulties and is particularly important for proficient reading
comprehension. It reliably distinguishes between skilled and struggling readers. Strategy
instruction, such as repeating important information, may strengthen working memory. On theother hand, fluency interventions do not appear to lead to improvements in working memory
although they may improve reading comprehension and so may act to help students who struggle
with reading compensate for weak working memory.

Coherent Mental Representations and Higher Order Cognitive Processes
Background. In the long run, the reason we read is to understand the text in front of us, and we
may do this for pure enjoyment, to gain information and to learn. Van den Broek, Rapp, theircolleagues, and others suggest that in order for students to comprehend and understand what they
are reading, they must make coherent mental representations of the information or story in the
text they are reading. 52 To understand a text, students have to make appropriate and meaningfulconnections among the ideas in the text and this requires higher order cognitive processing.
Higher order skills include: making inferences by connecting ideas in the text or with theirbackground knowledge, understanding cause and effect, thinking logically, and understanding
how the text is organized. One of the challenges in trying to understand how students use theirhigher order cognitive processes is that these processes happen during reading; they are“online”, 53 which make them difficult to assess. Most of the methods we use to measurecomprehension ask students to read a passage and then answer questions. If they can answer thequestions correctly then we assume they understood the text. But it is possible that students’
online processes differ in important ways that may have implications for designing interventions
to improve their comprehension processes and their ability to make sense of complex sentence
structure.

Contributions from IES-Supported Research

One way to figure out how well students are coordinating their higher order processes is to use amethod called eye tracking. To use eye tracking, the students read text on a computer and a
special device records where their eyes focus (a fixation), how long they look at a word(duration) and whether they look backwards to re-read text (a regression). When van den Broek
and colleagues (2009) compared the eye tracking patterns of skilled and struggling fourth,52
53

Rapp and van den Broek (2005); van den Broek, Kendeou, and White (2008).
van den Broek et al. (2009).
21

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

seventh, and ninth grade students while reading, they found that struggling readers made thesame number of fixations as typical and skilled readers, but their fixation times were longer.
Furthermore, although their rate of regressions (looking back to re-read text) was the same, thestruggling readers were much less systematic with regard to what information they reread. For
example, “instead of reading specific, informative segments, as proficient readers did, thestruggling readers reread entire sections …often uninformative sections… before [continuing]”(p. 116). Thus the struggling readers in this sample were not reading substantially differently,
but they were reading less efficiently and less strategically than their peers who were proficient
readers.
Future Directions. As we design instruction and interventions to improve students’ reading
skills overall, both underlying, basic, and higher order cognitive processes and the effective andefficient coordination of these skills clearly deserve attention.

Word Knowledge, Dialects, and Fluency
Background. Linguistic processes are defined here as the cognitive processes involved intalking and listening. It is well documented that there are linguistic foundations for reading,particularly reading comprehension 54 but how to intervene is not well understood. Whereas overthree decades of research has revealed that when students master the alphabetic principle they are
better readers than those who do not and that these skills can be taught effectively, 55 skill at
reading words fluently does not ensure proficient reading for understanding. 56 There is evidence
that some children do not have the word knowledge and more formal oral language, including
use of English syntax associated with School English, 57 needed to fully understand the more
complex syntax and unfamiliar vocabulary that is characteristic of the academic texts they are
expected to read. 58

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 6. Malleable linguistic processes, such as oral language skills and vocabulary,
contribute to children’s reading performance.
Word Knowledge: In a paper describing their IES-funded study, Tannenbaum, Torgesen, andWagner (2006) suggest that word knowledge, which is frequently assessed using vocabulary
tests, is multidimensional, incorporating vocabulary breadth, depth, and fluency. Vocabulary
breadth is the number of words that children recognize and understand although theirunderstanding of the word may be shallow. For example, a child may know that a rock is a largestone that is hard and rough or a type of music but not know that the verb rock means to moveback and forth. Grasp of such multiple meanings represents the depth of children’s word
54

Hoover and Gough (1990); Snow (2001).
NICHD (2000); Torgesen, (2002).
56
Connor et al. (2011); Snyder, Caccamise, and Wise (2005); Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman (2007).
57
Craig et al. (2009); Terry et al.(2012).
58
Hoover and Gough (1990); Snow (2001); Snyder, Dillow, and Hoffman (2007).
55

22

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

knowledge. When word knowledge is deep, children can use the words in their vocabulary
flexibly and in a variety of situations, including different kinds of text. Word knowledge
fluency, Tannebaum et al. suggest, represents the child’s ability to rapidly access word
meanings. These researchers found that for the third graders in their sample, students withstrong word knowledge depth also accessed words more rapidly and accurately and that, it
seemed, depth and fluency represented one skill. However, this depth/fluency skill was distinct
from vocabulary breadth and both skills differentiated typical from struggling third grade
readers. These researchers also found that vocabulary breadth and depth/fluency wereindependently associated with these third graders’ reading comprehension skills; that, overall,
students with greater breadth and depth/fluency also had stronger reading comprehension skills
and that those with weaker vocabulary breadth and depth/fluency had weaker reading vocabulary
skills. At the same time, over half of the variability in students’ reading comprehension was
explained by aspects of language that both types of word knowledge shared (i.e., sharedvariance). These results suggest that interventions that focus on word knowledge might beeffective in improving reading comprehension, especially if the interventions focus ondeveloping both breadth and depth/fluency of word knowledge.
Another IES-funded study that focused on word knowledge was conducted by Uccelli and Paez
(2007) with young English learners. Uccelli and Paez asked whether the vocabulary skills ofkindergarteners who spoke Spanish at home but English at school would be associated with theirdevelopment of narrative skills (the skills required to tell a story that has a beginning, middle,
and end as well as characters, a setting, and a plot). Other researchers have found that children
with stronger narrative skills are generally more likely to develop stronger literacy skills. 59
Uccelli and Paez assessed 24 bilingual kindergartners’ Spanish and English vocabulary breadth,
as well as their narrative skills in both languages, and then examined these skills again when thechildren entered first grade. With only a few exceptions, most children’s vocabulary scores inboth languages were well below grade and age expectations. Children with weak narrative skills
in Spanish also tended to have weak narrative skills in English. They found that the children’s
English vocabulary and narrative skills improved by first grade. However, their Spanish
vocabulary skills generally did not improve although their Spanish narrative skills did. This wasa concern because the researchers also found that kindergarteners with stronger Spanish
vocabulary and narrative skills were more likely to produce better narratives in English in first
grade than were kindergartners with weaker Spanish language skills. Thus, this study also
highlights the importance of understanding how children’s word knowledge and vocabulary
across languages contributes to their reading comprehension in English and the potential role ofthese constructs as targets for intervention.
Dialects: When speakers from states in the North visit states in the South (and vice versa), they
may notice that some speakers sound different. Speakers in the south are using a dialect called
Southern Vernacular English. Another example of a dialect is African American Vernacular
59

e.g., Garner and Bochna (2010).
23

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

English, which is used by members of many Black communities in the United States. 60 Acrossthe United States, many communities use dialects that are easily understood as English but haveslightly different rules for grammar and pronunciation. These differences are important for two
reasons. First, children who use these non-mainstream dialects are frequently misidentified ashaving language disabilities because markers of specific language impairment, such as leaving
off the “is” in “he is running,” are perfectly acceptable in African American Vernacular English 61
and other non-mainstream dialects. 62 Second, researchers have conjectured that the mismatch
between non-mainstream dialects and the English used in schools and books might be one reason
some children who use non-mainstream dialects have difficulty learning to read. 63 However,
emerging research findings indicate that the association might be more complex.64
In an IES-funded study, Terry et al. (2010) argued that the mismatch between non-mainstream
dialect and the more formal English used in school might not present the same challenge to allstudents; that it would depend on their linguistic flexibility or dialect awareness. To test this,they explored the association between first graders’ dialectic differences, using Part 1 of the
Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Assessment, and the trajectory ofgrowth in early literacy skills. Roughly half of the first graders were African American and half
were White. All were from the geographical Southeastern United States and so used varying
amounts of Southern Vernacular English or African American Vernacular English, which are
fairly similar. They also considered the level of poverty at the students’ schools. They found thatchildren who used many features of non-mainstream dialect AND children who used very little
non-mainstream dialect had stronger reading skills than did their peers who used moderateamounts of non-mainstream dialect. This inverted U-shaped association held whether students
were African American or White and whether they attended a higher poverty school or not.
Overall, students at higher poverty schools had lower reading scores regardless of their nonmainstream dialect use.
In a second study, again with first graders, Terry, Connor, Petscher, and Conlin (2012) found thatmost students who used non-mainstream dialect at the beginning of first grade used substantiallymore school English or mainstream English by the end of the year and this continued throughsecond grade. Students who did not increase their use of school English displayed generally
weaker reading skill growth compared to students who did increase their use of school English.
Students who shifted to school English had generally stronger language skills than did students
who did not shift. These researchers concluded that non-mainstream dialect use may not actually
be why students struggle with reading. Rather, they suggested that students with weaker oral
language skills are more likely to be confused by the differences in the dialect they speak and
60

Wolfram, Adger, and Christian (1999).
Craig and Washington (2000).
62
Oetting and McDonald (2001).
63
Charity, Scarborough, and Griffin (2004).
64
Connor and Craig (2006).
61

24

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

read at school and the dialect they use at home. For children with stronger language skills, thismismatch presents less of a challenge.
Fluency: Tilstra, McMaster, Van den Broek, Kendeou, and Rapp (2009) proposed an expanded
version of the Simple View of Reading which asserts that decoding and oral language skills are
sufficient to explain reading comprehension. 65 Describing fluency as the “ability to group words
into meaningful grammatical units and to read quickly, effortlessly, and with expression” (p.
385), they argued that the Simple View may be more informative when fluency is considered inaddition to decoding and oral language skills. They also conjectured that the associations among
decoding, oral language skills, and fluency might contribute to students’ reading comprehension
in different ways, depending on students’ grades and the kinds of reading they are expected to
do. To examine these research questions, they evaluated fourth, seventh, and ninth gradestudents’ reading and language skills using an extensive battery of assessments. Of thesestudents, about one-third had reading difficulties. The researchers found that the measuresassessed four different kinds of skills (i.e., constructs): (1) reading fluency; (2) depth of word
knowledge, which these investigators call “verbal proficiency;” (3) oral language skills, which
they called “listening comprehension;” and (4) decoding. The results from this IES-funded study
showed that all four skills predicted students’ reading comprehension but the importance of theskills in explaining why some students had strong reading comprehension and others weakdiffered by grade. For fourth graders, the most important predictor was decoding. In contrast,
for seventh and ninth graders, oral language skills (i.e., listening comprehension) was thestrongest predictor. These researchers pointed out that for students in middle and high school,
the relation between oral language and reading comprehension appeared to become more
reciprocal than it was for fourth graders. This means that strong reading comprehension
appeared to contribute to improvements in students’ oral language, which in turn, appeared tosupport stronger reading comprehension. Thus, if students had weak reading comprehension
skills, then they were less likely to achieve stronger oral language skills and so continued to fall
farther behind. These results have implications for skills included in screening and progress
monitoring assessments for students at different ages. Later in this section, we discussinterventions that support students’ fluency and reading comprehension development.
Future Directions. The integration of cognitive science and education is extending ourunderstanding about the mechanisms and skills that support proficient reading with implications
for developing new and effective interventions for students with or at risk of reading disabilities.
In particular, fruitful lines of research in executive and linguistic processes and how to intervene
to improve these skills for students with or at risk of reading disabilities are explicating new
directions for improving reading achievement overall.

65

Hoover and Gough (1990).
25

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Unique Skill Profiles
Background. The rest of this section focuses on studies that examine a number of component
skills, such as word knowledge, fluency, strategy use, and other cognitive processes, to see how
they work separately and together to support proficient comprehension. These studies use what
is called “person centered” statistics. 66 Rather than trying to find the general trend or meanachievement, person centered strategies work to identify different profiles of learners. For
example, a group of first graders may have average decoding and vocabulary skills when theskills are considered together. However, some students will have strong decoding skills andweak vocabulary skills and others will have weak decoding skills but strong vocabulary skills.
IES-funded studies and other studies reveal that there are different profiles (or clusters) of skills
for preschoolers, 67 second and third graders, 68 and adolescents, 69 with implications for how todesign more effective instruction and interventions.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 7. Although the same sets of cognitive and linguistic skills are involved inlearning to read, children bring unique constellations of these skills to the classroom with
important implications for instruction.
Profiles of Skills – Preschoolers: By assessing preschoolers who attended publicly fundedpreschools, such as Head Start, and who were at risk for developing academic difficulties, on awide variety of oral language and code-related skills, Cabell, Justice, and colleagues (2010) wereable to classify preschoolers into one of five different profiles. They tested oral language skills
including vocabulary and understanding and using grammar, as well as code-related skills
including knowing letters and sounds, name writing, rhyming, and print concepts (how to holdbooks, understanding that books are read from left to right, and so on). They found that thepreschoolers’ oral language skills were consistent within five profiles profiles; one profile had
consistently above average oral language skills, three had fairly typical language skills, and one
had very delayed language skills. What differed were preschoolers’ code-related skills. The
researchers conjectured that preschoolers’ home and preschool experiences might have been
responsible for the differences in code-related skills and that these skills appeared to develop
unevenly for many children. When the researchers tested these preschoolers again when they
were in kindergarten, they found that the profile to which a preschooler belonged predicted theprogress they were going to make in reading by the end of kindergarten. Children who hadstrong code-related skills and either strong or typical language skills had stronger reading skillsby the end of the school year than did children with weaker code-related skills. Taken together,
these results show that even among preschoolers attending programs for children at risk of66

Muthén and Muthén (2000).
Cabell et al. (2011).
68
Pierce et al. (2007).
69
Hock et al. (2009).
67

26

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

developing academic difficulties, there are important differences in their literacy skills and thatthe profile of skills predicts how well they will do in kindergarten.
Profiles of Skills – Elementary School Children: Do we find similar profiles once children begin
formal schooling and when, arguably, reading instruction is more consistent than it is forpreschoolers? The study by Pierce, Noam and colleagues (2007) explored the profiles of 140
second and third graders who attended urban schools and who were at risk for reading
disabilities. They tested the students’ oral language (vocabulary depth), decoding (phonologicalawareness, non-word decoding), fluency (both word and text), and reading comprehension,
which translated into four groups of skills: decoding, vocabulary, fluency (efficiency), and text
skills, respectively. When they conducted cluster analyses, they found that, for the second andthird graders who were at risk for becoming poor readers, reading failure fell into one of four
profiles: (1) weaker text skills; (2) relatively typical skills overall; (3) weaker efficiency skills;and (4) weak skills overall. Unlike the preschool sample where oral language skills were fairly
consistent, for second and third graders who struggled with reading, oral language skills wereinconsistent across profiles.
Profiles of Skills – Adolescents: Do profiles differ again for adolescents? Based on the views ofpractitioners and some early research, it was assumed that for adolescents who have reading
difficulties, the greatest weaknesses occur in reading for understanding and that by the time
students reached middle and high school decoding difficulties have been resolved. In their IESfunded study, Hock and colleagues (2009) challenged this conventional wisdom andhypothesized that, just like preschoolers and elementary school age children, adolescent readers
would show different profiles of skills. What is interesting is that reading skills tended to fall
into four types that were similar to those found for younger students: (a) decoding including
word reading; (b) fluency (word and text); (c) vocabulary (breadth – depth was not assessed);and (d) comprehension (both when listening and when reading). The investigators thencompared students in their sample who showed reading difficulties with those who did not.
Students with reading difficulties were more likely to come from families living in poverty andto be enrolled in special education. In other ways, the two groups were almost the same. Whenthe researchers examined the profiles of students with reading difficulties, they found that morethan half of the students judged to have reading difficulties scored low on all components ofreading, including decoding. A much smaller percentage of students fit the profile ofconventional wisdom that decoding skills were fine and that the other comprehension related
skills (fluency, vocabulary and comprehension) were weak. Moreover, the majority of all
students tended to read slowly and not very accurately (i.e., weak fluency). Even students withadequate reading skills had difficulty with fluency.
Future Directions. It is evident from the findings across the age-groups (preschool, elementary,and high school) that students have different strengths and weaknesses and that students with orat risk for reading disabilities have weaker skills across the board -- decoding, word knowledge,
oral language, and fluency. As we think about instruction and intervention, these results indicate
27

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

that like preschool and elementary school-age students with reading difficulties, many adolescentreaders continue to struggle with decoding, word reading skills, and fluency and that intervention
tailored to fit each student’s unique profile may be more effective in supporting improved
reading skills than taking a “one-size-fits-all” approach or trusting to conventional wisdom.

Summary of Contributions for Research Question II: Basic Cognitive and Linguistic
Processes
The IES-funded research described above, which examines cognitive and linguistic processes
and how these comprise different profiles or clusters of skills from preschool through middle andhigh school, has extended our understanding and provided clear implications for designingeffective reading instruction and interventions, particularly for students who are at risk or withreading disabilities.
Cognitive processes are important because some appear to be malleable. For example, if we
improve kindergarteners’ understanding of more abstract concepts, such as conservation (theability to understand that the amount of water is the same even if the shape of the container isdifferent), their reading skills will generally improve as well.
Linguistic processes are also important because they too appear to be malleable. For example, if
we improve kindergarteners’ vocabulary and fluency skills, their reading skills are likely to
improve as well.
The third contribution is increasing recognition that although the same cognitive and linguistic
skills are necessary for proficient reading for all children, each student brings a uniqueconstellation of these skills to the classroom. These profiles may change as children receive
effective instruction. Further, this may help to explain why instruction that is effective for one
child might be ineffective for another child in the same classroom but who has a different profileof skills.

III. Intervention: How do we make reading instruction more effective forstudents who have or are at risk for developing reading disabilities? How
do we teach reading to students with low incidence disabilities?
The demands of reading change as children develop and progress through school. 70 In preschool
and kindergarten, oral language sets the stage for reading comprehension and is a key area forintervention research. 71 In kindergarten and first grade, the skills that lead to decoding and word
recognition (phonemic awareness, letter-sound knowledge, and quick recognition of highfrequency words) take center stage. By second grade and through the elementary school years,
gradual increases in reading rate and accuracy, vocabulary, and reading comprehension become
70
71

Adams (1990).
Catts and Kamhi (2004).
28

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

principal instructional goals. By middle and high school years, students are expected to use
reading as a tool for learning, finding, and using information. 72 Slow development along any ofthese dimensions can signal reading difficulties or reading disabilities. 73 In contrast, students
with typical and more advanced reading skills may not need specific instruction on thesecomponents because they develop interactively and students can learn them more implicitly. 74
These developmental changes in how “reading” is defined influence how assessments andinterventions are designed, and how learning is evaluated. Educators, policy makers, andresearchers agree that reading instruction is crucial for improving the outcomes of students who
are at risk for or have reading disabilities. 75 IES has funded research to help identify the types ofinterventions that can improve reading outcomes, along with the optimal timing for delivering
these interventions, the training necessary for implementing these interventions in schools, andthe likely effects of improved instructional intensity for students with different characteristics.

Prevention through Intensity of Instruction
Background. Because accumulating research has established that reading difficulties become
more entrenched as students continue to experience difficulty learning to read well, 76 many
researchers begin identifying students with low skill levels and intervening with them inkindergarten and first grade. Others begin even earlier to improve oral language skills ofpreschoolers because of the strong impact that early language may have on reading
comprehension by the mid-elementary grades. 77 By teaching key literacy components such asoral language, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge near the beginning of students’formal schooling, early deficits may be remediated and the compounded problems created bychronically low reading achievement can be ameliorated. 78 Over the past decade, accumulating
research, including research funded by IES, has demonstrated that early intervention is effective
for many students with or at risk of reading disabilities and may even prevent reading
disabilities. 79 The IES-funded studies discussed in this section have helped to advance ourknowledge about effective intervention and the importance of using rigorous experimental
designs in education research.

72

Chall (1996); Shanahan and Shanahan (2008).
Torgesen (2000); Vellutino et al. (1996).
74
Connor, Morrison, and Katch (2004).
75
National Early Literacy Panel (2008); NICHD (2000).
76
Torgesen et al. (2001).
77
Justice and Ezell (2002); Morrison, Bachman, and Connor (2005).
78
Al Otaiba et al. (2011).
79
e.g., Torgesen (2002b).
73

29

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 8. Increasing the intensity of interventions in kindergarten and first grade may
prevent reading difficulties for many students.
Denton and colleagues (2010) scaled-up a supplementary reading intervention designed toincrease the intensity of intervention for first graders with or at risk of reading disabilities.
Validated in earlier development and efficacy grants (funded by IES), their supplemental readingintervention, Responsive Reading Instruction, was used with first graders for whom whole-class
instruction was ineffective. These students were assigned randomly to Responsive Reading
Instruction or to typical school-designed interventions. Responsive Reading Instruction included
word work, scaffolded reading, and rereading of decodable books (a phonics approach similar to
the explicit instruction used by Vadasy and Sanders (2010) and Hagan-Burke et al. (2010)). This
was along with supported writing, in which students took turns generating a sentence for all
students in the group to write with teacher assistance. There were significant positive effects of
Responsive Reading Instruction compared to typical school designed interventions on students’reading achievement in addition to generally better reading outcomes, 91 percent of students who
received Responsive Reading Instruction achieved grade level expectations compared to only 79
percent of control students (grade level expectations were defined as within half a standard
deviation of the national norms). The area that remained weakest for Responsive Reading
Instruction and control students was oral reading fluency. The results of this study make animportant contribution because the experiment occurred in real world conditions with levels ofprofessional development and oversight likely to be available in many school districts.
Moreover, students in Responsive Reading Instruction and control interventions received similar
amounts of time in small groups, suggesting that intensity may be as much about the content of
instruction as simply increasing intervention time.
English Learners: To extend our understanding about how phonics instruction in kindergarten
might affect reading achievement for students who have reading difficulties and are English
learners, Vadasy and Sanders (2010) randomly assigned students with reading difficulties to 18
weeks of one-to-one instruction or to a kindergarten-as-usual control. Half of the students in the
study were English learners. Overall, children in the intervention group achieved higher scoresthan did children in the control group on nearly all measures. Students who were English
learners in the treatment group outscored English learners in the control condition. However,they achieved lower scores compared to students who were not English learners and who
received the intervention. The researchers also found that instruction in the general education
classroom played a role in the results. For example, children made greater gains when they werein classrooms where a higher proportion of the time was spent teaching phonics. The study helps
to show that including English learners in early interventions in reading can have positive effects
on their reading. This finding is important because English learners have often been excluded
from reading instruction until they reach some proficiency in English.

30

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Behavior Problems: A second group of students often excluded from early interventions arethose with behavioral problems. Students with or at risk of reading disabilities and behavior
problems arguably may have more difficulty negotiating the complexities of the classroom
environment. For example, they may experience less optimal learning environments because
their outbursts disturb the classroom activity thus interfering with their learning and the learningof their classmates. 80 Previous research indicates that students with reading difficulties in first
grade are more likely to demonstrate behavior problems in third grade and students withbehavior problems in first grade are more likely to experience reading difficulties in third
grade. 81 Thus learning environments that provide effective reading instruction and support for
behavior may be particularly effective in mitigating the sequelae of reading disabilities.
In their IES-funded study, Hagan-Burke, Kwok, Zou, Johnson, Simmons, and Coyne (2010)
examined the impact of instruction that takes advantage of current understandings on bestpractice for literacy instruction in kindergarten and how these practices might affect reading
development for students with and without behavior problems. They defined these best practices
as instruction that integrates phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principal, and decoding, and is
explicit, systematic, and code-based. They conjectured that such rigorous reading instruction
might mitigate the influence of problem behaviors on reading acquisition in kindergarten. They
considered three types of problem behaviors: externalizing (acting out), internalizing (depressed,
withdrawn or very shy), and hyperactivity (overly active and rambunctious). Their results
showed that explicit, systematic, code-based instruction was more effective than was thebusiness-as-usual control instruction for children with externalizing behavior (e.g., fighting,talking back to teachers, tantrums) and children who were hyperactive and easily distracted.
Although students with problem behaviors had lower overall reading outcomes than did students
with better behavior, these findings make an important contribution because students withproblem behaviors who received explicit, systematic, code-based instruction were more
successful than were students in less directed, more eclectic and less explicit school-directed
control interventions. In considering the students with and without problem behaviors, bothtypes of interventions raised student performance. 82 Nevertheless, the more explicit approach
was particularly effective for students with the lowest pretest performance. Specifically, students
in the bottom quartile scored higher across most measures when they received more explicit,
systematic, code-based intervention.
Future Directions. These studies contribute to the extant literature by demonstrating thatproviding intensive intervention to students with low reading skills in kindergarten and first
grade generally improves reading outcomes later on. Students who were English learners andstudents with behavioral problems also improved reading skills more than students in control
groups when the interventions were systematic and included a focus on phonics. Nevertheless,
80

Bell et al. (2008); Connor et al. (2010).
Morgan et al. (2008).
82
Simmons et al. (2011).
81

31

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

these students’ skills grew less during intervention compared to treated students who were native
English speakers or who had no behavioral difficulties. This suggests a need to test interventions
with content addressed specifically to these students experiencing these additional challenges.
Also, although skills such as phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, and decoding improved,
smaller gains were found for reading fluency, which is addressed in the next section.

Fluency Interventions May Increase Fluency and Comprehension
Background. Reading fluency — the rate, accuracy, and prosody of reading — is an importantcomponent of reading. 83 Researchers have demonstrated strong correlations between students’fluency and their ability to understand what they read (comprehension). 84 There is also evidence
that reading interventions are frequently less effective in bringing students’ fluency in line with
their peers compared to their improvement in other skills, such as decoding. 85 Recently, studies
have explored whether fluency might have a causal impact on reading comprehension. The
assumed interrelationship can be traced back to the early automaticity model of LaBerge andSamuels (1974), who viewed problems in reading fluency as being related to poor word
decoding, which created a bottleneck in which the slow flow of thought hampered
comprehension. Students with reading difficulties appeared to spend an excessive amount oftime on decoding and therefore to expend valuable mental resources that could have been used
for comprehension.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 9. Fluency interventions that focus on repeated reading or reading a range of text,
along with opportunities to practice reading in the classroom may generally improve students’fluency and comprehension. In a series of IES-supported studies, Vadasy and Sanders (2008a,
2008b, 2009) randomly assigned students who were poor readers to dyads (pairs of readers)within schools, and then randomly assigned these dyads to a published repeated readingintervention called Quick Reads (Hiebert, 2003) or to a control group. Across studies Quick
Reads was implemented with dyads of students in second through fifth grades in 30-minutesessions for 15 to 20 weeks. In the first study, students in fourth and fifth grade participated. In
addition to Quick Reads, students in the intervention group also received 5 minutes ofvocabulary instruction because students with reading difficulties often miss out on gradeappropriate vocabulary experience. For the fourth and fifth graders, compared to the control
group students, students receiving the fluency interventions made significant gains inexperimenter-designed vocabulary and comprehension tests. However, they demonstrated noadvantage for fluency, which was the instructional target. 86 Given the developmental nature of
reading fluency, specifically, that reading rate and accuracy improve with overall reading skills
over time for typical readers, the researchers conjectured that by fourth grade, students with poor
83

Stanovich (1980); Torgesen, Rashotte, and Alexander (2001).
Therrien (2004).
85
e.g., Coyne et al. (2004); Denton et al. (2010); Torgesen et al. (2001).
86
Vadasy & Sanders (2008a).
84

32

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

fluency were also poor in decoding and word recognition, which may have inhibited theirfluency growth.
In their next experiment with second and third grade students, Vadasy and Sanders (2009)
supplemented Quick Reads with small amounts of decoding instruction and observed significant
gains in word attack (understanding letter patterns) and in reading fluency and comprehension
compared to control students. Gains were strongest when students had tutors who implemented
the intervention with high fidelity. In a comparison between para-educators (also called teachingassistants or instructional aides) and teacher-certificated interveners, no differences in student
outcomes were found when the intervention was implemented with high fidelity, which suggeststhat fluency practice may be an appropriate role for well-trained para-professional educators inschools.
Vadasy and Sanders (2008b) also observed second and third grade classroom reading instruction
to better understand the kinds of fluency practices that occur in general education classes. In
addition to the positive effects of intervention, students with more classroom-based opportunities
to practice reading made reliably greater gains during the intervention than did students who
participated in the intervention but were offered fewer opportunities to practice fluency in class.
In two IES-supported randomized controlled studies, O’Connor and colleagues (2007, 2010)varied types of fluency practice for second and fourth grade students and explored the effect ofrate improvement on other aspects of reading, including decoding, word recognition, vocabulary,and comprehension. In each experiment, students read aloud to an adult who provided assistancewith difficult words and who corrected errors. O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007) compared
repeated versus wide reading, and O’Connor, Swanson, and Geraghty (2010) compared fluency
growth when students read relatively easy or difficult levels of text. Both studies found thatexperimental treatments were more effective than the no-treatment control condition. There
were no differences in fluency outcomes between the two types of practice conditions. Students
at both grade levels made significant gains in reading rate, and their word identification andcomprehension also improved significantly compared to students in the control group. However,
the reading practice did not generate significant gains in decoding ability or vocabulary in either
experiment. Importantly, students with learning disabilities and students who were English
learners also made significant gains in reading rate and comprehension across both grades. The
authors noted that opportunity to practice reading aloud in typical fourth grade classrooms israre. In particular the fourth graders in the control condition made little gain at all in rate, whichsuggests that fluency practice for students with reading difficulties may be needed well past firstand second grades. The trajectory of growth appeared to increase over time suggesting thatfluency interventions may take longer to have an educationally important impact.
Future Directions. These studies contribute to our understanding about how to intervene toimprove fluency. Two intervention practices, repeated reading and wide reading, are associatedwith gains in reading fluency. In addition, improving students’ reading rates takes considerable
33

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

practice. Both second and fourth graders’ skills appear to grow significantly with practice;
however, few practice opportunities were observed in the intermediate grades. Moreover,whereas gains in fluency generally improve comprehension, fluency gains do not appear toinfluence decoding or vocabulary, which suggests that students with reading difficulties may
take less advantage of incidental learning opportunities compared to typical and strong readers.
These results suggest that for students with slow reading rate, specific instruction to teachdecoding and vocabulary should likely continue into the intermediate grades.

Vocabulary Interventions
Background. Children’s use of spoken or oral language is a positive predictor of reading
development throughout schooling. Research in preschools has documented that children who
are at risk for language disabilities, which also puts them at high risk for reading disabilities, 87
appear to benefit from extensive opportunities for listening to and using complex spoken
language. 88 Unfortunately, two key factors that influence the effects of language enhancements
are difficult to shift. First, teachers have difficulty increasing the amount and quality ofmodeling and interactive talk that occurs between them and their students, as well as among
students. This is likely due to insufficient training for many preschool teachers, including thoseteaching in Head Start and Title 1 settings. 89 Second, some children attend preschool irregularlyeven though regular attendance improves their opportunity to learn vocabulary. 90 The active
ingredients of language stimulation (such as imitating what a child says, or extending what achild says) relate to teachers’ use of high-quality language interactions, group size, and activity
context. 91 Observations across preschools have indicated that teachers only used language
stimulation in 36 percent of their verbal exchanges with children. In other words, theconversational responsiveness known to improve children’s use of language was rarely observedin these preschools. Teachers are more likely to provide language stimulation when they
respond to children during dramatic play, art, and other highly stimulating activities. The
simultaneous impact of group size, activity structure, and language stimulation has important
implications for training of preschool and kindergarten teachers by helping them learn toestablish a positive language-learning environment, particularly when teaching children fromhigher poverty communities.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 10. Language outcomes for many preschool children at risk for language
disabilities can improve if they are provided extensive opportunities to hear and use complex oral
language.

87

Catts (1993).
National Early Literacy Panel (2008); Snow (1983).
89
Girolametta, Weitzman, and Greenberg (2003).
90
Justice et al. (2008).
91
Turnbull et al. (2009).
88

34

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

In continuing efforts to understand how language and vocabulary stimulation might be increasedin kindergarten settings, IES-funded researchers Coyne, McCoach, and Kapp (2007) exploredways to use storybook reading and discussion. Typically developing children frequently learn
new vocabulary through exposure and incidental teaching of word meanings; children at risk forlong-term vocabulary problems are likely to need more intensive and extended instruction tolearn the same core of words as children who are typically developing. To test this possibility, awithin-subjects design was conducted, in which students received both typical and extended
instruction in random order. In the typical instruction condition where exposure to the
vocabulary was more incidental, teachers read storybooks that included the target words but did
not teach directly or discuss the words. The extended instruction condition included the same
storybooks read aloud, but the students were encouraged to pronounce each of the words and tolisten for, and raise their hands when they heard the word in the story. Teachers then provided asimple definition and reread the sentence with the target word. After the story was finished,children participated in a variety of related activities. These activities were designed to provide
students with opportunities to discuss the words, to use the word in a number of different ways,
and to make judgments on appropriate uses of the words. During the phase when children
received extended instruction, they were generally able to provide better definitions of words
than when they received typical instruction, and these gains were maintained on a delayed
posttest weeks later.
In a second experiment, Coyne et al. (2007) compared extended instruction with embedded
instruction. In the embedded instruction condition, teachers provided a simple definition of thetarget words as they were encountered in the story. Results again revealed that extended
instruction was more effective, on average, than embedded instruction. These result suggest that
not only did young students with weaker vocabulary skills fail to pick up meanings of words
incidentally, but that providing only definitions was also insufficient for most children. Wheninterpreting these results, the researchers conjectured that children with weaker vocabulary skills
might benefit from additional review of the vocabulary because they forgot a fair number of thewords they learned when they were tested two months later – although children in the extended
instruction condition still remembered more words than did children in the embedded vocabularyintervention. Study designs that consider whether, over time, children actually maintain gains
from interventions can provide useful information about the intervention and its effectiveness inschools.
To test classroom applications of this approach, Loftus, Coyne, McCoach, Zipoli, Kapp, andPullen (2010) implemented vocabulary instruction in a whole-class, general education setting.
Using a within-subjects design for students with below-average vocabulary, they compared theeffects of whole-class instruction alone (the control) with additional extended, supplemental
instruction focused on the same words in small groups (the intervention). Each student
participated in whole-class instruction alone as well as the extended, supplemental intervention.
The whole-class instruction followed the procedures for extended instruction described above in35

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Coyne et al. (2007). The supplemental instruction was designed to take advantage of the small
group format by providing more opportunity for children to discuss, respond to requests forelaboration, receive feedback, and say words, definitions, and target sentences aloud. Feedback
and instructional support (e.g., scaffolding) was provided to students when they made errors toincrease the likelihood of correct responding. Overall, the students with weaker vocabulary
achieved higher scores on words they had learned through the combination of whole-class andsupplemental instruction than they did when they learned words through whole-class instruction
alone. Importantly, this additional layer of intervention supported students with low-skills sothat they achieved vocabulary scores that were similar, on average, to those of students withstronger vocabulary skills and who received whole-class instruction on the same words.
Exploring variations of evidence-based vocabulary instruction in first grade classrooms,
Maynard, Pullen, and Coyne (2010) randomly assigned teachers to three types of vocabulary
instruction during storybook reading: rich instruction (called extended instruction in the earlier
studies), basic instruction (providing child-friendly definitions of target words during the readaloud), or incidental instruction (target words were not discussed). Across all groups, the same
storybooks were read to students three times with general discussions following each. Results
consistently favored rich instruction, which was more effective, on average, than basic
instruction, which was more effective than incidental learning. A key finding was that most first
grade teachers could use research-based instructional principles effectively. This demonstration
is important because the teachers in the rich instruction condition received just two hours of
training, and they maintained the high level of procedural fidelity generated by this training
during five unannounced classroom observations.
Pullen, Tuckwiller, Maynard, Konold, and Coyne (2010) used the rich instruction approach with
first graders at risk for reading difficulties and found results that were similar to Loftus et al.
(2010). They found moderate positive effects favoring students with weaker skills who received
additional, small-group vocabulary instruction. Unfortunately, the children did not maintain thisadvantage when they were tested four weeks later, which again suggests a need for periodic
review of taught words. For first graders with weaker vocabulary, whole-class instruction —even when carefully managed to follow research-based recommendations — was generally
insufficient to teach meanings of words in ways that students could apply in new contexts or use
in conversations.
Future Directions. Across these IES-funded vocabulary studies, findings built on previous
research to demonstrate that (1) enriched vocabulary instruction in whole-class settings appears
to improve learning compared to less specific methods; and (2) greater instructional intensity(e.g., opportunities to respond, individualized feedback) is associated with stronger outcomes forstudents with weaker vocabulary skills. The most meaningful aspects of intervention for thesestudents included increased instructional time and intensity, and decreased group size for greater
opportunities to respond and explore new words across multiple contexts. Adding increasingly
intensive vocabulary interventions may be a useful extension to RtI or tiered intervention
36

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

approaches because small-group, supplemental, and intensive intervention may bring young
children with weaker vocabulary skills into average ranges of performance on taught words,
although gains appeared to be stronger for kindergarteners than for first graders. It remains to be
seen whether continuing such tiered instruction might promote generalized gains in vocabularythat could be captured on standardized measures. Because of the cost associated with suchintensity, research and policy attention might focus on the tiered model in which additional
instruction is provided only to students with or at risk of reading difficulties, particularly students
who have already fallen behind their peers and are least likely to benefit from high quality
general education or Tier 1 instruction.
Importantly, these studies reveal the fragile nature of newly learned words. By a few weeks after
the intervention ended, many students forgot the meanings of words learned during small- as
well as large-group interventions. Ongoing review of newly learned words is likely to benecessary for students if they are to remember the meanings of words after the intervention
concludes.

Delivering Intervention Through Peer-Assisted or Collaborative Learning
Background. Increasing the intensity of intervention through small group or one-to-one
instruction can lead to improved reading outcomes for many students; however, it can be
expensive or difficult to manage in schools with stretched resources. As an alternative to pullout services, researchers have considered whether peers might be used as effective tutors forincreasing the intensity of instruction and increasing students’ opportunity to receive and torespond to appropriate feedback on reading activities. 92 In the early grades, many peer-assisted
activities are focused on basic reading skills such as phonological awareness, alphabet letters,
decoding, word recognition, and fluency. As students progress through school, learning how toengage with text becomes increasingly important for learning. Although isolated skills such as
phonological awareness or decoding can be taught efficiently through careful instruction, reading
comprehension relies on foundational reading skills in concert with strategic use of a range ofcognitive processing skills. Moreover, comprehension of expository text (such as passages about
history or science) is more difficult for students with reading difficulties than is reading narrative
text (such as stories or novels), and the proportion of expository text students are expected toread increases tremendously in middle and high school. 93 And, as is true for learning basic
reading skills, mastering skills that support comprehension takes time. Peer-assisted learning
strategies have also been explored as a technique to support the acquisition of reading skill in theupper grades by providing additional opportunities to learn and practice those critical skills.

92
93

Fuchs and Fuchs (2005).
Shanahan and Shanahan (2008).
37

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 11. Peer-assisted or collaborative learning is a promising method of increasing theintensity of instruction for students and improving their reading outcomes. With IES support,
Saenz, McMaster, Fuchs, and Fuchs (2007) reviewed nearly 20 years of research on PeerAssisted Learning Strategies (PALS), which was designed to improve the reading developmentof students in kindergarten through sixth grade and in high school. They found that, acrossstudies, PALS was generally effective in improving reading outcomes, including in high poverty
schools. In Grades 2-6 and high school, PALS practice activities include reading aloud todevelop reading rate and accuracy, and also comprehension tasks such as recall andsummarization. Results again were positive, with students in PALS classes improving in reading
rate and comprehension, on average, when compared to students in control classes. Moreover,Spanish-speaking English learners showed similar gains in PALS classes. 94 A test of highschool implementation also found that students who participated in PALS developed stronger
reading comprehension than did students in control classrooms. However, there was nodifference in their fluency. Considering all the studies, students in classes that used PALS
generally outperformed students in traditional classrooms. Nevertheless, about 20 percent of
low-achieving students and over 50 percent of students with disabilities did not make gains whenprovided tutoring by their peers. Of students who failed to benefit from peer tutoring, about 50
percent improved when the tutoring was conducted by a trained adult.
Another form of peer-assisted learning that has been tested across multiple studies isCollaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), which was designed to be used for students beyond theprimary grades. 95 CSR integrates several reading processing strategies, including: previewing;
monitoring understanding during reading; and summarizing after reading. To help teachers andstudents remember the strategies, the researchers called the strategies (a) Previewing to build
background knowledge and anticipate the content, (b) Click and Clunk to monitor understanding,(c) Get the Gist to generate main ideas, and (d) Question Generation to summarize content.
In an IES-funded experimental study of CSR in 61 seventh and eighth grade classes, 96 students
were randomly assigned to language arts classes, and classes were randomly assigned withinteacher to CSR or a business-as-usual control condition. Teacher effects were controlled because
the 17 participating teachers used CSR with some of their classes, while their other classes
served as the control condition. Following four to six weeks of whole-class instruction in whichteachers taught students each of the comprehension strategies, students were assigned to learninggroups of four or five students to implement each of the steps in the process collaboratively. The
reading content was the same across CSR and control conditions. After 18 weeks, students in the94

see also McMaster et al. (2008).
e.g., Klingner and Vaughn (1996); Vaughn et al. (2011).
96
Vaughn et al. (2011).
95

38

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

CSR groups scored higher, on average, than did students in the control group on all aspects ofreading comprehension assessed.
Future Directions. Future reading intervention research might extend the duration of instruction
provided through collaborative learning strategies to increase the likelihood of long-term effects.
Multi-year collaborative learning interventions for students with low skill levels would also be
important to explore, along with whether these types of interventions, if persistent, could
improve comprehension outcomes of students at risk due to low socioeconomic status, English
learner status, and other child characteristics.
Ongoing questions encompass the degree to which specific collaborative models such as PALS
or CSR can be implemented by teams other than their developers, the types of support teachers
will need to implement them with fidelity, conditions that influence students’ responsiveness tothese methods, and teachers’ willingness to continue to implement them after external funding
and support cease.

Differentiated (also called Personalized or Individualized) Instruction
Background. The interventions described thus far are often categorized as standard protocol
interventions because they include specific teaching behaviors and content that are used for all of
the students who are having reading difficulties at a particular grade level. Although thestandardized protocol approach is sometimes preferred in intervention research because fidelityof implementation can be more rigorously assessed, evidence is growing in support ofindividualizing instruction. 97

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 12. Interventions that are differentiated to target an individual student’s profile ofcomponent skills can improve reading development. In a series of randomized control studies
from kindergarten through third grade, supported both by IES and NICHD, Connor, Morrison,
Al Otaiba, Fishman, Schatschneider and colleagues have investigated whether the impact ofreading instruction depends on the language and reading skills children bring to the classroom
and whether such child characteristic by instruction (child X instruction) interactions might
represent an underlying mechanism to explain why children respond to the same instruction indifferent ways. 98 In randomized controlled studies, in Grades K, 1, and 3, Connor andcolleagues assigned schools or teachers to either a control condition or to implement a
differentiated reading instruction intervention supported by Assessment-to-Instruction (A2i)online software, which recommends specific amounts and types of reading instruction based on
students’ language and reading skills. The intervention was called Individualized Student
Instruction (ISI). 99 The comparison conditions varied across studies. In kindergarten, an
97

O’Connor et al. (2010).
Al Otaiba et al. (2011); Connor (2011); Connor et al. (2007).
99
Connor, Morrison, Fishman, et al. (2007).
98

39

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

alternative intervention provided training on individualizing instruction but without the A2i
software. 100 In first grade students in treated classes were compared with a business as usual
control. 101 In third grade, a vocabulary intervention that was not differentiated served as thealternative treatment. 102 Based on student reading profiles, recommendations were provided for
four types of reading instruction, based on the Simple View of Reading: teacher/child-managed
code-focused, teacher/child-managed meaning-focused, child-managed code-focused and childmanaged meaning-focused instruction. In teacher/child-managed instruction, the teacher worked
directly with students in small groups; in child-managed instruction, children worked
independently or with peers. Code-focused instruction included phonological awareness,decoding, and fluency, whereas meaning-focused instruction included activities designed to
improve students’ comprehension of what they read. The recommendations changed over thecourse of the school year and as students’ reading skills improved. 103
In each study, students in the ISI classrooms demonstrated generally stronger word reading andcomprehension gains than did students in control classrooms, 104 and teachers in the ISIintervention were more likely to differentiate instruction than were teachers in the control
condition. Across grades, these researchers found that students with weak word reading skills
appeared to require more teacher/child-managed code-focused instruction than did students withstronger reading skills. Plus, students required exponentially more time as they fell further
below grade expectations. The researchers found a different pattern for vocabulary; first graderswith strong entering vocabulary skills made greater gains in classrooms where teachers provided
more opportunities for child-managed meaning-focused instruction, whereas children withweaker vocabulary generally made greater gains when provided smaller amounts of childmanaged meaning focused instruction in the fall with steady increases in amounts over theschool year. Moreover, all students demonstrated gains when they received more small-groupteacher/child managed meaning-focused instruction regardless of reading skill. However, by
third grade, compared to students with stronger skills, students who had weaker reading
comprehension generally needed more time in such activities to reach grade level expectations.
Additionally, the quality of code-focused instruction in third grade differed from that offered inkindergarten and first grade, and focused on patterns within words and morphemes (meaningful
word parts, such as pre + view), rather than letter sounds. 105 The researchers also observed that,
overall, teachers whose instruction for specific children most closely mirrored the A2i software

100

Al Otaiba et al. (2011).
Connor et al. (2009).
102
Connor et al. (2011).
103
Connor et al. (2009)104
Al Otaiba et al. (2011); Connor et al. (2011); Connor et al. (2007); Connor, Morrison, Schatschneider, et al.
(2011).
105
Connor (2011).
101

40

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

recommendations for how to allot their instructional time achieved the highest literacy outcomes
for their students. 106
After third grade, word reading difficulties are often more difficult to remediate, particularly
when students have already been identified as needing special education services. Gelzheiser,
Scanlon, Vellutino, and Hallgren-Flynn (2011) developed and tested, using a quasi-experimental
design, an interactive approach to teach students with reading disabilities in fourth grade how toread words using code-based and meaning-based approaches interactively. Students received theintervention immediately or participated in a wait-list control. The researchers combinedfeatures of two earlier approaches (ISA: Interactive Strategies Approach and Reading Partners),
but tailored instruction to the needs of each student. Students in the intervention condition
generally achieved stronger basic reading skills, taught vocabulary, reading comprehension, andscores on the state test of English Language Arts, but not reading rate, compared to children in
the control condition. The largest effects were on reading comprehension, which is arguably the
key reading outcome supporting academic learning. A meta-analysis of reading intervention forstudents in Grades 4 and higher 107 reported an average effect size less than 0.1 on standardized
measures, whereas Gelzheiser et al. found effects greater than 1.5. The authors conclude that for
students with specific strengths and weaknesses in their reading profile (those in the wordemphasis or comprehension emphasis mini-lessons), targeting instruction to students’ strengths
and weaknesses may have accounted for the stronger reading outcomes observed for thesestudents compared to those found in earlier studies.
Future Directions. Taken together, these findings build on previous work to indicate that onesize-fits-all approaches to reading are likely to fail many students. Instruction that isindividualized to children’s profiles of strengths and weaknesses, and is modified throughout theyear as students’ skills change, may be more effective than high quality instruction that is notdifferentiated. Thus what constitutes “effective instruction” appears to depend on the skills
children bring with them to school. The definition of what constitutes good instruction for aparticular student appears to change over time with the child’s profiles of skill strengths andweaknesses. In turn, future research might investigate the timing of instructional ingredientsover the first few years of school and how to better support schools and teachers’ efforts todifferentiate literacy instruction.

Instruction for Students with Low Incidence Disabilities
From its inception, IES funded investigations to explore literacy needs and instructional
strategies for students with disabilities and who were struggling to learn to read. These
populations included students with mild intellectual disabilities, moderate intellectual
disabilities, deafness or who are hard of hearing, and autism spectrum disorder. This research is
crucially important because children with these disabilities frequently fail to achieve even basic
106
107

Ibid.
Scammacca et al. (2007).
41

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

reading skills. Previous research has provided a limited understanding about the literacy needsof these populations of students. Overall, new IES-funded research has substantially contributed
to our understanding that the developmental sequence of reading skill acquisition and theoreticaldescriptions of reading, such as the Simple View of Reading, derived from studies of typicalreaders may be applied effectively with these special populations of students. In this section, we
discuss what we have learned from IES-funded studies focused on improving reading outcomesfor children often referred to as having low incidence disabilities.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 13. What we are beginning to understand about how typically developing readerslearn to read also appears to hold for students with low incidence disabilities, including children
with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities, and children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Children with Mild Intellectual Disabilities
Background. Students with mild intellectual disabilities have IQs in the range of 55-70 (100 is
considered the average score of typically developing students). In addition to IQ scores in thisrange, students also must demonstrate limited adaptive behavior functioning as manifested intheir social and practical skills. Students with intellectual disabilities (ID) represent
approximately 1 percent of the population, and students with mild intellectual disabilities
represent approximately 75 percent of those students. The majority of students with mild
intellectual disabilities read at levels lower than expected for their chronological age, andcomprehension appears to be the most difficult area of reading for them. 108 With current
instructional models, students are reading within elementary grade levels, which provides accessto simple narrative and basic functional information (e.g., labels, health and leisure directions,newspapers, vocationally-related information). Upon graduation these students will live
independently and work in low-skill jobs. While living independently, many will need support
from family, government, or non-profit organizations with regard to specific issues such as
housing, employment, and health services). 109 IES funded research on improving the reading
skills of students with mild intellectual disabilities is described below.

Contributions from IES-Supported Research

Wise, Sevcik, Romski, and Morris (2010) conducted a descriptive study of elementary students
with mild intellectual disabilities who were struggling to learn to read. The purpose of this study
was to examine the relationships among phonological processing skills, word, and nonword
identification skills, and vocabulary knowledge for these students. Results were similar toprevious findings for typically developing children. Phonological awareness was significantly
correlated with reading achievement and vocabulary knowledge. As noted by the researchers,
results from this study add to the limited corpus of research conducted with children with mild

108
109

Polloway et al. (2010).
Polloway et al. (2010); Snell et al. (2009).
42

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

intellectual disabilities that provides evidence of relationships between phonological awarenessand reading achievement.
Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham, and Champlin (2010) implemented and evaluated acomprehensive approach to reading instruction for students with mild to moderate intellectual
disabilities. Students with IQs in the mild to moderate (40-69) range of ID were randomly
assigned to an experimental curriculum group or a control group. Students in the control group
received typical instruction provided by their school. The experimental group used Early
Interventions in Reading, which had been validated with students without intellectual disabilities
but who were struggling to read. The curriculum included multiple skill strands including
concepts of print, phonological and phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, decoding, word
identification, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, and oral language development. Sixty
additional lessons were developed as a foundation level for students without prerequisite skills
for the curriculum.
At the end of the second and third years, results revealed that, in general, students showedsignificant gains in phonological awareness and oral reading fluency compared to the control
group. However, there was variability in student outcomes; students with higher IQs tended tomake greater gains compared to students with lower IQs. These results demonstrate that students
with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities can learn basic reading skills given consistent,
explicit, and comprehensive reading instruction across an extended period of time – about three
years. Findings are consistent with scientifically-based reading instruction and theories ofreading development for typically developing students and indicate that such research findings
appear to be largely applicable for students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities.
It is important to note, however, that the amount of time required to achieve basic literacy skills
was substantially longer than the time required for typically developing students. Students
required approximately three years of intensive academic instruction to achieve basic end-of-first
grade reading levels. Little or no progress was seen on either standardized or progressmonitoring measures during the first year of the intervention. Many students also experienced
difficulty transferring and applying skills in other contexts, and required extensive instruction
and motivation to develop and maintain appropriate behavior required to participate in
instruction.
Future Directions. These research findings are consistent with theories of reading development
and scientifically-based reading instruction research for typically developing students. Findings
support evidence of relationships between phonological awareness and reading achievement forthese students. Further, based on initial results, there is support for continued investigation of
explicit instruction within a comprehensive reading instruction approach. Further exploration offactors that predict and influence success in reading for students with mild intellectual
disabilities is needed to inform the development of new techniques and tools specifically toaddress the challenges faced by these students. For example, one of the goals of future research
43Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

may be to explore the reasons students with mild intellectual disabilities take longer thantypically developing children to make comparable gains in areas such as phonological awarenessand oral reading fluency. This will facilitate research on instructional methods that may address
the time factor. Future curriculum development should build on findings that students with mild
intellectual disabilities learn basic reading skills in a context that includes consistent, explicit,
and comprehensive instruction. Methodologically, it is suggested that future studies include bothconsistent measures of intelligence as well as independent intellectual assessments to assess thevalidity of school classifications of mild intellectual disabilities.

Children with Moderate Intellectual Disabilities
Background. Students with moderate intellectual disabilities represent about 0.2 percent of theschool population and have intelligence test scores in the range of 40-55 in conjunction withproblems in adaptive behavior. Few of these students ever learn to read beyond a first grade
reading level. Upon graduation they enter supported or sheltered employment opportunities
when available and live in supervised group homes or with their families. 110 In school, thesestudents are primarily the responsibility of special education professionals and spend up to 80
percent of their day in special education classes. Still, all educators in the school have a roll in
their education. Although these children are provided access to the general curriculum, many aremostly taught the skills required for functioning semi-independently in various home, school,
and community settings. Until recently, these students’ reading instruction relied on sight-word
instruction reportedly because educators and researchers operated with the assumption thatstudents with moderate intellectual disabilities would not benefit from phonics instruction(Joseph and Seery 2004). Using the sight word approach, students are expected to memorize thelook of words that they will frequently encounter at school and at home with their family as partof their daily routines (e.g., exit, stop, logos for commercial products). This approach has twoserious limitations. First, students with moderate intellectual disabilities have limited memory
capacities and so cannot memorize many words. Second, students are not taught any strategies
for decoding and learning words that have not been explicitly taught.

Contributions from IES-Supported Research

Building on previous research, IES-funded research shows that reading instruction is generally
more effective when students with moderate intellectual disabilities are taught phonologicalawareness and how to sound out unfamiliar words in addition to sight-word reading. Browder,
Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, and Flowers (2008) developed and evaluated a reading
curriculum specifically designed for students with moderate intellectual disabilities called the
Early Literacy Skills Builder. This curriculum is a comprehensive curriculum, which includes
repeated story reading for comprehension and question answering; phonological awareness andphonics instruction including segmentation, letter-sound correspondence, phonemic awareness in
identification of first and last sounds in words and pictures, pointing to letters and pictures of110

Browder et al (2006); Snell and Brown (2011).
44

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

sounds and spoken words; and teaching sight-words to allow for vocabulary development andsentence completion. During intervention the students engaged in daily read aloud activities
intended to improve their comprehension and vocabulary development). 111
Kindergarten through fourth grade students with IQs of 55 or less were then randomly assigned
to receive either Early Literacy Skills Builder or Edmark. The latter is a widely used sight-wordprogram for this population of students. All instruction was conducted by their teachers, whoreceived special training from the researchers. The results indicated that students in the Early
Literacy Skills Builder intervention, compared to the control group, made significantly greater
gains in phonological awareness on two researcher-designed measures of early literacy as well as
on published, norm referenced measures of vocabulary and memory. This suggests that students
with moderate intellectual disabilities can acquire phonological awareness and phonics skills,
which are strong predictors of learning to read.
It is difficult to find standardized, norm referenced assessment instruments that provide usefuldata for students with moderate intellectual disabilities. This is because the test developers
usually exclude these students from their test standardization sample and hence the tests do notmeasure the students’ significantly lower levels of performance. In addition to developing the
Early Literacy Skills Builder, this research team developed the Nonverbal Literacy Assessment,
an instrument designed to measure emergent literacy for kindergarten through fourth gradestudents with IQs below 55. 112 The Nonverbal Literacy Assessment assesses six constructs -phonemic awareness, phonics, comprehension, vocabulary, listening comprehension and text
awareness –which, as found with typically developing students, work as a global construct ofliteracy.
With IES support, Alberto and colleagues developed an integrated curriculum that includes
visual literacy, sight-word and phonics instruction. The visual literacy component ties meaning
to pictures, picture sequences, and community logos. This may be a first step in literacy forprimary aged students with severe or moderate intellectual disabilities, and may be the primarymeans of literacy for older students with more significant intellectual disabilities. For example,
students are taught logos, such as McDonald’s golden arches, in settings they and their families
frequent. 113 During sight-word instruction students were taught to read simple words developed
from the letters and sounds of common community words, which also were taught. The students
were expected to read words individually and in connected text, and to provide motor
demonstrations of comprehension. 114 Phonics instruction complemented sight-word instruction.
Instruction was explicit and used simultaneous prompting, a behavioral strategy in which the111

Browder et al. (2008).
Baker et al. (2010).
113
Alberto et al. (2007).
114
Alberto, Waugh, and Fredrick (2010).
112

45

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

correct word is supplied during instruction to provide repeated practice, but not provided during
testing.
The intervention was tested in two single subject design studies. In the first study six students,
three in elementary and three in middle schools were taught to read and demonstratecomprehension of a dozen commercial logos found in their communities. 115 Time delay wasused as the instructional strategy and comprehension was assessed by asking students what items
they could purchase in a store with that logo. In the second study, with five students ages 12-15,
students were systematically taught to read individual words and connected text phrases ofincreasing length and complexity using simultaneous prompting. After reading an individual
word or connected text phrase students were required to demonstrate comprehension bycompleting a motoric task. Results showed that fluency practice may help students compensate
for memory difficulty when engaging extended connected text phrases. Analysis of thecurriculum data indicates that many students were able to learn how to recognize the pictures andwords taught and to sound out simple word. The curriculum also included storybook reading forphonemic awareness, vocabulary building, comprehension, and print awareness.
Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Jones, and Champlin (2010) also found significant gains in phonologicalawareness with a similar sample of early elementary students with moderate intellectual
disabilities who received systematic and comprehensive reading instruction. These studies
provide further evidence that explicit, systematic instruction in phonological awareness andphonics, which has shown to be generally effective for typically developing students and those in
the mild range of intellectual disability, also may be effective, with some modifications, for thesestudents. These modifications include additional time, greater intensity, highly trained teachers,
and a greater number of lessons.
Future Directions. The framework for research moving forward for students with moderate tosevere intellectual disabilities includes the development of curriculum that is comprehensive, andthereby provides opportunities for both sight-word and phonics instruction. Strategies might beinvestigated for determining appropriate placement of students within a longitudinal curriculum
to account for differing ages and functioning levels. Further curricula might allow for theaccommodations that students requiring alternative communication systems and students withsensory impairments will need to be successful. Research might investigate how to (a) increase
student comprehension of longer strings of information, (b) reduce the three year period forsignificant learning effects, and (c) develop instructional methods, to reduce the number of errors
students make during probes sessions, so as to increase the degree of errorless learning. There isalso a need for continued systematic investigations of various instructional strategies as has been
done with time delay and simultaneous prompting. Finally, it is suggested that the final step in115

Alberto et al. (2007).
46

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

curriculum development should be a significant period of time of implementation by teachers in
actual classrooms.

Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Background. Students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) are at serious risk for reading
difficulties, even though most students have typically developing cognitive skills. The typical
DHH high school student will graduate with only fourth grade reading skills. 116 In the past,
many severely and profoundly deaf children could not hear well enough to learn oral language
skills. Whereas American Sign Language is a complete language, its grammar and vocabulary
are very different from English. Fluency in American Sign Language frequently does not meanthat children can read English very well. Students who do not have the opportunity to learn oral
language skills frequently struggle with mastering the phonological aspects of reading.
Fortunately, universal newborn infant hearing screening helps to identify DHH children muchsooner so they can receive services. In addition, new technology, such as digital hearing aids
and cochlear implants, are providing greater access to sound for severely and profoundly deaf
children. 117

Contributions from IES-Supported Research

IES is funding important early literacy research for this new generation of DHH children. For
example, Lederberg and colleagues 118 conducted a descriptive study where they assessed
emergent literacy skills and outcomes at the beginning and end of a school year forprekindergarten students (3 to 6 years old). Of these students, most relied on spoken English tocommunicate, but some used both speech and sign language, and others used American Sign
Language and learned English through reading (a bilingual-bicultural approach). They foundthat 73 percent of the children were able to perceive spoken language in the fall of preschool
confirming their hypothesis that this new generation of DHH children should be able to accessthe auditory aspects of reading, such as pairing written letters with sounds. In general, thechildren’s early reading and vocabulary scores were not much lower than those of children withnormal hearing but there was more variability. Moreover, on average, the students demonstrated
developmental gains that were similar to their hearing peers in their acquisition of letter names
and common written words. However, their phonological awareness and phonics scores weremuch lower and the children showed very little growth in phonological awareness skills.
Importantly, the researchers found that DHH children with weaker phonological awareness skills
tended to have weaker reading skills overall. This is what other researchers have found forchildren with normal hearing. 119 The researchers noted that “the development of phonologicalskills supports the hypothesis that, while delayed, these children have the potential to learn toappreciate the phonological structure of spoken English during preschool and kindergarten”
116

Holt (1994).
NIH (1995).
118
Easterbrooks et al. (2008).
119
Wagner and Torgesen (1987).
117

47

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities(p. 108) and are capable of learning the skills that research suggests are foundational for literacy
development.
These researchers also found that many current ways of teaching DHH children to read, such as
the sight word approach, may be too limited. 120 In a study of classroom characteristics that
supported the learning of emergent literacy skills of young children who were DHH,
Easterbrooks, Lederberg, and Connor (2010) observed self-contained kindergarten and firstgrade classrooms using a frequently used observation system, the Early Language and Literacy
Classroom Observation Tool or ELLCO. 121 They discovered that certain classroom
characteristics, such as grade and whether or not the teacher used sign language, did not predict
the quality of the classroom literacy environment. However, other elements of the classroom
environment did represent a significant source of influence on DHH children’s emergent literacy,
particularly for developing phonological awareness skills. For example, students’ phonologicalawareness skills were stronger in classrooms where students were explicitly taught these skills.
Vocabulary development was stronger when teachers and children were observed frequently
interacting during reading and writing activities.
Using the information gleaned from this descriptive study, Lederberg and colleagues developed
an early literacy curriculum called Foundations for Literacy based on the premise that researchon effective literacy instruction for hearing children would apply to DHH children as long as
adaptations were made to support their hearing loss. Thus, the intervention focused on teaching
phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and language with appropriate
adaptations. Their single case design studies demonstrated that DHH children who have somespeech perception abilities (functional hearing) could learn specific phoneme-grapheme
correspondences through explicit auditory skill instruction with language and visual support. 122
These studies are among the first to examine the instruction of phoneme-grapheme
correspondences for children who are DHH at the prekindergarten age level. Results suggestthat many children who are DHH, even those who have delays in language, are able to learn thefoundation for the alphabetic principle during prekindergarten.
Future Directions. Future research should (1) be longitudinal to document for these students
who are DHH, as is documented for typical learners, the role of alphabetic knowledge forliteracy development, and (2) identify for which children auditory-based instruction to buildalphabetic knowledge is appropriate, including children without speech perception abilities. It issuggested by investigators of visual phonics that it may be that, for these students, instruction
using the semantic association strategy paired with visual phonics during preschool will build afoundation for reading instruction in elementary school, (3) compare approaches that build
phonological awareness in children who are DHH in addition to the semantic association
120

Easterbrooks et al. (2011).
Smith et al. (2002).
122
Bergeron et al. (2009).
121

48

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

strategy, and (4) investigate whether processes that underlie literacy are different for children
with hearing loss, depending on the nature of their representations. The IES-funded curriculum
research reviewed here focuses on children with access to sound; researchers note it is equallyimportant to develop curricula that are effective for children with little access to sound. These
children may constitute a majority of the older students who are DHH in self-contained classes
and resources classes, as many of the children who are DHH with access to sound become
integrated into the general education setting.

Summary of Contributions for Research Question III: Intervention
Summarized below, the IES-funded research findings have contributed to knowledge regarding
effective strategies to improve the reading skills of all students, including those who are at risk
for reading disabilities or who have reading disabilities. Many of these interventions andstrategies have been implemented in classrooms and in many cases by general education
classroom teachers who received special training. Although more research is needed, in general,children who struggle with reading at all grades can make substantial reading gains when they
are provided systematic and intensive interventions that may be integrated with classroom
instruction or are supplemental to classroom instruction. The demands of reading change aschildren develop and progress through school. These changes should influence how assessments
and interventions are designed, and how learning is evaluated. Effective strategies are also
helpful for students who attend higher poverty schools and who are English learners.
1. There may be no need to delay reading instruction for many young children who are
English learners because these beginning readers appear to make greater gains when they
are taught how to read and to speak English at the same time.
2. For many students, peer-assisted learning interventions may be effective for improving
reading outcomes and at the same time may save school resources. Additionally, manyof the small group interventions can be implemented effectively with para-educators.
Standard protocol instruction, where intensive interventions are provided to all of thestudents in a small group, are generally effective for many students.
3. However, accumulating research reveals that differentiated or individualized instruction - instruction that considers the different profiles of skills students bring to the classroom,
their grade and instructional needs, and that target specific amounts and types of
instruction to meet students’ individual needs -- may be more effective in improving
reading outcomes than high quality instruction that is not differentiated.
4. Our review of the research supported by IES for students with intellectual disabilities andstudents who are deaf or hard of hearing suggests that there is a growing consensus on anumber of issues. The findings are consistent with previously conducted scientifically
based reading instruction and theories of reading development for typically developing
students. Thus what we have learned about the development of reading in typically49

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

developing students may be applicable for students with intellectual disabilities andstudents who are deaf or hard of hearing. Reading curricula that are comprehensive andinclude phonics instruction in addition to sight-word instruction appear to be more
effective than sight-word instruction alone.
5. Overall, most students with intellectual disabilities required instruction over an extended
period of time (2-3 years) to reach basic levels of literacy. Similar to typicallydeveloping readers, building a foundation of phonemic awareness and print knowledge,
and developing vocabulary and comprehension skills using story books and oral language
development strategies appears to be associated with stronger reading outcomes. For
students with intellectual disabilities, explicit behaviorally-based instructional strategies(e.g., time delay, simultaneous prompting) that are consistently applied may support
stronger reading skill gains.
Whereas existing measures can be used somewhat successfully for students with intellectual
disabilities, there is a need for measures that will accurately detect the skills and improvementsof students with the most significant disabilities and new assessments are being developed.

IV. Professional Development: How do we bring research-based
instructional practices to the classroom?
We cannot bring research into the classroom and improve students’ reading skills if we cannot
support teachers’ efforts to use research-validated interventions and instructional strategies.
NCLB specifically calls for students to have highly qualified teachers. Although there has been
debate on defining “high quality,” it has been generally agreed that high quality teachers areknowledgeable about their subject and provide effective instruction that promotes student
learning. 123 Defining and identifying effective teaching using methods such as classroom
observation, teacher knowledge surveys, and teacher value-added scores help to understand key
aspects of effective teaching and how to support teachers better. 124 Previous and ongoing
research designed to increase our understanding about how to support teachers’ efforts toimprove their practices has suggested that professional development should be intensive,
relevant, and encourage collaboration. 125 However, many of these practices have not undergone
rigorous evaluation.

123

Kane, Staiger, and McCaffrey (2012).
Moats (1994); Raudenbush (2004); Sanders and Horn (1994).
125
Bos et al. (1999).
124

50

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Specialized Knowledge and Long-Term Support
Background. IES has funded a number of studies that investigate teacher and school
characteristics that are associated with students’ literacy outcomes. These include preschool
teacher education, teachers’ knowledge about literacy, beliefs about practice, and support fromschool leadership.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 14. We can improve many teachers’ delivery of complex, evidence-based
instruction and interventions through developing their specialized knowledge and supporting
consistent long-term implementation of evidence-based instructional practices.
Preschool teacher education. In a correlational study, Gerde and Powell (2009) found thatamong Head Start teachers, formal education in the area of early childhood education was
associated with greater improvements in their students’ outcomes. Teachers with moreeducation were more likely to increase their use of book-focused statements during book readingwith their preschoolers. This is encouraging because in most studies with elementary, middle
and high school teachers, years of education or certification did not predict students’ reading
outcomes. 126 However, this may not be the case for preschool. In preschool education, the statequalifications for teachers vary substantially, so improving teachers’ level of education is apotentially powerful way to improve preschoolers’ early reading outcomes.
Teacher knowledge. Teachers’ specialized knowledge about concepts of literacy and how toteach literacy are associated with first graders’ literacy outcomes, according to results fromcorrelational studies. 127 For example, Brady and colleagues (2009) found that teachers’
specialized knowledge about literacy concepts was very low (about 40 percent on a test) whentested on phonological awareness, phonics, fluency and comprehension. However, these scores
improved greatly when teachers were provided professional development (to between 68 percent
and 80 percent on average). Interestingly, teachers who were younger were more likely to
improve their scores on the test of teacher knowledge than were older teachers. Plus teachers’
attitudes generally changed as their knowledge increased, such as the belief that they could
improve their students’ reading skills, called self-efficacy. The researchers suggested that“teachers had acquired a better understanding of their own skill level for providing basic reading
instruction” (p. 442).
Carlisle and colleagues 128 went a step farther in another correlational study. They asked whether
teachers’ knowledge would predict students’ reading outcomes. They carefully developed andanalyzed their test of teacher knowledge, which used a set of scenarios to which the teachers
responded. For example, teachers might read, “Mr. Lewis’ class has been learning spelling rules
126

Connor et al. (2005); Goldhaber and Anthony (2003).
Brady et al. (2009); Carlisle et al. (2011); Piasta et al. (2009).
128
Carlisle et al. (2011).
127

51

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

for adding “ing” to base words. He is looking for groups of words that illustrate the various rules
to give his students a complex challenge. Which of the following groups of words would be bestfor this purpose?” (Appendix A). The teachers are then offered four possible answers: “ (a)hopping, running, sending, getting; (b) hoping, buying, caring, baking; (c) seeing, letting, liking,carrying; (d) all of the word sets are useful for this purpose”(d is correct). They found thatstudents whose first grade teachers had significantly higher scores on the test of teacher
knowledge generally had stronger reading outcomes than did students whose teachers had lower
scores but the differences were small. At the same time, second and third graders’ reading
outcomes were not associated with their teachers’ knowledge.
Piasta, Connor, and colleagues 129 explored whether the reason teacher knowledge scoresappeared to have only a small impact on student outcomes might be because teachers vary in theextent to which they actually use this knowledge to inform and implement reading instruction.
Using a test that was similar to the ones used in prior research (e.g., how many phonemes in theword “box”? Answer 4, /b-a-k-s/), the researchers found that the effect of teachers’ knowledge
on students’ reading outcomes depended on how much time in explicit instruction in basic
reading skills they actually provided. If teachers had higher levels of specialized knowledge but
provided very little time in explicit instruction, then their students had the same general reading
outcomes as students whose teachers had lower levels of knowledge and provided little time in
instruction. However, the more time high knowledge teachers provided explicit reading
instruction, the greater were their students’ reading outcomes. At the same time, the more timeteachers with less knowledge spent providing explicit instruction, the worse their students
generally did. When the researchers looked at the videotapes of these teachers’ practice, theyfound that the teachers with less knowledge were frequently teaching the children incorrectly.
Thus, although teacher knowledge may not directly predict student outcomes, it does appear to
inform their practice, which in turn has implications for how well students learn to read.
Beliefs about practice. A number of IES-funded correlational studies have extended the extant
research by finding that teachers’ beliefs about how to teach students are associated with their
response to professional development and, in turn their practice and the reading outcomes of
their students. For example, when the research-based instructional strategies that teachers werelearning during professional development were farther from their existing beliefs about reading
instruction, it was more difficult for them to change their practice. 130 Also, the amount of timeteachers had available in and out of the classroom predicted the extent to which they changed
their practices; teachers who had more responsibilities outside of the school (e.g., another job)
were less likely to change their practice in response to professional development. When teachers
felt that professional development could help them improve their students’ outcomes, they weremuch more likely to actually implement the new instructional strategies presented than when
they perceived less benefit to their students. A particularly important belief, which was
129
130

Piasta et al. (2009).
Dingle et al. (2011); Snyder et al. (2011).
52

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

identified throughout the IES-supported and other studies, was the idea of self-efficacy. In thesestudies, self-efficacy was teachers’ belief that they could actually make a difference in students’reading outcomes and it was their responsibility to do so. 131 In some cases, professional
development was able to improve teachers’ self-efficacy. 132
Schools and leadership. An important finding across several IES-funded studies was that thecontexts in which teachers provide instruction mattered, particularly in schools where teachers
felt supported by their principals. 133 For example, in a study of professional development forliteracy coaches, Matsumura and colleagues discovered that how frequently teachers took part incoaching activities was well below what the program hoped to achieve but this differed byschool. 134 Teachers at schools where the principal and other school leaders actively supported
coaching were much more likely to participate in coaching activities than were teachers at
schools that did not support it. Indeed, survey results showed that principals were a key school
resource in supporting coaching efforts to improve teacher practice.
Future Directions. These results point to the very real impact teachers have on their students’reading achievement and suggest several potential ways to improve teacher’s effectiveness.
Ideas presented that might be productive include building teachers specialized knowledge about
reading while at the same time insuring that this knowledge is put into practice and better
understanding teachers’ beliefs about the content of professional development, how wellresearch-based findings align with their current beliefs, and how this affects their instructional
practices. This and other research also suggests that better understanding the role of educational
leaders in the dynamic contexts of schools and classrooms and how to promote leadership that
supports teachers effectiveness may help improve students achievement overall.

Multifaceted Teacher Professional Development
Background. Research shows that we can improve many teachers’ delivery of complex
evidence-based instruction through developing their specialized knowledge, changing beliefs,
and supporting consistent long-term implementation. 135 However, the research just discussed
shows that teachers differ in their beliefs, their knowledge, and the support they receive fromschool. Effective professional development likely has to consider these individual teacher
differences. Additionally, teachers in kindergarten through fifth grade must generally meet basic
qualifications that are fairly uniform across the United States. These include a bachelor's degree
and a teaching certificate. Typically teachers must past an examination and have been provided
with opportunities to teach under supervision. During the past decade, thanks in large part tofederal funding of high quality research, the research evidence regarding how to teach children,
131

Brady et al. (2009); Carlisle, Kelcey et al. (2011).
Brady et al. (2009).
133
Matsumura, Garnier, and Resnick (2010); Snyder et al. (2011).
134
Matsumura, Garnier, and Resnick (2010); Matsumura et al. (2009).
135
Bos et al. (1999).
132

53

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

including those with or at risk of reading disabilities, to read has changed substantially. Thus,
previously well-trained teachers may not be well situated to teach reading using new researchbased methods.

Contributions from IES-Supported ResearchContribution 15. Combining multiple professional development strategies, including coaching,linking student assessment data to instruction, using technology, and participating incommunities of practice, can support teachers’ learning and implementation of research-based
reading instruction. There is evidence from quasi-experimental and longitudinal studies that
improvements in students’ reading outcomes are associated with their teachers receiving
intensive professional development. Biancarosa, Bryk, and Dexter (2010) conducted alongitudinal study where kindergarten through second grade teachers received professional
development, called the Literacy Collaborative. In this form of professional development,coaches work with teachers to improve their knowledge and practice. These researchers foundthat students made greater gains in reading when their teachers received the Literacy
Collaborative professional development as compared to typical school practices. Matsumura andcolleagues 136 found that professional development, which included researcher-trained but schoolemployed literacy coaches, was associated with improvements in fourth and fifth grade teachers’
practice and their students’ reading outcomes based on the state-mandated tests. In anotherstudy, when kindergarten and first grade teachers received biweekly coaching on how to
implement an intervention for students who were at risk for reading disabilities, kindergarteners
made significant gains in word reading when compared to students whose teachers did notreceive professional development. 137 However, these researchers did not see similar gains forfirst graders.
But are all the components of these professional development programs, specifically workshops,
communities of practice, and coaching, really necessary to improve teachers’ practices and theirstudents’ reading outcomes? For example, in the studies just described, all of the teachers
attended workshops and worked individually and in small groups with literacy coaches. Pluscoaches observed teachers in the classroom and modeled the new strategies for them. Suchprofessional development is very expensive and if not all components are needed; using fewer
components would save school districts staff and money. In a quasi-experimental study, Carlisle
and colleagues (2011) compared how well teachers improved their practice when they received
different types and combinations of professional development. There were three combinations:(a) workshops designed to improve teachers’ knowledge about literacy concepts and practice; (b)workshops plus learning how to evaluate their students’ reading skills and then using theseresults to improve practice; and (c) workshops, student evaluation, plus the opportunity to workwith a literacy coach and to collaborate with each other in communities of practice. Thus all of
the teachers had training to improve their specialized knowledge, which holds the teacher
136
137

Matsumura et al. (2010).
Vernon-Feagans et al. (2010).
54

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

knowledge component constant. The researchers found that the combination of all three-workshop, student evaluation, and coaching—was associated with improvements in teacher
practice compared to the other combinations. And as we saw with the research on teacher
knowledge, 138 improving knowledge and improving practice are likely required to improvestudents’ reading outcomes. Thus, although coaching is more expensive than providing
workshops, it appears to be a critical component of effective professional development.
Schools are increasingly investing in technology with implications for supporting stronger
implementation of research-based reading instructions. Using longitudinal correlational studies,
Connor and colleagues found that the more teachers used Assessment-to-Instruction online
software, which is designed to help them interpret assessment results and plan differentiatedinstruction, the greater were their first graders’ reading skill gains. 139 In another randomized
controlled study, Al Otaiba and colleagues compared student outcomes for kindergarten teachers
who were randomly assigned to receive professional development on differentiating reading
instruction with treatment group teachers who received this professional development plus
training and access to Assessment-to-Instruction online software. 140 They found that teachers
were more likely to individualize instruction and their kindergartners made greater gains inreading when the professional development was supplemented by the technology.
Using a multi-probe single subject design, Hemmeter, Snyder and colleagues found that
feedback provided to teachers based on teacher-selected video-tapes of their instruction provided
via email was associated with increases in preschool teachers’ interactions with students andimproved student behavior. 141 When researchers provided Targeted Reading Intervention
professional development to teachers at randomly assigned schools using web conferencing,
laptop computers, and webcam technology, the professional development was effective and thereading skills of students with or at risk of reading disabilities improved. 142 Landry andcolleagues compared four combinations of professional development with a randomly assigned
control group. 143 They found that online coursework combined with coaching andinstructionally-linked feedback to teachers resulted in higher quality preschool teacher practices
and stronger student early reading gains.
Is technology-based coaching as effective as face-to-face coaching? That is what a team of IESfunded researchers wanted to find out. 144 Working with 88 Head Start and other preschool
teachers they randomly assigned half of them to receive Classroom Links to Early Literacy
professional development, or to wait to receive it until the next year (the control). Then teachers
138

Piasta et al. (2009).
Connor et al. (2012).
140
Al Otaiba, et al. (2011).
141
Hemmeter et al. (2011).
142
Amendum et al. (2011).
143
Landry et al. (2010).
144
Powell and Diamond (2011); Powell, Diamond, and Burchinal (2010).
139

55

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

in each group were randomly assigned to receive the professional development face-to-face oronline. All of the teachers participated in a one day face-to-face workshop. In the face-to-facecondition, frequent coaching was provided in the classroom whereas in the online condition, thesame amount of coaching was provided over the web. When they compared the classroom
reading instruction of teachers who received professional development (either type) with control
teachers, their classroom practices had improved and their students showed larger early reading
gains. When they compared results for teachers who received the face-to-face version with theonline version, there were no differences in classroom practice or student outcomes. 145 Thus,
both types of professional development were effective. This is important because online
professional development saves time and travel costs especially for rural school districts – someof the teachers were 2 hours away. Plus, teachers have access to online videos of master teachers
using new strategies, which coaches can recommend to teachers as part of their feedback. 146
Future Directions. The results of this IES-funded research suggest ways to successfully
improve teachers’ reading instruction in the classroom. The most effective professional
development is generally fairly intensive and utilizes a combination of workshops, in-classroom
support, communities of practice, and sometimes, technology. Additionally research ontechnologies to support teachers’ practice coupled with cost-benefit analyses may provide
additional key information on providing professional development that actually changes teachers
instructional practices in ways that supports student learning while containing the costs of highquality professional development. This may be particularly important as more children with orat risk of reading disabilities are served in general education classrooms and classroom teachers
become increasingly responsible for both Tier 1 instruction and Tier 2 interventions.

Summary of Contributions for Research Question IV: Professional Development
IES-funded research has extended our understanding about professional development as follows:
1. Teachers’ specialized knowledge, their beliefs about the value of the professional
development they receive, their beliefs about their ability to improve their students’learning and outcome, as well as support from educational leaders are importantconsiderations when designing effective professional development that changes teachers’
practices in ways that promote students’ reading outcomes.
2. Professional development that includes multiple components and individualized feedback
for teachers can be effective in supporting teachers’ use of evidence-based reading
instruction and interventions. These improvements in practice generally result in stronger
student outcomes. It appears that effective professional development includes a
combination of strategies including workshops and coaching, where well-trained literacy
coaches meet with teachers individually, observe and support them in the classroom, and145
146

See also Powell, Diamond, and Koehler (2010).
Powell, Diamond, and Koehler (2010).
56

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

help them develop communities of practice. Technology appears to enhance professional
development and online coaching can be as effective as face-to-face coaching. One
reason individualized professional development strategies, such as coaching, appear to be
more effective is because teachers bring different attitudes, beliefs, and levels ofknowledge to the classroom and individualized professional development can be tailoredfor each teacher.

57

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

IES Contributions and Implications
Contributions: What have we learned thus far from IES-Supported Research?
Across the four domains that emerged from our review of published papers describing results of
IES-supported research with initial awards from 2002 through 2008, we identified 15 specificcontributions to understanding how to support reading achievement for students with or at risk
for reading disabilities.
I.

Assessment: What have we learned about effective identification and assessment ofstudents who have or are at risk for reading difficulties or disabilities?
1. Screening all children’s reading skills (i.e., universal screening) at the beginningof the school year, especially in the early grades can be a valid and efficient
process to identify children who are at risk for reading difficulties and disabilities.
2. Using assessments to monitor children's progress (i.e., progress monitoringassessment) can guide the decision making process for determining whether anintervention is improving the development of a child's reading skills.
3. New assessments for English language learners indicate that reading
comprehension can be reliably and validly assessed without overburdening word
reading and oral language skills.
4. Accommodations can be made for assessing students with disabilities that do not
modify the construct being measured and therefore represent a valid measure ofthis construct.

II.

Basic Cognitive and Linguistic Processes: What are the basic cognitive and linguistic
processes that support successful reading and how can these skills be improved forstudents who have or who are at risk for reading disabilities?
1. Several important cognitive processes such as working memory, grasp of theprinciples of conservation and seriation, and abstract and inferential reasoning
have been found to contribute to children’s reading performance.
2. Malleable linguistic processes such as oral language skills and vocabulary
positively predict children’s reading performance.
3. Although the same sets of cognitive and linguistic skills are involved in learning
to read, children bring unique constellations of these skills to the classroom andthis has implications for instruction.

58

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

III.

Intervention: How do we make reading instruction more effective for students who
have or are at risk for developing reading disabilities? How do we teach reading tostudents with low incidence disabilities?
1. Increasing the intensity of the instruction received in kindergarten and first grade
can prevent reading difficulties for many students.
2. Fluency interventions that focus on repeated reading of text, opportunities topractice reading in the classroom, and reading a range of text generally improvestudents’ fluency and comprehension.
3. Language outcomes for many preschool children at risk for language delays canimprove if they are provided extensive opportunities to hear and use complex oral
language.
4. Peer-assisted or collaborative learning is a promising method of increasing theintensity of instruction for some students and improving their reading outcomes.
5. Instruction and interventions that are differentiated to target each individual
student’s profile of component skills improve many students’ reading
development.
6. What we know about how typically developing readers learn to read also holds
for students with low incidence disabilities, including children with mild andmoderate intellectual disabilities, and children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

IV.

Professional Development: How do we bring research-based instructional practices tothe classroom?
1. Developing teachers’ specialized knowledge and supporting consistent long-term
implementation of research-based instructional strategies can improve delivery ofcomplex, evidence-based instruction and interventions.
2. Combining multiple professional development strategies, including coaching,linking student assessment data to instruction, using technology, and participatingin communities of practice, can support teachers’ learning and implementation ofeffective instruction.

Implications: Where do we go from here?
Throughout this document, we have highlighted specific future directions for each of the 15
recommendations and so do not repeat them here. Research in the future will build on thesefindings and, indeed, new and exciting research is being funded by IES and continues to inform
our understanding about how best to meet the needs of students with or at risk of reading
disabilities. Important new research that is not included here examines the development
59Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

processes of how students develop and master reading for understanding, interventions andinstructional strategies that promote this development, and better understanding of the complex
and interconnected processes that underlie proficient reading for understanding. Other efforts
include the creation of research centers focused on the literacy skills of deaf and hard of hearing
students and on adult basic education. Other new research examines researcher-practitioner
partnerships and the development and testing of intensive reading (and math) interventions forchildren with the most intractable learning disabilities.
The first eight years of rigorous research funded by IES has extended our knowledge about how
to help students who have or are at risk for reading disabilities. The fifteen specific contributions
that we identified through the published articles we reviewed reveal that IES-funded research has
contributed in important ways to understanding how best to support students with or at risk forreading disabilities. During its relatively short history, IES has required rigorous standards
regarding how scientific information is obtained, particularly through the use of randomized
controlled field trials in schools. Through IES, research findings now inform decision-making in
education in ways that were simply not considered prior to its inception and we have reason tobelieve that IES funded research will continue to contribute meaningful and important researchfindings to the professional and research fields that support the successful education of children.

60Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

References
Abedi, J. (2007). English Language Learners with Disabilities. In C. Cahalan Laitusis and L.L.
Cook (Eds.), Large-Scale Assessment and Accommodations: What Works? Arlington,
VA: Council of Exceptional Children.
Abedi, J., Leon, S., and Kao, J. C. (2008). Examining Differential Item Functioning in Reading
Assessments for Students with Disabilities. CRESST Report, 744.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National
Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for Educational andPsychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., Meadows, J., and Li, Z. (2011).
Assessment Data-Informed Guidance to Individualize Kindergarten Reading Instruction:
Findings from a Cluster-Randomized Control Field Trial. The Elementary School
Journal, 111(4), 535.
Alberto, P.A., Fredrick, L.D., Hughes, M., McIntosh, L., and Cihak, D. (2007). Components ofVisual Literacy: Teaching Logos. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 22, 234-243.
Alberto, P.A., Waugh, R.E., and Fredrick, L.D. (2010). Teaching the Reading of Connected Text
Through Sight-Word Instruction to Students with Moderate Intellectual Disabilities.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1467-1474.
Allor, J., Mathes, P., Roberts, J., Jones, F., and Champlin, T. (2010d). Teaching Students with
Moderate Intellectual Disabilities to Read: An Experimental Examination of aComprehensive Reading Intervention. Education and Training in Autism andDevelopmental Disabilities, 45, 3-22.
Amendum, S., Vernon-Feagans, L., and Ginsberg, M.C. (2011). The Effectiveness of aTechnologically-Facilitated Classroom-Based Early Reading Intervention. The
Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 107-131.
August, D., Francis, D.J., Hsu, H.A., and Snow, C.E. (2006). Assessing Reading Comprehension
in Bilinguals. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 221-238.
Badian, N.A. (1994). Preschool Prediction: Orthography and Phonological Skills, and Reading.
Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 3-25.

61

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Baker, J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Florwers, C., and Browder, D. (2010). A Measure of
Emergent Literacy for Students with Severe Developmental Disabilities. Psychology in
the Schools, 47, 501-513.
Bell, L., Connor, C.M., Glasney, S., and Morrison, F.J. (2008). The Impact of Classroom
Disruptions On Literacy Skill Growth. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of theSociety for the Scientific Study of Reading, Ashville, NC.
Bergeron, J.P., Lederberg, A.R., Easterbrooks, S.R., Miller, E.M., and Connor, C.M. (2009).
Building the Alphabetic Principle in Young Children who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
The Volta Review, 109(2-3), 87-119.
Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A.S., and Dexter, E.R. (2010). Assessing the Value-Added Effects ofLiteracy Collaborative Professional Development on Student Learning. The Elementary
School Journal, 111(1), 7-34.
Bos, C.S., Mather, N., Narr, R.F., and Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, Collaborative Professional
Development in Early Literacy Instruction: Supporting the Balancing Act. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 227-238.
Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., North, W., Russo,E., Wilder, T. D. (2009). First Grade Teaches' Knowledge of Phonological Awarenessand Code Concepts: Examining Gains From an Intensive Form of Professional
Development and Corresponding Teacher Attitudes. Reading and Writing, 22, 425-455.
Bridges, M.S., and Catts, H.W. (2011). The Use of a Dynamic Screening of Phonological
Awareness to Predict Risk for Reading Disabilities in Kindergarten Children. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44 (4), 330-338.
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S., and Flowers, C. (2008). Evaluation of
the Effectiveness of an Early Literacy Program for Students with Significant
Developmental Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33-52.
Browder, D., Mimms, P., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., and Lee, A. (2008). Teaching
Elementary Students with Disabilities to Participate in Shared Stories. Research andPractice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1-2), 3-12.
Browder, D.M., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., and Algozzine, B. (2006).
Research on Reading Instruction for Individuals with Significant Cognitive Disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408.
Bruner, J.S. (1975). From Communication to Language: A Psychological Perspective. Cognition,
3, 255-287.

62

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C., Walker, D., Carta, J., Terry, B., and Garrett, M. (2010). A WebBased Tool to Support Data-Based Early Intervention Decision Making. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 29(4), 201-213.
Cabell, S.Q., Justice, L.M., Konold, T.R., and McGinty, A.S. (2011). Profiles of Emergent
Literacy Skills Among Preschool Children who are at Risk for Academic Difficulties.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 1-14
Carlisle, J.F., Cortina, K.S., and Katz, L.A. (2011). First-Grade Teachers' Response to Three
Models of Professional Development in Reading. Reading and Writing, 27, 212-238.
Carlisle, J.F., Kelcey, B., Rowan., B., and Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers' Knowledge About Early
Reading: Effects on Students' Gains in Reading Achievement. Journal of Research on
Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), 289-321.
Catts, H.W. (1991). Early Identification of Dyslexia: Evidence from a Follow-Up Study of
Speech-Language Impaired Children. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 163-177.
Catts, H.W. (1993). The Relationship Between Speech-Language Impairments and Reading
Disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 36(5), 948.
Catts, H.W., and Kamhi, A.G. (Eds.). (2004). Language Basis of Reading Disabilities (2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chall, J.S. (1996). Stages of Reading Development (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Charity, A.H., Scarborough, H.S., and Griffin, D. M. (2004). Familiarity with School English in
African American Children and its Relation to Early Reading Achievement. Child
Development, 75(5), 1340-1356.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., and Bryant, J.D. (2006). Selecting At-Risk Readers inFirst Grade for Early Intervention: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study of Decision Rules
and Procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J.K., Barquero, L.A., Cho, E., andCrouch, R.C. (2010). Selecting At-Risk Readers in First Grade for Early Intervention:
Eliminating False Positives and Exploring the Promise of a Two-Stage Screening
Process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327-340.
Compton, D.L., Gilbert, J.K., Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Cho, E., Barquero, L.A., andBouton, B. (2012). Accelerating Chronically Unresponsive Children to Tier 3 Instruction:
What Level of Data is Necessary to Ensure Selection Accuracy? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 45, 204-216.

63

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Connor, C.M. (2011a). Child By Instruction Interactions: Language and Literacy Connections. In
S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook on Early Literacy (3rd ed., pp. 256275). New York: Guilford.
Connor, C.M., and Craig, H.K. (2006). African American Preschoolers' Language, Emergent
Literacy Skills, and Use of African American English: A Complex Relation. Journal of
Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49(4), 771.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., and Katch, L.E. (2004). Beyond the Reading Wars: Exploring theEffect of Child-Instruction Interactions on Growth in Early Reading. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 8(4), 305-336.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B.J., Schatschneider, C., and Underwood, P. (2007).
THE EARLY YEARS: Algorithm-Guided Individualized Reading Instruction. Science,
315(5811), 464-465. doi: 10.1126/science.1134513
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B., and Schatschneider, C. (2012). Assessment andInstruction Connections: The Impact of Teachers’ Access and Use of Assessment-toInstruction Software. In J. Sabatini, T. O’Reilly, and E.R. Albro (Eds.), Reaching an
Understanding: Innovations in How We View Reading Assessment (pp. 81-100). Lanham,
MD: R& L Education.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M, Underwood, P., Bayraktar,
A., Crowe, E.C., & Schatschneider, C. (2011b). Testing the Impact of Child
Characteristics X Instruction Interactions on Third Graders’ Reading Comprehension byDifferentiating Literacy Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 189–221. doi:
10.1598/RRQ.46.3.1
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Schatschneider, C., Toste, J., Lundblom, E.G., Crowe, E., andFishman, B. (2011c). Effective Classroom Instruction: Implications of Child
Characteristic by Instruction Interactions on First Graders' Word Reading Achievement.
Journal for Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 173-207.
Connor, C.M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E.,
Underwood, P. Morrison, F.J. (2009a). Individualizing Student Instruction Precisely:
Effects of Child by Instruction Interactions on First Graders’ Literacy Development.
Child Development, 80(1), 77-100.
Connor, C.M., Son, S.-H., Hindman, A.H., and Morrison, F.J. (2005). Teacher Qualifications,Classroom Practices, Family Characteristics, and Preschool Experience: Complex Effects
on First Graders' Vocabulary and Early Reading Outcomes. Journal of School
Psychology, 43, 343-375.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., and Underwood, P. (2007). A Second Chance in Second Grade?
The Cumulative Impact of First and Second Grade Reading Instruction on Students'
Letter-Word Reading Skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 199-233.
64

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B., Ponitz, C.C., Glasney, S., Underwood, P., et al.
(2009b). The ISI Classroom Observation System: Examining the Literacy Instruction
Provided to Individual Students. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 85-99.
Connor, C.M., Ponitz, C.E.C., Phillips, B., Travis, Q.M., Day, S.G., and Morrison, F.J. (2010).
First Graders’ Literacy and Self-Regulation Gains: The Effect of Individualizing
Instruction. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 433-455.
Cook, L., Eignor, D., Sawaki, Y., Steinberg, J., and Cline, F. (2010). Using Factor Analysis toInvestigate Accommodations Used by Students with Disabilities on an English-Language
Arts Assessment. Applied Measurement in Education. Special Issue: Testing Students
with Disabilities, 23(2), 187-208.
Cook, L.L., Eignor, D.R., Steinberg, J., Sawaki, Y., & Cline, F. (2009). Using Factor Analysis toInvestigate the Impact of Accommodations on the Scores of Students with Disabilities on
a Reading Comprehension Assessment. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(2).
Coyne, M.D., Kame’enui, E.J., Simmons, D.C., & Harn, B.A. (2004). Beginning Reading
Intervention as Inoculation or Insulin: First-Grade Reading Performance of Strong
Responders to Kindergarten Intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 90-104.
Coyne, M.D., McCoach, B., and Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary Intervention for Kindergarten
Students: Comparing Extended Instruction to Embedded Instruction and Incidental
Exposure. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30(2), 74-88.
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2000). An Assessment Battery for Identifying Language
Impairments in African American Children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing
Research, 43(2), 366.
Craig, H.K., Zhang, L., Hensel, S.L., and Quinn, E. J. (2009). African American EnglishSpeaking Students: An Examination of the Relationship Between Dialect Shifting andReading Outcomes. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 839-855.
Denton, C.A., Mathes, P.G., Swanson, E., Nimon, K., and Kethley, C. (2010). Effectiveness of a
Supplemental Early Reading Intervention Scaled Up in Multiple Schools. Exceptional
Children, 76(4), 394-416.
Dillon, D.R., O’Brien, D.G., Kato, K., Scharber, C., Kelly, C., Beaton, A., and Biggs, B. (2009).
The Design and Validation of a Motivating Large-Scale Accessible Reading
Comprehension Assessment for Students with Disabilities. Fifty-Eighth Yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 277-293). Milwaukee, WI: The National Reading
Conference.

65

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Dingle, M.P., Brownell, M.T., Leko, M.M., Boardman, A.G., and Haager, D. (2011). Developing
Effective Special Education Reading Teachers: The Influence of Professional
Development, Context, and Individual Qualities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34(1),1-15.
Easterbrooks, S.R., et al. (2011).
Easterbrooks, S.R., Lederberg, A.R., and Connor, C.M. (2010). Contributions of the Emergent
Literacy Environment to Literacy Outcomes in Young Children who are Deaf. American
Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 467-480.
Easterbrooks, S.R., Lederberg, A.R., Miller, E.M., Bergeron, J.P., and Connor, C.M. (2008).
Emergent Literacy Skills during Early Childhood in Children with Hearing Loss:
Strengths and Weaknesses. The Volta Review, 108(2), 91-114.
Elleman, A.M., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., and Bouton, B. (2011). Exploring
Dynamic Assessment as a Means of Identifying Children At-Risk of Developing
Comprehension Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44 (4), 348-357.
Fletcher, J.M, Foorman, B.R., Boudousquie, A., Barnes, M.A., Schatschneider, C., and Francis,
D.J. (2002). Assessment of Reading and Learning Disabilities: A Research-Based
Intervention-Oriented Approach. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 27-63.
Foorman, B.R., Fletcher, J.M, Francis, D.J., Carlson, C.D., Chen, D., Mouzaki, A.,
Schatschneider, C., Wrister, K., and Taylor, R. (1998). Technical Report Texas Primary
Reading Inventory (1998 Edition). Houston, TX: Center for Academic and Reading Skills
and University of Houston.
Francis, D.J., Snow, C.E., August, D., Carlson, C.D., Miller, J., and Iglesias, A. (2006).
Measures of Reading Comprehension: A Latent Variable Analysis of the Diagnostic
Assessment of Reading Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 301-322.
Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word recognition,
fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. Journal of Special Education,
39(1), 34-44.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Bouton, B., and Caffrey, E. (2011). The Construct andPredictive Validity of a Dynamic Assessment of Young Children Learning to Read:
Implications for RTI Frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 339-347.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., and Compton, D.L. (2004). Monitoring Early Reading Development inFirst Grade: Word Identification Fluency Versus Nonsense Word Fluency. Exceptional
Children, 71, 7-21.

66

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Garner, J.K., and Bochna, C.R. (2010). Transfer of a Listening Comprehension Strategy to
Independent Reading in First-Grade Students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(2),69-74.
Gelzheiser, L.M., Scanlon, D., Vellutino, F., Hallgren-Flynn, L., and Schatschneider, C. (2011).
Effects of the Interactive Strategies Approach-Extended: A Responsive andComprehensive Intervention for Intermediate Grade Struggling Readers. The Elementary
School Journal, 112(2), 280-306.
Gerde, H.K., and Powell, D. (2009). Teacher Education, Book-Reading Practices, and Children's
Language Growth Across One Year of Head Start. Early Education and Development,
20(2), 211-237.
Girolametta, L., Weitzman, E., and Greenberg, J. (2003). Training Day Care Staff to Facilitate
Children’s Language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 299-311.
Glenberg, A.M., Brown, M., and Levin, J.R. (2007). Enhancing Comprehension in Small
Reading Groups Using a Manipulation Strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
32, 389-399.
Glenberg, A.M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J.R., Japunitich, S., and Kaschak, M.P. (2004). Activity
and Imagined Activity can Enhance Young Children's Reading Comprehension. Journalof Educational Research, 96(3), 424-436.
Glover, T., and Albers, C. (2007). Considerations for Evaluating Universal Screening
Assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117-135.
Goldhaber, D., and Anthony, E. (2003). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Urban
Diversity Series (Report: UDS-115; pp. 153). New York: Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Goldhaber, D.D., and Brewer, D. J. (1999). Does Teacher Certification Matter? High School
Certification Status and Student Achievement. Washington DC: Urban Institute.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., and Chard, D. (2001). The Importance and DecisionMaking Utility of a Continuum of Fluency-Based Indicators of Foundational Reading
Skills for Third-Grade High-Stakes Outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O., Zou, Y., Johnson, C., Simmons, D., and Coyne, M. D. (2010). An
Examination of Problem Behaviors and Reading Outcomes in Kindergarten Students. The
Journal of Special Education, 20, 1-18.
Hemmeter, M.L., Snyder, P.A., Kinder, K., and Artman, K. (2011). Impact of Performance
Feedback Delivered via Electronic Mail on Preschool Teachers' Use of Descriptive
Praise. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 96-109.

67

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Hernandez, D.J. (2011). Double Jeopardy: How Third Grade Reading Skills and Poverty
Influence High School Graduation. New York: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Hiebert, E. (2003). Quick Reads. Parsippany, NJ: Pearson Learning.
Hock, M.F., Brasseur, I.F., Deshler, D.D., Catts, H.W., Marquis, J., Mark, C.A., and Stribling,
J.W. (2009). What is the Reading Component Skill Profile of Adolescent Struggling
Readers in Urban Schools? Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 32(1), 21-38.
Holt, J.A. (1994). Classroom Attributes and Achievement Test Scores for Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Students. American Annals of the Deaf, 139, 430-437.
Hoover, W.A., and Gough, P.B. (1990). The Simple View of Reading. Reading and Writing,2(2), 127-160.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
(2004).
Jenkins, J.R. (2003, December). Candidate Measures for Screening At-Risk Students. Paper
presented at the Conference on Response to Intervention as Learning Disabilities
Identification, Sponsored by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities,
Kansas City, MO.
Jenkins, J.R., and O’Connor, R.E. (2002). Early Identification and Intervention for YoungChildren with Reading/Learning Disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.P.
Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice (pp. 99149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jenkins, J.R., Hudson, R.F., and Johnson, E.S. (2007). Screening for Service Delivery in a
Response-To-Intervention (RTI) Framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582-600.
Joseph, L. M., & Seery, M. E. (2004). Where is the Phonics? A Review of the Literature on theuse of Phonetic Analysis with Students with Mental Retardation. Remedial and Special
Education, 25(2), 88-94.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children from First
Through Fourth Grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447.
Justice, L.M., and Ezell, H.K. (2002). Use of Storybook Reading to Increase Print Awareness in
At-Risk Children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 17-29.
Justice, L.M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K., and Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental Evaluation of aComprehensive Language-Rich Curriculum in At-Risk Preschools. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1-19.

68

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Kane, T., Staiger, D.O., and McCaffrey, D. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining
high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation. Retrieved from:http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf
Kato, K., Moen, R.E., and Thurlow, M.L. (2009). Differentials of a State Reading Assessment:
Item Functioning, Distractor Functioning, and Omission Frequency for Disability
Categories. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(2), 28-40.
Klingner, J.K., and Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal Teaching of Reading Comprehension
Strategies for Students with Learning Disabilities who use English as a Second
Language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293.
LaBerge, D., and Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in
Reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Laitusis, C.C. (2010). Examining the Impact of Audio Presentation on Tests of Reading
Comprehension. Applied Measurement in Education. Special Issue: Testing Students with
Disabilities, 23(2), 153-167.
Landry, S.H., Anthony, J.L., Swank, P.R., and Monseque-Bailey, P. (2010). Effectiveness ofComprehensive Professional Development for Teachers of At-Risk Preschoolers. Journalof Educational Psychology, 101(2), 448-465.
Loftus, S., Coyne, M.D., McCoach, D.B., Zipoli, R., Kapp, S., and Pullen, P. (2010). Effects ofa Supplemental Vocabulary Intervention on the Word Knowledge of Kindergarten
Students At-Risk for Language and Literacy Difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 25(3), 124-136.
Luze, G.J., and Hughes, K. (2008). Using Individual Growth and Development Indicators toAssess Child and Program Outcomes. Young Exceptional Children, 12, 31-40.
Marley, S.C., and Levin, J.R. (2006). Pictorial Illustrations, Visual Imagery, and Motor Activity:
Their Instructional Implications for Native American Children with Learning Disabilities.
In R. J. Morris (Ed.), Disability Research and Policy: Current Perspectives (pp. 103123). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marley, S.C., Levin, J.R., and Glenberg, A.M. (2007). Improving Native American Children's
Listening Comprehension Through Concrete Representations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 32, 537-550.
Matsumura, L.C., Garnier, H.E., and Resnick, L.B. (2010). Implementing Literacy Coaching:
The Role of School Resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 249272.

69

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Matsumura, L.C., Garnier, H.E., Correnti, R., Junker, B., and Bickel, D.D. (2010). Investigating
the Effectiveness of a Comprehensive Literacy Coaching Program in Schools with High
Teacher Mobility. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 35-62.
Matsumura, L.C., Sartoris, M., Bickel, D.D., and Garnier, H.E. (2009). Leadership for Literacy
Coaching: The Principal's Role in Launching a New Coaching Program. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655-693.
Maynard, K.L., Pullen, P.C., and Coyne, M. (2010). Teaching Vocabulary to First Grade
Students Through Repeated Shared Storybook Reading: A Comparison of Rich and Basic
Instruction to Incidental Exposure. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 209-242.
McCardle, P., Scarborough, H.S., and Catts, H.W. (2001). Predicting, Explaining, andPreventing Children’s Reading Difficulties. Learning Disability Research and Practice,16, 230-239.
McConnell, S.R., McEvoy, M.A., and Priest, J.S. (2002). "Growing" Measures for Monitoring
Progress in Early Childhood Education: A Research and Development Process for
Individual Growth and Development Indicators. Assessment for Effective Intervention,27(4), 3-14.
McMaster, K.L., Kung, H., Han, I., and Cao, M. (2008). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: A
Tier 1 Approach to Promoting Responsiveness to Beginning Reading Instruction forEnglish Learners. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 194-214.
Moats, L.C. (1994). The Missing Foundation in Teacher Education: Knowledge of the Structureof Spoken and Written Language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
Moen, R., Liu, L., Thurlow, M. L., Lekwa, A., Scullin, S., & Hausmann, K., (2009). Identifying
Less Accurately Measured Students. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(2).
Morgan, P.L., Farkas, G., Tufis, P.A., & Sperling, R.A. (2008). Are Reading and Behavior
Problems Risk Factors for Each Other? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(5), 417-436.
doi: 10.1177/0022219408321123.
Morrison, F.J., Bachman, H.J., and Connor, C.M. (2005). Improving Literacy in America:
Guidelines from Research. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Muthén, B., and Muthén, L.K. (2000). Integrating Person‐Centered and Variable‐Centered
Analyses: Growth Mixture Modeling with Latent Trajectory Classes. Alcoholism:
Clinical and Experimental Research, 24(6), 882-891.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of The National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington DC: National Institute for Literacy and the National Center
for Family Literacy.

70

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

NAEP Reading 2011.
NICHD. (2000). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Reading
Panel Report: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the
Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction. In
NIH (Ed.). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development.
NIH (1995).
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
O’Connor, R.E., and Jenkins, J.R. (1999). The Prediction of Reading Disabilities in Kindergarten
and First Grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159-197.
O’Connor, R.E., Bocian, K., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., and Linklater, D. (2010).
Responsiveness of Students with Language Difficulties to Early Intervention in Reading.
Journal of Special Education, 43, 220-235.
O’Connor, R.E., Swanson, H.L., and Geraghty, C. (2010). Improvement in Reading Rate Under
Independent and Difficult Text Levels: Influences on Word and Comprehension Skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 1-19.
O’Connor, R.E., White, A., and Swanson, H.L. (2007). Repeated Reading Versus Continuous
Reading: Influences on Reading Fluency and Comprehension. Exceptional Children,74(1), 31-46.
Oetting, J.B., and McDonald, J.L. (2001). Nonmainstream Dialect Use and Specific Language
Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 44(1), 207.
Pasnak, R., Kidd, J.K., Ferral-Like, M., Gadzichowski, M.K., Gallington, D.A., and Saracina,
R.P. (2007). Nurturing Developmental Processes in Early Abstraction. Journal of
Developmental Processes, 2, 90-115.
Pasnak, R., Kidd, J.K., Gadzichowski, M.K., Gallagher, J.D., and Saracina, R. P. (2008). Can
Emphasizing Cognitive Development Improve Academic Achievement? Educational
Research, 50(3), 261-276.
Pasnak, R., Kidd, J.K., Gadzichowski, M.K., Gallington, D.A., Saracina, R.P., and Addison, K.T.
(2009). Promoting Early Abstraction to Promote Early Literacy and Numeracy. Journalof Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 239-249.
Pasnak, R., MacCubbin, E., and Ferral-Like, M. (2007). Using Developmental Principles toAssist Preschoolers in Developing Numeracy and Literacy. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
105, 163-176.
71

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Piaget, J. (1960). The Psychology of Intelligence. Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
Piasta, S.B., Connor, C.M., Fishman, B., and Morrison, F.J. (2009). Teachers’ Knowledge of
Literacy, Classroom Practices, and Student Reading Growth. Scientific Studies of
Reading 13(3), 224-248.
Pierce, M.E., Katzir, T., Wolf, M., and Noam, G. G. (2007). Clusters of Second and Third Grade
Dysfluent Urban Readers. Reading and Writing, 20, 885-907.
Polloway E., Lubin J., Smith J.D. and Patton J.R. (2010). Mild Intellectual Disabilities: Legacies
and Trends in Concepts and Educational Practices. Education and Training in Autism andDevelopmental Disabilities, 45, 54–68.
Powell, D., and Diamond, K.E. (2011). Improving the Outcomes Of Coaching-Based
Professional Development Interventions. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.),
Handbook of Early Literacy (Vol. 3, pp. 295-307). New York: Guilford.
Powell, D., Diamond, K.E., and Burchinal, M. (2010). Effects of Early Literacy Professional
Development Intervention on Head Start Teachers and Children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(2), 299-312.
Powell, D., Diamond, K. E., and Koehler, M. J. (2010). Use of a Case-Based Hypermedia
Resource in an Early Literacy Coaching Intervention with Pre-Kindergarten Teachers.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(4), 239-249.
Pullen, P.C., Tuckwiller, E.D., Maynard, K., Konold, T.R., and Coyne, M. (2010). A Response
to Intervention Model for Vocabulary Instruction: The Effects of Tiered Instruction For
Students At Risk for Reading Disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,25, 110-122.
Rapp, D.N., and van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic Text Comprehension: An Integrative View
of Reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 276-279.
Raudenbush, S.W. (2004). What are Value-Added Models Estimating and What Does This
Imply for Statistical Practice. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1),121-129.
Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L., & Mann, E.A. (2002). Age 21 Cost-Benefit
Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 24(4), 267-303.
Rosa’s Law, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2010).

72

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Saenz, L., McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. (2007). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in
Reading for Students with Different Learning Needs. Journal of Cognitive Education andPsychology, 6(3), 395-410.
Sanders, W., and Horn, S.P. (1994). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS):
Mixed-Model Methodology in Educational Assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluationin Education, 8, 299-311.
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaugh, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C.K., andTorgesen, J.K. (2007). Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Meta-Analysis
with Implications for Practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation.
Scarborough, H.S. (1998). Early Identification of Children At Risk for Reading Disabilities:
Phonological Awareness and Some Other Promising Predictors. In B.K. Shapiro, P.J.
Accardo, and A.J. Capute (Eds.), Specific Reading Disability: A View of the Spectrum(pp. 75-119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Shanahan, T., and Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents:
Rethinking Content-Area Literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1).
Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Brady, S., and Macaruso, P.l. (1992). Identifying the Causes of
Reading Disability. In P. Gough, L. C. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading Acquisition(pp. 275-305). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simmons, D.C., Coyne, M.D., Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O., Simmons, L.E., Johnson, C., Zou,
Y., Taylor, A.B., Lentini, A., Ruby, M.F., and Crevecoeur, Y. (2011). Effects ofSupplemental Reading Interventions in Authentic Contexts: A Comparison ofKindergarteners’ Response. Exceptional Children, 77, 207-228.
Smith, M., Dickinson, D., Sangeorge, A., and Anastasopoulos, L. (2002). Early Literacy andLanguage Classroom Observation Scale (ELLCO). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Snell, M.E., Luckasson, R., et al. (2009). Characteristics and Needs of People with Intellectual
Disability who have Higher IQs. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47(3), 220233.
Snell, M.E., and Brown, F. (Eds.). (2011). Instruction of Students with Severe Disabilities (7thedition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Snow, C.E. (1983). Literacy and Language: Relationships During the Preschool Years. Harvard
Educational Review, 53, 165-189.
Snow, C.E. (2001). Reading for Understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education and theScience and Technology Policy Institute.

73

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Snyder, L., Caccamise, D., and Wise, B. (2005). The Assessment of Reading Comprehension:
Considerations and Cautions. Topics in Language Disorders. Reading Comprehension's
New Look: Influences of Theory and Technology on Practice, 25(1), 33-50.
Snyder, P.A., Denney, M.K., Pasia, C., Rakap, S., and Crowe, C. (2011). Professional
Development in Early Childhood Intervention: Emerging Issues and Promising
Approaches. In C. Groark & L. Kaczmarek (Eds.), Early Childhood Intervention
Program Policies for Special Needs Children (3rd ed.). 169-204. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Snyder, T.D., Dillow, S.A., and Hoffman, C.M. (2007). Digest of Education Statistics 2006.
(NCES 2007-017). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
Speece, D. (2005). Hitting the Moving Target Known as Reading Development: Some Thoughts
on Screening Children for Secondary Interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38,
487-493.
Speece, D.L., and Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in Context: An Alternative Approach to
Identifying Early Reading Disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Towards an Interactive-Compensatory Model Of Individual Differencesin the Development of Reading Fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, XVI, 32-71.
Stone, E., Cook, L., Laitusis, C.C., and Cline, F. (2010). Using Differential Item Functioning toInvestigate the Impact of Testing Accommodations on an English-Language Arts
Assessment for Students who are Blind or Visually Impaired. Applied Measurement in
Education. Special Issue: Testing Students with Disabilities, 23(2), 132-152.
Swanson, H.L., and Ashbaker, M. (2000). Working Memory, Short Term Memory, Articulation
Speed, Word Recognition, and Reading Comprehension in Learning Disabled Readers:
Executive and/or Articulartory System? Intelligence, 28, 1-30.
Swanson, H.L., and O'Connor, R.E. (2009). The Role of Working Memory and Fluency Practiceon the Reading Comprehension of Students who are Dysfluent Readers. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42(6), 548-575.
Swanson, H.L., Howard, C.B., and Saez, L. (2006). Do Different Components of Working
Memory Underlie Different Subgroups of Reading Disability? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39(3), 252-269.
Swanson, H.L., Kehler, P., and Jerman, O. (2010). Working Memory, Strategy Knowledge, andStrategy Instruction in Children with Reading Disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 43(1), 24-47.
Swanson, H.L., Zheng, X., and Jerman, O. (2009). Working Memory, Short-Term Memory, andReading Disabilities: A Selective Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 42(3), 260-287.
74

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Tannenbaum, K.R., Torgesen, J.K., and Wagner, R.K. (2006). Relationships Between Word
Knowledge and Reading Comprehension in Third-Grade Children. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 10(4), 381-398.
Terry, N.P., Connor, C.M., Petscher, Y., and Conlin, C.A. (2012). Dialect Variation andReading: Is Change in Nonmainstream American English use Related to Reading
Achievement in First and Second Grade? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 55(1), 55-69.
Terry, N.P., Connor, C.M., Thomas-Tate, S., and Love, M. (2010). Examining Relations Among
Dialect Variation, Literacy Skills, and School Context in First Grade. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 126-145.
Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated Reading: A
Meta-Analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252-261.
Thurlow, M.L. (2010). Steps Toward Creating Fully Accessible Reading Assessments. Applied
Measurement in Education, 23, 121-131.
Thurlow, M.L., Laitusis, C.C., Dillion, D.R., Cook, L.L. Moen, R.E., Abedi, J., and O’Brien,
D.G. (2009). Accessibility Principles for Reading Assessments. Minneapolis, MN:
National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects.
Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., Van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., and Rapp, D.N. (2009). Simple but
Complex: Components of the Simple View of Reading Across Grade Levels. Journal of
Research in Reading, 32(4), 383-401.
Torgesen, J.K. (2002a). Empirical and Theoretical Support for Direct Diagnosis of Learning
Disabilities by Assessment of Intrinsic Processing Weaknesses. In R. Bradley, L.
Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research toPractice (pp. 565-613). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Torgesen, J.K. (2002b). The Prevention of Reading Difficulties. Journal of School Psychology,
40, 7-26.
Torgesen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., and Alexander, A. (2001a). Principles of Fluency Instruction in
Reading: Relationships with Established Empirical Outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.),
Dyslexia, Fluency, and the Brain (pp. 333-355). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Rose, E, Lindamood, P., Conway, T., and Garvan,
C. (1999). Preventing Reading Failure in Young Children with Phonological Processing
Disabilities: Group and Individual Responses to Instruction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 579-593.

75

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K., and Conway, T.
(2001b). Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities:
Immediate and Long-Term Outcomes from Two Instructional Approaches. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
Turnbull Pence, K., Beckman, A., Justice, L.M., and Bowles, R. (2009). Preschoolers’ Exposure
to Language Stimulation in Classrooms Serving At-Risk Children: The Contribution ofGroup Size and Activity Context. Early Education and Development, 20, 53-79.
Tymms, P. (1999). Baseline Assessment, Value-Added and the Prediction of Reading. Journal of
Research in Reading, 22, 27-36.
Uccelli, P., and Paez, M.M. (2007). Narrative and Vocabulary Development of Bilingual
Children from Kindergarten to First Grade: Developmental Changes and Associations
Among English and Spanish Skills. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools,
38, 225-236.
Vadasy, P.F., and Sanders, E.A. (2008a). Benefits of Repeated Reading Intervention for LowAchieving Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Students. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 235249.
Vadasy, P.F., and Sanders, E.A. (2008b). Repeated Reading Intervention: Outcomes andInteractions with Readers' Skills and Classroom Instruction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 272-290.
Vadasy, P.F., and Sanders, E.A. (2009). Supplemental Fluency Intervention and Determinants ofReading Outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(5), 383–425.
Vadasy, P.F., and Sanders, E.A. (2010). Efficacy of Supplemental Phonics-Based Instruction for
Low-Skilled Kindergarteners in the Context of Language Minority Status and Classroom
Phonics Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 786-803.
van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., and White, M.J. (2008). Cognitive Processes During Reading:
Implications for the use of Multimedia to Foster Reading Comprehension. In A. G. Bus& S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and Literacy Development: Improving Achievementfor Young Learners (pp. 57-74). New York: Routledge.
van den Broek, P., White, M.J., Kendeou, P., and Carlson, S. (2009). Reading Between theLines: Developmental and Individual Differences in Cognitive Processes in Reading
Comprehension. In R.K. Wagner, C. Schatschneider and Phythian-Sence (Eds.), Beyond
Decoding: The Behavioral and Biological Foundations of Reading Comprehension (pp.
107-123). New York: Guildford Press.

76Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Vaughn, S., Klingner, J.K., Boardman, A.G., Swanson, E.A., Roberts, G., Mohammed, S.S., andStillman, S.J. (2011). Efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading with Middle SchoolStudents. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 938-964, first published on
May 31, 2011 doi:10.3102/0002831211410305.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., and Denckla, M.B.
(1996). Cognitive Profiles of Difficult to Remediate and Readily Remediated Poor
Readers: Early Intervention as a Vehicle for Distinguishing Between Cognitive andExperiential Deficits as Basic Causes of Specific Reading Disability. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601-638.
Vernon-Feagans, L., Ginsberg, M.C., Amendum, S., Kainz, K., Rose, J., and Burchinal, M.
(2010). A Diagnostic Teaching Intervention for Classroom Teachers: Helping Struggling
Readers in Early Elementary School. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4),183-193.
Wagner, R.K., and Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The Nature of Phonological Processing and its Causal
Role in the Acquisition of Reading Skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192.
Wilson, S.B., and Lonigan, C.J. (2009). An Evaluation of Two Emergent Literacy Screening
Tools for Preschool Children. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(2), 115-131.
Wolfram, W., Adger, C.T., and Christian, D. (1999). Dialects in Schools and Communities.
Routledge.
Zumeta, R.O., Compton, D.L., and Fuchs, L.S. (2012). Using Word Identification Fluency toAssess First-Grade Reading Development: A Comparison of Two Word-Sampling
Approaches. Exceptional Children, 78, 201-220.

77

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Appendix A: IES Funded Research Reviewed by the Panel
Principal Investigator: Paul Alberto
Institution: Georgia State University
Project Title: Integrated Literacy for Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities
Program Topic: Reading, Writing, and Language Development
Grant Award Number: R324A070144
Alberto, P.A., Waugh, R.E., and Frederick, L.D. (2010). Teaching the Reading of Connected
Text Through Sight-Word Instruction to Students with Moderate Intellectual Disabilities.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1467-1474.
Waugh, R.E., Alberto, P.A., and Frederick, L.D. (2011). Effects of Error Correction During
Assessment Probes on the Acquisition of Sight Words for Students with ModerateIntellectual Disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 47-57.
Waugh, R.E., Alberto, P.A., and Frederick, L.D. (2011). Simultaneous Prompting: An
Instructional Strategy for Skill Acquisition. Education and Training in Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 46 (4), 528-543.
Principal Investigator: Jill Allor (former PI Mathes)Institution: Southern Methodist University
Project Title: Maximizing Literacy Learning among Children with Mild to Moderate Mental
Retardation: Project Maximize
Program Topic: Unsolicited and Other Awards: Special Education Research
Grant Award Number: H324K040011
Allor, J.H., Mathes, P.G., Champlin, T., and Cheatham, J.P. (2009). Research-Based Techniques
for Teaching Early Reading Skills to Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Education
and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(3), 356-366.
Allor, J.H., Mathes, P.G., Jones, F.G., Champlin, T.M, and Cheatham, J.P. (2010).
Individualized Research-Based Reading Instruction for Students with Intellectual
Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 6-12.
Allor, J.H., Mathes, P.G., Roberts, J.K., Cheatham, J.P., and Champlin, T.M. (2010).
Comprehensive Reading Instruction for Students with Intellectual Disabilities: Findings
from the First Three Years of a Longitudinal Study. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5),445-466.
Allor, J.H., Mathes, P.G., Roberts, J.K., Jones, F.G., and Champlin, T.M. (2010). TeachingStudents with Moderate Intellectual Disabilities to Read: An Experimental Examinationof a Comprehensive Reading Intervention. Education and Training in Autism andDevelopmental Disabilities, 45(1), 3-22.
Allor, J.H., Champlin, T.M., Gifford, D.B., and Mathes, P.G. (2010). Methods for Increasing
Reading Instruction for Students. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 45, 500-511.

78

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Principal Investigator: Susan Brady
Institution: Haskins Laboratories
Project Title: Mastering Reading Instruction: A Professional Development Project for First
Grade Teachers
Program Topic: Teacher Quality: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305M030099
Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., North, W., Russo,E., and Wilder, T.D. (2009). First Grade Teachers' Knowledge of Phonological
Awareness and Code Concepts: Examining Gains from an Intensive Form of Professional
Development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22 (4), 425–455.
Principal Investigator: Diane Browder
Institution: University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Project Title: RAISE: Reading Accommodations and Interventions for Students with Emergent
Literacy
Program Topic: Unsolicited and Other Awards: Special Education Research
Grant Award Number: H324K040004
Browder, D.M., Mimms, P.J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., and Lee, A. (2008). Teaching
Elementary Students with Disabilities to Participate in Shared Stories. Research andPractice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1-2), 3-12.
Browder, D.M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S. L., and Flowers, C. (2008).
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an Early Literacy Program for Students with
Significant Developmental Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33-52.
Baker, J.N., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., and Browder, D.M. (2010). A
Measure of Emergent Literacy for Students with Severe Developmental Disabilities.
Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 501-513.
Principal Investigator: Anthony Bryk
Institution: University of Chicago
Project Title: Can Literacy Professional Development be Improved with Web-based
Collaborative Learning Tools: A Randomized Field Trial
Program Topic: Teacher Quality: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305M040086
Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A.S., and Dexter, E. (2010). Assessing the Value-Added Effects ofLiteracy Collaborative Professional Development on Student Learning. Elementary
School Journal, 111(1), 7–34.
Principal Investigator: Virginia Buysse
Institution: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Project Title: Improving Teacher Quality to Address the Language and Literacy Skills of LatinoChildren in Pre-Kindergarten Programs
Program Topic: Teacher Quality: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305M040032
79

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Buysse, V., Castro, D.C., and Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2010). Effects of a Professional
Development Program on Classroom Practices and Outcomes for Latino Dual Language
Learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25 (1), 94–206.
Principal Investigator: Cara Cahalan-Laitusis
Institution: Educational Testing Service
Project Title: Developing Accessible and Valid Reading Assessments: A Research Based
Solution
Program Topic: Unsolicited and Other Awards: Special Education Research
Grant Award Number: H324F040001
Cook, L., Eignor, D., Sawaki, Y., Stenberg, J. and Cline F. (2010). Using Factor Analysis toInvestigate Accommodations used by Students with Disabilities on English Language
Arts Assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 23 (2), 187-208.
Cook, L., Eignor, D., Steinberg, J., Sawaki, Y., and Cline, F. (2009). Using Factor Analysis toInvestigate the Impact of Accommodations on the Scores of Students with Disabilities on
a Reading Comprehension Assessment. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(2), 133.
Thurlow, M.L., Laitusis, C.C., Dillon, D.R., Cook, L.L., Moen, R.E., Abedi, J., and O’Brien,
D.G. (2009). Accessibility Principles for Reading Assessments. Minneapolis, MN:
National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects.
Principal Investigator: Cara Cahalan-Laitusis
Institution: Educational Testing Service
Project Title: National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects: Research and Development forStudents with Visual Impairments
Program Topic: Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems
Grant Award Number: R324A060034
Laitusis, C.C. (2010). Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading
comprehension. Applied Measurement in Education. Special Issue: Testing Students with
Disabilities, 23(2), 153-167.
Stone, E., Cook, L., Laitusis, C.C., and Cline, F. (2010). Using Differential Item Functioning toInvestigate the Impact of Testing Accommodations on an English Language Arts
Assessment for Students who are Blind or Visually Impaired. Applied Measurement in
Education. Special Issue: Testing Students with Disabilities. 23(2), 132-152.
Thurlow, M.L., Laitusis, C.C., Dillon, D.R., Cook, L.L., Moen, R.E., Abedi, J., and O’Brien,
D.G. (2009). Accessibility Principles for Reading Assessments. Minneapolis, MN:
National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects.

80Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Principal Investigator: Joanne Carlisle
Institution: The University of Michigan
Project Title: Identifying Key Components of Effective Professional Development in Readingfor First-Grade Teachers and Their Students
Program Topic: Teacher Quality: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305M030090
Carlisle, J.F., Cortina, K.S., and Katz, L.A. (2011). First-Grade Teachers Response to Three
Models of Professional Development in Reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 27,
212-238.
Principal Investigator: Joanne Carlisle
Institution: The University of Michigan
Project Title: Assessment of Pedagogical Knowledge of Teachers of Reading
Program Topic: Teacher Quality: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305M050087
Carlisle, J.F., Kelcey, B., Rowan, B., and Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers' Knowledge About Early
Reading: Effects on Students' Gains in Reading Achievement. Journal of Research on
Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), 289-321.
Principal Investigator: Hugh Catts
Institution: University of Kansas
Project Title: Early Identification of Children with Reading Disabilities within an RTI
Framework
Program Topic: Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems
Grant Award Number: R324A080118
Bridges, M., and Catts, H.W. (2011). The Use of Dynamic Assessment of Phonological
Awareness for the Early Identification of Reading Disabilities in Kindergarten Children.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44 (4), 330-338.
Principal Investigator: Donald Compton
Institution: Vanderbilt University
Project Title: Response-to-Intervention as an Approach to Preventing and Identifying Learning
Disabilities in Reading
Program Topic: Reading, Writing, and Language Development
Grant Award Number: R324G060036
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J.K., Barquero, L.A., Cho, E., andCrouch, R.C. (2010). Selecting At-Risk Readers in First Grade for Early Intervention:
Eliminating False Positives and Exploring the Promise of a Two-Stage Screening
Process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 327-340.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L.S., Bouton, B. and Caffrey, E. (2011). The Construct andPredictive Validity of a Dynamic Assessment of Young Children Learning to Read:
Implications for RTI Frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44 (4), 339-347.
81

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Elleman, A.M., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., and Bouton, B. (2011). Exploring
Dynamic Assessment as a Means of Identifying Children at Risk of Developing
Comprehension Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44 (4), 348-357.
Compton, D.L., Gilbert, J.K., Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Cho, E., Barquero, L.A., andBouton, B.B. (2012). Accelerating Chronically Unresponsive Children into Tier 3
Instruction: What Level of Data is Necessary to Ensure Adequate Selection Accuracy?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 204-216.
Zumeta, R.O., Compton, D.L., and Fuchs, L.S. (2012). Using Word Identification Fluency toAssess First-Grade Reading Development: A Comparison of Two Word-Sampling
Approaches. Exceptional Children, 78, 201-220.
Principal Investigator: Carol Connor
Institution: Florida State University
Project Title: Child Instruction Interactions in Early Reading: Examining Causal Effects ofIndividualized Instruction
Program Topic: Cognition and Student Learning
Grant Award Number: R305H040013
Cameron, C.E., Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., and Jewkes, A.M. (2008). Effects of Classroom
Organization on Letter-Word Reading Iin First Grade. Journal of School Psychology, 46,
173-192.
Connor, C.M., Piasta, S.B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Fishman, B., Underwood, P. (2009).
Individualizing Student Instruction Precisely: Effects of Child X Instruction Interactions
on First Graders' Literacy Development. Child Development, 80, 77-100.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B.J., Schatschneider, C., and Underwood, P. (2007). The
EARLY YEARS: Algorithm-Guided Individualized Reading Instruction. Science,
315(5811), 464-465.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., and Underwood, P. (2007). A Second Chance in Second Grade?
The Cumulative Impact of First and Second Grade Reading Instruction on Students'
Letter-Word Reading Skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 199-233.
Piasta, S.B., Connor, C.M., Fishman, B.J., and Morrison, F.J. (2009). Teachers’ Knowledge of
Literacy Concepts, Classroom Practices, and Student Reading Growth. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 13(3), 224-248.
Terry, N., Connor, C., Thomas-Tate, S., and Love, M. (2010). Examining Relationships Among
Dialect Variation, Literacy Skills, and School Context in First Grade. Journal of Speech,
Language and Hearing Research, 53(1), 126-145.
Connor, C.M. (2011). Child by Instruction Interactions: Language and Literacy Connections. In
S. B. Neuman and D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook on Early Literacy (3rd ed., pp. 256275). New York: Guilford.
Principal Investigator: Carol Connor
Institution: Florida State University
Project Title: Child-Instruction Interactions in Reading: Examining Causal Effects ofIndividualized Instruction in Second and Third Grade
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305B070074
82

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B., Ponitz, C.C., Glasney, S., Underwood, P., et al.
(2009). The ISI Classroom Observation System: Examining the Literacy Instruction
Provided to Individual Students. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 85-99.
Connor, C.M., Ponitz, C.C., Phillips, B.M., Travis, Q.M., Glasney, S., and Morrison, F.J. (2010).
First Graders’ Literacy and Self-Regulation Gains: The Effect of Individualizing Student
Instruction. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 433-455.
Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C.M., Folsom, J.S., Greulich, L., Meadows, J., and Zhi, L. (2011).
Assessment Data-Informed Guidance to Individualize Kindergarten Reading Instruction:
Findings from a Cluster-Randomized Control Field Trial. Elementary School Journal,111(4), 535.
Terry, N.P., Connor, C.M., and Petscher, Y. (2011). Dialect Variation and Reading: Is Change inNonmainstream American English use Related to Reading Achievement in First andSecond Grade? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(1), 55-69.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Schatschneider, C., Toste, J., Lundblom, E.G., Crowe, E., andFishman, B. (2011). Effective Classroom Instruction: Implications of Child
Characteristics by Reading Instruction Interactions on First Graders’ Word Reading
Achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 173-207.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P., Bayraktar,
A., Crowe, E.C., and Schatschneider, C. (2011). Testing the Impact of Child
Characteristics X Instruction Interactions on Third Graders’ Reading Comprehension byDifferentiating Literacy Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 189–221.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B., and Schatschneider, C. (2012). Assessment andInstruction Connections: The Impact of Teachers’ Access and Use of Assessment-toInstruction Software. In J. Sabatini, T. O’Reilly, and E.R. Albro (Eds.), Reaching an
Understanding: Innovations in How We View Reading Assessment (pp. 81-100). Lanham,
MD: R& L Education.
Principal Investigator: Michael Coyne
Institution: University of Connecticut
Project Title: Project VITAL: Vocabulary Intervention Targeting At-Risk Learners
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G030250
Coyne, M.D., McCoach, B., and Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary Intervention for Kindergarten
Students: Comparing Extended Instruction to Embedded Instruction and Incidental
Exposure. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30(2), 74-88.
Principal Investigator: Michael Coyne
Institution: University of Connecticut
Project Title: Project IVI: Intensifying Vocabulary Intervention for Kindergarten Students at
Risk of Learning Disabilities
Program Topic: Reading, Writing, and Language Development
Grant Award Number: R324L060026

83

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Loftus, S., Coyne, M.D., McCoach, D.B., Zipoli, R., Kapp, S., and Pullen, P. (2010). Effects ofa Supplemental Vocabulary Intervention on the Word Knowledge of Kindergarten
Students At-Risk for Language and Literacy Difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 25(3): 124-136.
Pullen, P.C., Tuckwiller, E.D., Maynard, K., Konold, T.R., and Coyne, M. (2010). A Response
to Intervention Model for Vocabulary Instruction: The Effects of Tiered Instruction forStudents at Risk for Reading Disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25,
110-122.
Maynard, K.L., Pullen, P.C., and Coyne, M. (2010). Teaching Vocabulary to First Grade
Students Through Repeated Shared Storybook Reading: A Comparison of Rich and Basic
Instruction to Incidental Exposure. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 209-242.
Principal Investigator: Thomas Farmer
Institution: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Project Title: National Research Center on Rural Education Support (NRCRES)
Program Topic: National Research and Development Centers
Grant Award Number: R305A004056
Amendum, S., Vernon-Feagans, L., and Ginsberg, M.C. (2011). The Effectiveness of aTechnologically Facilitated Classroom-Based Early Reading Intervention. Elementary
School Journal, 112(1), 107-131.
Vernon-Feagans, L., Gallagher, K.C., Ginsberg, M.C., Amendum, S.J., Kainz, K., Rose, J., andBurchinal, M. (2010). A Diagnostic Teaching Intervention for Classroom Teachers:
Helping Struggling Readers in Early Elementary School. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 25(4): 183-193.
Principal Investigator: David Francis
Institution: University of Houston
Project Title: Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension: Development and Validation
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G050201
August, D., Francis, D., Hsu, H-Y.A., and Snow, C. (2006). Assessing Reading Comprehension
in Bilinguals. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 221-238.
Francis, D., Snow, C., August, D., Carlson, C., Miller, J., and Iglesias, A. (2006). Measures of
Reading Comprehension: A Latent Variable Analysis of the Diagnostic Assessment of
Reading Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3): 301-322.
Uccelli, P., and Páez, M. (2007). Narrative and Vocabulary Development of Bilingual Children
from Kindergarten to First Grade: Developmental Changes and Associations Among
English and Spanish Skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38: 113.

84

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Principal Investigator: Douglas Fuchs
Institution: Vanderbilt University
Project Title: Scaling Up Peer Assisted Learning Strategies to Strengthen Reading Achievement
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G04104
McMaster, K.L., Kung, H., Han, I., and Cao, M. (2008). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: A
Tier 1 Approach to Promoting Responsiveness to Beginning Reading Instruction forEnglish Learners. Exceptional Children, 74(3): 194-214.
Saenz, L., McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. (2007). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in
Reading for Students with Different Learning Needs. Journal of Cognitive Education andPsychology, 6(3): 395-410.
Principal Investigator: Lynn Gelzheiser
Institution: State University of New York, Albany
Project Title: Extending the Interactive Strategies Approach to Older Struggling Readers
Program Topic: Reading, Writing, and Language Development
Grant Award Number: R324A070223
Gelzheiser, L.M., Scanlon, D., Vellutino, F., Hallgren-Flynn, L. & Schatschneider, C. (2011).
Effects of the Interactive Strategies Approach-Extended. The Elementary School Journal,
112(2), 280-306.
Principal Investigator: Arthur Glenberg
Institution: University of Wisconsin, Madison
Project Title: Training Indexing to Enhance Meaning Extraction in Young Readers
Program Topic: Cognition and Student Learning
Grant Award Number: R305H030266
Glenberg, A.M., Brown, M., and Levin, J.R. (2007). Enhancing Comprehension in Small
Reading Groups Using a Manipulation Strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
32, 389-399.
Glenberg, A.M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J.R., Japunitich, S., and Kaschak, M.P. (2004). Activity
and Imagined Activity can Enhance Young Children's Reading Comprehension. Journalof Educational Research, 96(3), 424-436.
Marley, S.C., and Levin, J.R. (2006). Pictorial Illustrations, Visual Imagery, and Motor Activity:
Their Instructional Implications for Native American Children with Learning Disabilities.
In R.J. Morris (Ed.), Disability Research and Policy: Current Perspectives (pp. 103-123).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marley, S.C., Levin, J.R., and Glenberg, A.M. (2007). Improving Native American Children's
Listening Comprehension Through Concrete Representations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 32: 537-550.

85

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Principal Investigator: Charles Greenwood
Institution: University of Kansas
Project Title: The Infancy Preschool Early Literacy Connection: Validation Studies of the Early
Communication (ECI) Indicator of Growth and Development
Program Topic: Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education
Grant Award Number: R324A070085
Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C., Walker, D., Carta, J., Terry, B. & Garrett, M. (2010). A WebBased Tool to Support Data-Based Early Intervention Decision Making. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 29(4), 201-213.
Principal Investigator: Michael Hock
Institution: University of Kansas
Project Title: Improving Adolescent Reading Comprehension: a Multi-Strategy Reading
Intervention
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G04011
Hock, M.F., Brasseur, I.F., Deshler, D.D., Catts, H.W., Marques, J., Mark, C.A., and Wu
Stribling, J. (2009). What is the Nature of Struggling Adolescent Readers in Urban HighSchools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1): 21-38.
Principal Investigator: David Houchins
Institution: Georgia State University
Project Title: Project LIBERATE (Literacy Instruction Based on Evidence through Research for
Adjudicated Teens to Excel)
Program Topic: Reading, Writing, and Language Development
Grant Award Number: R324A080006
Houchins, D., Jolivette, K., Shippen, M., and Lambert, R. (2010). Advancing High Quality
Literacy Research in Juvenile Justice: Methodological and Practical Considerations.
Behavior Disorders, 36(1), 61-69.
Principal Investigator: Laura JusticeInstitution: University of Virginia
Project Title: Evaluation of the Language-Focused Curriculum
Program Topic: Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research
Grant Award Number: R305J030084
Justice, L.M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K., and Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental Evaluation of aComprehensive Language-Rich Curriculum in At-Risk Preschools. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1-19.
Turnbull Pence, K., Beckman, A., Justice, L. M., and Bowles, R. (2009). Preschoolers’ Exposure
to Language Stimulation In Classrooms Serving At-Risk Children: The Contribution ofGroup Size and Activity Context. Early Education and Development, 20, 53-79.

86Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Principal Investigator: Laura JusticeInstitution: The Ohio State University
Project Title: Print Referencing Efficacy
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G050005 (original award number R305G050057)
Cabell, S., Justice, L.M., Konold, T., and McGinty, A. (2011). Profiles of Emergent Literacy
Skills Among Preschool Children who are at Risk for Academic Difficulties. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 1-14.
Principal Investigator: Susan Landry
Institution: University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Project Title: Scaling Up a Language and Literacy Development Program at the PreKindergarten Level
Program Topic: Unsolicited and Other Awards
Grant Award Number: R305W02002
Landry, S.H., Anthony, J.L., Swank, P.R., and Monseque-Bailey, P. (2009). Effectiveness ofComprehensive Professional Development for Teachers of At-Risk Preschoolers. Journalof Educational Psychology, 101(2), 448-465.
Principal Investigator: Amy Lederberg
Institution: Georgia State University
Project Title: Improving Deaf Preschoolers’ Literacy Skills
Program Topic: Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education
Grant Award Number: R324E060035
Easterbrooks, S.R., Lederberg, A.R., and Connor, C.M. (2010). Contributions of the Emergent
Literacy Environment to Literacy Outcomes in Young Children who are Deaf. American
Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 467-480.
Easterbrooks, S.R, Lederberg, A.R., Miller, E.M., Bergeron, J.P., and Connor, C.M. (2008).
Emergent Literacy Skills During Early Childhood in Children with Hearing Loss:
Strengths and Weaknesses. The Volta Review, 108, 91-114.
Bergeron, J.P., Lederberg, A.R., Easterbrooks, S.R., Miller, E.M., and Connor, C.M. (2009).
Building the Alphabetic Principle in Young Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
The Volta Review, 109, 87-119.
Principal Investigator: Christopher Lonigan
Institution: Florida State University
Project Title: A Randomized Trial of Preschool Instructional Strategies to Improve School
Performance and Reduce Use of Special Education
Program Topic: Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education
Grant Award Number: R324E060086

87Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Wilson, S.B. and Lonigan, C.J. (2010). Identifying Preschool Children at Risk of Later Reading
Difficulties: Evaluation of Two Emergent Literacy Screening Tools. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 43, 62-76.
Principal Investigator: Gayle Luze
Institution: Iowa State University
Project Title: The Infancy Preschool Early Literacy Connection: Validation Studies of the Early
Communication (ECI) Indicator of Growth and Development
Program Topic: Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education
Grant Award Number: R324A070248
Luze, G.J. and Hughes, K. (2008). Using Individual Growth and Development Indicators toAssess Child and Program Outcomes. Young Exceptional Children, 12, 31-41.
Principal Investigator: Patricia Mathes
Institution: Southern Methodist University
Project Title: Scaling-up Effective Intervention for Preventing Reading Difficulties in YoungChildren
Program Topic: Unsolicited and Other Awards
Grant Award Number: R305W03257
Denton, C.A., Mathes, P.G., Swanson, E., Nimon, K., and Kethley, C. (2010). Effectiveness of a
Supplemental Early Reading Intervention Scaled up in Multiple Schools. Exceptional
Children, 76(4): 394-416.
Principal Investigator: Lindsay Clare Matsumura
Institution: University of Pittsburgh
Project Title: Content-Focused Coaching (SM) for High Quality Reading Instruction
Program Topic: Teacher Quality: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305M060027
Matsumura, L.C., Garnier, H., and Resnick, L.B. (2010). Implementing Literacy Coaching: The
Role of School Social Resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2),249-272.
Matsumura, L.C., Garnier, H.E., Correnti, R., Junker, B., and Bickel, D.D. (2010). Investigating
the Effectiveness of a Comprehensive Literacy-Coaching Program in Schools with highTeacher Mobility. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 35-62.
Matsumura, L.C., Sartoris, M., Bickel, D.D., and Garnier, H.E. (2009). Leadership for Literacy
Coaching: The Principal's Role in Launching a New Coaching Program. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655–693.
Principal Investigator: Gil NoamInstitution: McLean Hospital
Project Title: The New 3R's – Reading, Resilience, and Relationships in After-School Programs
Program Topic: Unsolicited and Other Awards
Grant Award Number: R305W030036
88Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Pierce, M.E., Katzir, T., Wolf, M., and Noam, G.G. (2007). Clusters of Second and Third Grade
Dysfluent Urban Readers. Reading and Writing, 20(9), 885-907.
Principal Investigator: Rollanda O’Connor
Institution: University of California, Riverside
Project Title: Variations in Procedures to Improve Reading Fluency and Comprehension
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G050122
O’Connor, R.E., White, A., and Swanson, H.L. (2007). Repeated Reading Versus Continuous
Reading: Influences on Reading Fluency and Comprehension. Exceptional Children,74(1), 31-46.
O’Connor, R.E., Swanson, H.L., and Geraghty, C. (2010). Improvement in Reading Rate Under
Independent and Difficult Text Levels: Influences on Word and Comprehension Skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 1-19.
Swanson, H.L., and O’Connor, R.E. (2009). The Role of Working Memory and Fluency
Training on Reading Comprehension in Children who are Dysfluent Readers. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42, 548-575.
Principal Investigator: Robert Pasnak
Institution: George Mason University
Project Title: An Economical Improvement in Literacy and Numeracy
Program Topic: Cognition and Student Learning
Grant Award Number: R305B070542
Pasnak, R., Kidd, J.K., Gadzichowski, M.K., Gallington, D.A., Saracina, R.P., and Addison, K.
(2008). Can Emphasizing Cognitive Development Improve Academic Achievement?
Education Research, 50(3), 261-276.
Pasnak, R., Kidd, J., Gadzichowski, M., Gallington, D., Saracina, R., and Addison, K. (2009).
Promoting Early Abstraction to Promote Early Literacy And Numeracy. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 239-249.
Pasnak, R., Maccubbin, E., and Ferral-Like, M. (2007). Using Developmental Principles toAssist at-Risk Preschoolers in Developing Numeracy and Phonemic Awareness.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 163-176.
Pasnak, R., Kidd, J., Gadzichowski, M., Ferral-Like, M., Gallington, D., and Saracina, R. (2007).
Nurturing Developmental Processes. Journal of Developmental Processes, 2, 90-115.
Principal Investigator: Douglas Powell
Institution: Purdue University
Project Title: Professional Development in Early Reading (Classroom Links to Early Literacy)
Program Topic: Teacher Quality: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305M040167

89

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Powell, D.R. and Diamond, K.E. (2011). Improving the Outcomes of Coaching-Based
Professional Development Interventions. In D. K. Dickinson and S. B. Neuman (Eds.),
Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol. 3: pp 295-307). New York, NY: Guilford.
Gerde, H.K., and Powell, D.R. (2009). Teacher Education, Book-Reading Practices, andChildren’s Language Growth Across one Year of Head Start. Early Education andDevelopment, 20 (2), 211–237.
Powell, D.R., Diamond, K.E., and Koehler, M.J. (2010). Use of a Case-Based Hypermedia
Resource in an Early Literacy Coaching Intervention with Pre-Kindergarten Teachers.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(4), 239–249.
Powell, D., Diamond, K.E., and Burchinal, M. (2010). Effects of Early Literacy Professional
Development Intervention on Head Start Teachers and Children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(2), 299-312.
Principal Investigator: Jesse Rothstein
Institution: National Bureau of Educational Research
Project Title: Value-Added Models and the Measurement of Teacher Quality: Tracking or
Causal Effects?
Program Topic: Teacher Quality: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305A080560
Rothstein, J. (2008). Teacher Quality in Educational Production: Tracking, Decay, and Student
Achievement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 14442.
Principal Investigator: Rose Sevcik
Institution: Georgia State University
Project Title: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Reading Interventions for Students with Mild MR
Program Topic: Unsolicited and Other Awards: Special Education Research
Grant Award Number: H324K040007
Wise, J.C., Sevcik, R.A., Romski, M., and Morris, R.D. (2010). The Relationship Between
Phonological Processing Skills and Word and Nonword Identification Performance inChildren with Mild Intellectual Disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
3(6), 1170–1175.
Principal Investigator: Deborah Simmons
Institution: University of Texas at Austin
Project Title: Project Early Reading Intervention
Program Topic: Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education
Grant Award Number: R324E060067
Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O., Simmons, L. E., Johnson, C., Zou,
Y., Taylor, A. B., Lentini, A., Ruby, M. F., and Crevecoeur, Y. (2011). Effects ofSupplemental Reading Interventions in Authentic Contexts: A Comparison ofKindergarteners’ Response. Exceptional Children, 77, 207-228.

90

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O., Zou, Y., Johnson, C., Simmons, D., and Coyne, M. D. (2010). An
Examination of Problem Behaviors and Reading Outcomes in Kindergarten Students. The
Journal of Special Education, 20, 1-18.
Principal Investigator: Patricia Snyder
Institution: University of Florida
Project Title: Impact of Professional Development on Preschool Teachers’ Use of EmbeddedInstruction Practices
Program Topic: Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education
Grant Award Number: R324A070008
Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P. A., Kinder, K., and Artman, K. (2011). Impact of Performance
Feedback Delivered via Electronic Mail on Preschool Teachers’ use of Descriptive
Praise. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 96-109.
Snyder, P.A., Denny, M. K., Pasia, C., Rakap, S., and Crowe, C. (2011). Professional
Development in Early Childhood Intervention. In C. Groark and L. Kaczmarek (Eds.),
Early Childhood Intervention Program Policies for Special Needs Children, Vol. 3:
Emerging Issues. (pp. 169-204) Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Snyder, P.A., McLaughlin, T., and Denney, M.K. (2011). Program Focus in Early Intervention.
In J.M. Kauffman, D.P. Hallahan, and M. Conroy (Eds.), Handbook of Special
Education, Section XII: Early Identification and Intervention in Exceptionality. (pp. 716730) New York: Routledge.
Principal Investigator: Aubryn Stahmer
Institution: Rady Children's Hospital Health Center
Project Title: Translating Pivotal Response Training Into Classroom Environments
Program Topic: Autism Spectrum Disorders
Grant Award Number: R324B070027
Stahmer, A.C., Suhrheinrich, J., Reed, S., Bolduc, C., and Schreibman, L. (2010). Pivotal
Response Teaching in the Classroom Setting. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 54(4), 265-274.
Schriebman, L., Suhrheinrich, J., Stahmer, A., and Reed, S. (2012). Translating Evidence-Based
Practice from the Laboratory to the Classroom: Classroom Pivotal Response Teaching. In
P. Mundy and A. Mastergeorge (Eds.), Educational Interventions for Students with
Autism (pp. 107-130) Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Principal Investigator: H. Lee Swanson
Institution: University of California, Riverside
Project Title: Age-Related Changes in Word Problem Solving and Working Memory
Program Topic: Cognition and Student Learning
Grant Award Number: R305H020055
Swanson, H.L., Howard, C.B., and Saez, L. (2006). Do Different Components of Working
Memory Underlie Different Subgroups of Reading Disabilities? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39(3), 252-269.
91

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Swanson, H.L., Kehler, P., and Jerman, O. (2010). Working Memory, Strategy Knowledge, andStrategy Instruction in Children with Reading Disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 43(1), 24-47.
Swanson, H.L., Zheng, X., and Jerman, O. (2009). Working Memory, Short-Term Memory, andReading Disabilities: A Selective Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 42(3), 260-287.
Principal Investigator: Martha Thurlow
Institution: University of Minnesota
Project Title: Research on Accessible Reading Assessments
Program Topic: Unsolicited and Other Awards: Special Education Research
Grant Award Number: H324F040002
Abedi, J., Kao, J.C., Leon, S., Mastergeorge, A.M., Sullivan, L., Herman, J., and Pope, R.
(2010). Accessibility of Segmented Comprehension Passages for Students with
Disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education. Special Issue: Testing Students with
Disabilities, 23(2), 168-186.
Thurlow, M.L., Laitusis, C.C., Dillon, D.R., Cook, L.L., Moen, R.E., Abedi, J., and O’Brien,
D.G. (2009). Accessibility Principles for Reading Assessments. Minneapolis, MN:
National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects
Thurlow, M.L. (2010) Steps Toward Creating Fully Accessible Reading Assessments. Applied
Measurement in Education, 23(2), 121-131.
Dillon, D.R., O'Brien, D. G., Kato, K., Scharber, C., Kelly, C., Beaton, A., and Biggs, B. (2009).
The Design and Validation of a Motivating Large-Scale Accessible Reading
Comprehension Assessment for Students with Disabilities. Fifty-Eighth Yearbook of The
National Reading Conference (pp. 277-293). Milwaukee, WI: The National Reading
Conference.
Moen, R., Liu, K., Thurlow, M., Lekwa, A., Scullin, S., and Hausmann, K., (2009). Identifying
Less Accurately Measured Students. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(2).
Kato, K., Moen, R., and Thurlow, M., (2009). Differentials of a State Reading Assessment: Item
Functioning, Distractor Functioning, And Omission Frequency For Disability Categories.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(2), 28-40.
Principal Investigator: Patricia Vadasy
Institution: Washington Reading InstituteProject Title: Quick Reads Supplementary Tutoring Efficacy and Replication Trials
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G040103
Vadasy, P.F., and Sanders, E.A. (2008a). Benefits of Repeated Reading Intervention for LowAchieving Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Students. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 235249.
Vadasy, P.F., and Sanders, E.A. (2008b). Repeated Reading Intervention: Outcomes andInteractions with Readers' Skills and Classroom Instruction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 272-290.

92

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Vadasy, P.F., and Sanders, E.A. (2009). Supplemental Fluency Intervention and Determinants ofReading Outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(5): 383–425.
Principal Investigator: Patricia Vadasy
Institution: Washington Reading InstituteProject Title: Efficacy of Sound Partners Supplemental Tutoring for ELL Students, Grades K-1
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305A070324
Vadasy, P.F., and Sanders, E.A. (2010). Efficacy of Supplemental Phonics Instruction for LowSkilled Kindergarteners in the Context of Language-Minority Status and Classroom
Phonics Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 786–803.
Principal Investigator: Sharon Vaughn
Institution: University of Texas, Austin
Project Title: Project Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR): Interventions for Struggling
Adolescent and Adult Readers and Writers
Program Topic: Interventions for Struggling Adolescent and Adult Readers and Writers
Grant Award Number: R305A080608
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J.K., Boardman, A.G., Swanson, E.A., Roberts, G., Mohammed, S.S., andStillman, S.J. (2011). Efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading with Middle SchoolStudents. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 938-964.
Principal Investigator: Paul van den Broek
Institution: University of Minnesota
Project Title: Improving Comprehension of Struggling Readers: Connecting Cognitive Scienceand Educational Practice
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G04021
van den Broek, P., White, M.J., Kendeou, P., and Carlson, S. (2009). Reading Between theLines: Developmental and Individual Differences in Cognitive Processes in Reading
Comprehension. In R. Wagner (Ed.), Biological and Behavioral Bases of Reading
Comprehension (pp. 107-123). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., and White, M.J. (2008). Cognitive Processes During Reading:
Implications for the use of Multimedia to Foster Reading Comprehension. In A.G. Bus
and S.B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and Literacy Development: Improving Achievementfor Young Learners (pp. 57-74). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rapp, D.N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K.L., Kendeou, P., and Espin, C.A. (2007). Higherorder Comprehension Processes in Struggling Readers: A Perspective for Research andIntervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11,289-312.
Rapp, D.R., and van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic Text Comprehension: An Integrative View
of Reading. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 14(5), 276-279.

93Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., and Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but
Complex: Components of the Simple View of Reading Across Grade Levels. Journal of
Research in Reading, 32(4), 383-401.
Principal Investigator: Richard Wagner
Institution: Florida State University
Project Title: Origins of Individual and Developmental Differences in Reading Comprehension
Program Topic: Reading and Writing
Grant Award Number: R305G03104
Tannenbaum, K.R., Torgesen, J.K., and Wagner, R.K. (2006). Relationships Between Word
Knowledge and Reading Comprehension in Third-Grade Children. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 10(4), 381-398.

94