University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reading prereferral intervention: developing, implementing and monitoring

(USC Thesis Other)

Reading prereferral intervention: developing, implementing and monitoring

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content READING PREREFERRAL INTERVENTION:
DEVELOPING, IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING
by

Felicia Marguerite Curry
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2007
Copyright 2007 Felicia Marguerite Curry
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my loving and supportive family. To my
brother for teaching me to chase adventure and attempt the unimaginable, to my
mother and father for instilling in me, the importance of an education and an
unwavering trust in God. And to Darren, my husband-to-be for supporting and
encouraging me through it all.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I was once told, “Faith isn’t faith, until it’s tested.” Now, I can truthfully say
my faith has been tested. I never would have thought completing a doctoral program
while concurrently planning my wedding would have brought me closer and given
me a new understanding of my relationship with Jesus Christ. I knew it before, but
now more than ever, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Philippians 4:13”
In addition to my wonderful family, I would like to express my sincere
gratitude to the many people whom have helped me with this incredible process. I
want to thank Dr. Gisele Ragusa for her support and guidance as my committee
chairperson. Additionally, I want to thank Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores and Dr.
Hocevar for their encouragement and assistance as committee members. I would
also like to thank the many friends and colleagues I met along the way Frank, Jackie
and Veronica to name a few. Finally, I thank my study site; I appreciate the teachers
and professional staff who offered their time and opinions as I completed the
dissertation process.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 49

Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Significance of Study 4
Research Questions 6
Limitations of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 8
The Learning Disability 12
The Discrepancy Model 13
Referral Process 16
Prevention of Reading Difficulties 20
Prereferral Intervention Models 23
Multidisciplinary Roles in Prereferral Intervention 27
Types of Reading Intervention 31
Teacher Preparation and Acceptability of Prereferral Intervention 43
Conclusion 47
Purpose of the Study 49
Research Questions 50
Population and Sample 51
School Selected 52
Participants 53
Data Collection Instruments and Procedure 54
Study Design 54
Data Sets 54
Analysis of Data 57
Conclusion 59
v
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH FINDINGS 60
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS
93

REFERENCES 103
APPENDICES 115

Appendix A Classroom Observation Checklist 115
Appendix B Observation Codes, Explanations and References 116
Appendix C Questionnaire #1 Principal 117
Appendix D Questionnaire #2 Psychologist 119
Appendix E Questionnaire #2 General Education Teacher 122
Appendix F Questionnaire #3 RSP Teacher 124
Appendix G Questionnaire #4 SST Coordinators 127

Data Collection 60
Skill Sets and Means of Preparation of Effective Prereferral
Intervention Teams
61
Reading Prereferral Intervention Team Roles and Responsibilities 66
Teacher Reports of Prereferral Intervention Use Validated 75
Analysis of Intervening Actions 80
Intervention Follow-Up 87
The Critical Elements of Effective Prereferral Intervention
for Struggling Readers
88
Reading Prereferral Intervention Development 88
Reading Prereferral Intervention Implementation 89
Reading Prereferral Intervention Monitoring 90
Review of the Problem 93
Purpose of the Study 94
Synthesis of Key Findings 94
Implications for Practitioners 98
Implications for Families of Struggling Readers 100
Generalizability of the Study 101
Recommendation for Future Research 101
Conclusions 102
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Intervention Team Models 25
Table 2 Data from Prereferral Intervention Team Meetings 55
Table 3 List of Observation Codes 58
Table 4 Team Member Roles as Compared to Means of
Preparation
74
Table 5a PIT Team Meeting Records 77
Table 5b PIT Team Meeting Records 77
Table 5c PIT Team Meeting Records 78
Table 6 Ease of Implementation Rating Scale 78
Table 7 Reading Prereferral Intervention S.C.O.R.E. Sheet 92

vii
ABSTRACT
Successfully teaching all children to read continues to be one of the
most challenging issues in classrooms across the nation. Students are being
identified with reading deficiencies in their primary years and these deficits
persist through adulthood. Teachers are being challenged to address student
reading difficulty in the classroom setting with limited skill and resources.
Research has identified a rising trend in prevention and prereferral reading
intervention. Schools have begun to develop multidisciplinary teams known
as prereferral intervention teams (PIT) to work together to assist in
developing effective reading intervention for struggling readers.
This qualitative study identified the critical elements of reading
prereferral intervention by exploring the development, implementation and
monitoring stages of the process. The data for this study was collected
through classroom observations, questionnaires with follow-up interviews
and a review of existing PIT team records. The results of this study identified
three recurring themes in the reading prereferral process, (1) the importance
of planning and organization (2) the importance of predefined PIT team roles
and responsibilities and (3) the importance of support and resources.
viii
The study concluded that reading prereferral intervention aims to
identify and support those students that are struggling in the area of reading
early and effectively. With the support of a team, intervention can be
developed, implemented and monitored effectively in the classroom setting.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Having the ability to read is essential for classroom achievement and
subsequently success in today’s society. Schools are ultimately responsible for
teaching and developing the literacy skills that students require to function
effectively in the 21st century. Hall, Hughes and Filbert (2000) surmise the
fundamental elements of reading are not being effectively taught or learned by all.
In fact, devastating numbers of students are being identified as deficient in reading.
Students demonstrating difficulty are most likely identified by special education in
the second or third grade, when considerable achievement problems emerge. Studies
show that 74 percent of students identified with reading difficulties in the third
grade, remain significantly impaired well into their high school career. Furthermore,
the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported in 2001 that at least 37
percent of America’s population reads below the basic level. A large majority of
children identified with learning disabilities are labeled as such due to poor reading
skills (Serafica & Learner, 1989). Reading is the basis of all school curriculums, if
students are unable to read successfully they will encounter difficulty across all
subject areas.
The issue of improving reading skills has become urgent as society continues
to demand higher levels of literacy within the workplace. Research suggests low
proficiency in reading links to school dropouts, poverty and underemployment
2
(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Twenty-three million adults are considered
functionally literate, possessing basic reading skills at a fourth grade level. Another
35 million adults are described as semi-literate with reading skills below the eighth
grade level. Collectively these adults make up 75 percent of the unemployed
(Dechant, 1991).
In order to meet societal demands, educators must possess the necessary
resources to implement early identification and preventive instruction. Currently,
students are not being identified early and preventative measures are not being taken.
It is not until students fall far enough behind their peers that they are typically
identified as “low performing” or “at risk,” and referred to begin the process toward
special education. This delay in intervention is frequently referred to as the “wait to
fail” phenomenon (Lau et al.,2006). Research suggests it is incredibly difficult to
implement effective reading intervention at this late stage (Donovan & Cross 2002).
There are great disadvantages to delaying intervention for children until mid-
elementary school. According to Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander (2001) when
children are delayed in reading skills they receive less reading practice and
instruction than their non-disabled peers. Researchers have used the “Matthew
Effect” to describe the outcomes of reading practice.
3
The “Matthew Effect” is generally summarized as “the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer.” Research suggests that students who read well read often and
students who do not read well read less frequently. Once children are delayed, it is
then extremely difficult for them to catch up in reading achievement
To address the concerns of struggling reader’s research encourages the use of
evidence-based instruction for all students. That is, using specific instructional
practices that have been proven effective in improving reading outcomes. Even with
the growing knowledge of effective instruction, teachers fail to use curricula and
instructional strategies that are based on empirical research (Bahr & Kovaleski,
2006). Research suggests that even though teachers have access to strong curriculum
and instructional practices, children may not necessarily be receiving evidence-based
instruction. Teachers may prefer to use instructional approaches that they are
familiar with or they may decide to eliminate necessary segments of the curriculum.
Research affirms that in spite of the quality of a curriculum or instructional strategy,
it is the teacher and learning environment that foster and facilitate student success
(Bond & Dykstra, 1997).
With the mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the changes of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) school districts
have been encouraged to use evidence-based instruction and focus has shifted to
prevention and prereferral intervention. Gresham (2002) suggests that many students
have preventable academic difficulty and consequently been incorrectly labeled as
4
learning disabled. However, Gresham believes when identified reading difficulty is
left untreated student difficulties can become severe enough that special education
assessment is in fact warranted. Researchers have begun to study how students
identified as “at-risk” respond to intensive instruction specifically in the area of
reading acquisition. School districts and states have developed teams of
professionals in which develop intervention to assist children early and prior to
special education consideration. These teams go by various names such as problem
solving teams, child study teams and prereferral intervention teams. There are
variations in each team’s model, but typically, teams work to intervene with
struggling readers by developing effective prereferral intervention for use in the
general education setting.
Significance of Study
According to Snow, Burns, & Griffin (1998,) many of the reading problems
identified in children can be prevented. Given the growing evidence supporting
positive outcomes when struggling readers are identified early, it is essential to
identify successful strategies toward prereferral intervention. The purpose of this
study is to identify those essential elements of effective reading prereferral
intervention and subsequently examine how these interventions effect special
education referral and eligibility. The study will first investigate the specific roles
that each professional plays as a part of the prereferral intervention team as
interventions are developed for use in a general education classroom. At present, the
5
roles of each multidisciplinary team member have not been accurately identified.
Secondly, the level of skill and education behind the team decisions in prereferral
intervention will be explored. Finally, research has identified gaps between the
needs of students and the actual classroom practices of teachers (Bahr & Kovaleski,
2006). Literature has recorded teacher perceptions regarding the use of prereferral
intervention, but has yet to validate these perceptions through actual observation.
This study will contribute to the current literature regarding prereferral
intervention by evaluating current practices surrounding reading prereferral
intervention formulation, implementation and monitoring of low performing
students. Research suggests effective prereferral intervention aids in reducing the
unnecessary assessment of low performing students. Additionally, identifying the
essential elements in reading prereferral intervention may assist schools in
developing efficient multidisciplinary collaboration to intervene with low performing
students in a timely and appropriate manner. Ultimately, this study will identify
effective strategies in formulating intervention, in implementing intervention and in
identifying effective strategies to monitor intervention integrity.
6
Research Questions
This study will attempt to contribute to current literature by exploring
specific components surrounding the use of reading prereferral interventions in the
general education setting. The study attempts to answer the main question:
What are the critical elements of effective prereferral intervention for
struggling readers?
There are three additional questions that guide the study:
1. What skills do effective reading prereferral intervention teams possess
and by what means were, they acquired; which allow them to develop and
implement effective reading prereferral intervention?
2. What role do teachers, psychologist and other special educators play in
the development of reading prereferral intervention?
3. Can teacher perceptions of the use of prereferral intervention be
validated?
Limitations of the Study
Three main limitations are identified. First, this study will be conducted
using a limited sample size. In order to generalize the findings of this study to other
districts and populations, it must be replicated on a larger scale. Second, the time
and frequency in which teachers are observed will be limited.
7
Replication of the study using a longer period of observation will most likely
yield results that can be better generalized. Finally, teacher variations in intervention
implementation due to educational background, external support and or feedback
may contribute to study limitations.
8
Definition of Terms
At Risk
The literature identifies some children as “at risk” or “low performing.” This
refers to a child who may be at risk for academic failure or is identified as
difficult to teach (Burns & Symington 2002; Truscott et al., 2005).
Curriculum based measurement (CBM)
Curriculum based measurement (CBM) is a standardized process for
gathering student data in basic skill areas such as reading and math. CBM
has a focus of prevention and subsequently aides in teacher instructional
planning and helps to identify students at risk academically (Shinn, Shinn,
Hamilton & Clarke 2002; Deno, 2003).
Evidence Based Instruction
Evidence-based reading instruction refers to a particular program or
instructional techniques that have had a record of success. That is, there is
reliable and valid evidence to suggest that when the program is used with a
particular group of children, the children can be expected to make sufficient
gains in reading achievement. The terms research-based instruction and
scientifically based research are also used to covey the same idea.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) is a
reauthorization of IDEA 1997. IDEIA was developed to strengthen academic
9
expectations and accountability for approximately 6 million children with
disabilities and to bridge the gap that exists between what children with
disabilities learn and what is taught in the general education classroom.
Learning Disability
The regulations for Public Law (P.L.) 101-476, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), formerly P.L. 94-142, the Education of
the Handicapped Act (EHA), define a learning disability as a "disorder in one
or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in
using spoken or written language, which may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical
calculations."
No Child Left Behind (2002)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was signed into law January 8, 2002. It is the
latest revision of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
NCLB is the U.S. governments attempt to hold schools and school districts
accountable for student academic success or failure (Santrock, 2006).
10
Prereferral Intervention
Prereferral interventions purpose is to maintain students in the least
restrictive environment (LRE) while fostering and facilitating an increase in
academic achievement. This is done by providing assistance to teachers in
the areas of instruction and formative evaluation for students with different
learning needs.
Prereferral Intervention Team (PIT)
Prereferral intervention team (PIT) models have been developed in attempts
to serve children that are low performing though not identified as disabled.
Prereferral intervention is generally developed through multidisciplinary
interactions in which a team of school professionals, gather in attempts to
formulate in-class interventions for struggling students. The team meets to
consult with the general education teacher who subsequently intervenes with
the student. Prereferral Intervention Team’s are also identified in the
literature by several other names such as Child Study Teams and Problems
Solving Teams.
Response to Intervention (RTI)
The RTI model is a technique using high-quality instruction and continuous
monitoring of student progress used for prevention of reading problems and
as a component for LD determination (Fuchs et al., 2003, Mellard et al.,
2004).
11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Accurately identifying a reading disability has been one of the most daunting
and clearly defined challenges shared by both researchers and practitioners alike.
Approximately 80 percent of the children identified with learning disabilities have
been categorized as such due to poor reading skills (Serafica & Learner, 1989). The
overwhelming numbers of poor readers has prompted a shift from special education
identification to prevention and early intervention. A traditional procedure utilized
in assisting struggling readers has been special education referral. However, schools
consistently follow “wait to fail” models, consequently children that show early
signs of reading problems are not given assistance until large inconsistencies are
identified, namely significant gaps between IQ and achievement as well as falling far
behind peers. Research suggest that by the time these discrepancies emerge children
have had years of academic failure and intervention may have come too late (Lau et
al., 2006). There has been mounting interest in prereferral intervention and the use
of preventative measures in the general education setting. Some suggest prereferral
intervention could conceivably eliminate the need for special education consideration
altogether.
12
The following review of literature attempts to consider issues and trends that
specifically support the research questions identified in the introduction, which surround
the use of prereferral intervention to aide in authentic identification of students with
reading disabilities. The first section of this chapter will provide a brief overview of the
current methods employed in identifying learning disabilities; this will be followed by an
investigation into the referral process of students identified as low performing. Reading
difficulty will then be explored with an emphasis in prevention. Next, the theory of
prereferral intervention will be discussed including intervention models, the team of
professionals formulating prereferral intervention and intervention types. Finally, gaps
identified through out the review of literature will be considered.
The Learning Disability
Students identified with reading disabilities are most commonly placed into
the over arching category of learning disabled (LD) with specific difficulty in
reading. According to, Kavale and Forness (2000), chief concerns in LD
identification center around its vague definition. Yet others believe problems are due
to the methods and techniques used in identifying the disability (Stage et al., 2003).
Scruggs and Mastropieri (2002) suggest further concerns regarding methods in
identifying LD. They argue that existing methods, result in an over identification of
students labeled LD, inconsistent identification of students across states and under
identification of struggling students due to “wait to fail” models.
13
Research provides increasing evidence that more students have been labeled
learning disabled (LD) than any other type of special education disability.
Approximately, 2.72 million students between the first and twelfth grade have been
identified as LD. This number is slightly more than 50 percent of all special
education students (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Fuchs, Deshler & Reschly, 2004).
With numbers, growing in the LD category, researchers contemplate reasons for this
phenomenon. Studies have shown that gross misinterpretation and manipulation
through varying criteria of the LD definition may account for growing numbers of
students identified as learning disabled (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Additionally,
research has discovered a vast overrepresentation of students of color in special
education (Dunn, 1968). Donovan and Cross (2002) believe the issue is not the
amount of minority students over identified, but more important, how they were
referred and ultimately placed into special education.
The Discrepancy Model
Fuchs, Fuchs and Speece (2002) describe LD as a “soft” disability, meaning
it has no distinguishing attributes, making LD identification a subjective process.
The discrepancy model has become one such “subjective process.” Despite
significant debate, it is the method overwhelmingly employed to identify students as
LD (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Applying this method, a specific learning disability is
recognized when a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement
14
in one of seven areas of academics (oral expression, listening comprehension, written
expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation and
mathematics reasoning) is identified (Vaughn and Fuchs, 2003; Reschly & Hosp
2004). Researchers suggest LD is the “unexpected underachievement” of students.
Hypothetically, these are students who should be able to learn yet do not achieve
levels predicted on intelligence tests (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Fuchs, Fuchs &
Speece, 2002; Fuchs, Deshler & Reschly, 2004; Fletcher, Denton & Francis, 2005).
In recent times, the discrepancy model has been harshly criticized (Stuebing
et al. 2002; Stage et al., 2003). One concern in the use of the discrepancy model in
identifying LD is the characteristics seen in those students who demonstrate a
discrepancy versus those students who do not. Research has shown that poor readers
with high IQ’s (i.e. LD eligible) and poor readers with IQ’s equivalent to their
presumed ability (i.e. LD ineligible) demonstrate similar deficits in reading and
furthermore respond similarly to reading interventions. (Snow, Burns & Griffin,
1998; Stuebing et al., 2002). Additionally, the term “discrepancy” has not been
clearly defined, yet it continues to be the principal standard in LD identification
(Kavale, Holdnack & Mostert, 2005).
Reschly and Hosp (2004) identified several more issues that concern
practitioners in the use of the discrepancy model:
Critical issues related to the use of the discrepancy method and criteria
include (a) consistency of decisions across different pairs of tests (b) stability
15
of decisions over short time periods, (c) validity of decisions that allocate
resources differently for IQ discrepant and IQ-nondiscrepant poor readers, (d)
delay of intense treatment for 2-4 years after patterns of poor achievement
first emerge.
The issue of delaying treatment appears in the research frequently. Some
researchers refer to this delay as the “wait to fail” effect (Lau et al., 2006; Reschly,
2005). When a discrepancy is not apparent, practitioners wait to intervene until
students get to the second or third grade, when considerable achievement problems
emerge. Researchers postulate that delaying intervention in students that
demonstrate difficulty intensifies achievement gaps between students with and
without disabilities and furthermore these students remain significantly impaired
well into their high school careers (Wallingford & Prout, 2000).
In sum, researchers are actively considering the problems related to
identifying and consequently labeling students as learning disabled. The act of
recognizing these students as disabled using such lax criteria is ultimately concerning
to many. Research shows that differences in students that qualify as learning
disabled and those that do not are negligible. It is consequently inequitable to
withhold educational assistance from specific groups of students because they do not
meet the necessary subjective criteria. The following is an investigation into the
process used in identifying low performing students, primarily the reasons
surrounding initial special education referrals will be discussed.
16
Referral Process
Referral for special education assessment has been identified as one of the
most important indicators of future special education eligibility (Artiles & Trent,
1994). A large majority of referrals to special education come from general
education teachers. Commonly, these initial referrals for special education occur at
some point in the first four years of elementary school. Some have suggested that
teachers have a great ability in identifying those students that are in need of
additional academic assistance. However, overrepresentation and disproportionate
numbers plague the special education system. These concerns have prompted
researchers to investigate the referral process looking specifically at issues of cultural
differences, teacher beliefs and the impact of high stakes testing.
Cultural Differences
The most prevalent research done in the area of disproportionate
representation in special education comes in the area of race and ethnicity. The issue
of overrepresentation of certain minority groups has been debated over 40 years.
Beginning with the work of Lloyd Dunn in 1968, he noted high numbers of minority
students as well as students coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in
classes for mild mental retardation (MMR). Specifically, 60 to 80 percent of the
students in these classes were identified as coming from minority ethnic groups,
nonstandard English speaking groups and non-middle class environments.
17
A growing number of studies documenting disproportionate numbers of
minority students have alluded to inappropriate referral practices. In the following
study, teacher perceptions regarding minority students are captured providing insight
into the overrepresentation of these students. Neal, McCray, Webb-Johnson &
Bridgest (2003) examined teachers' perceptions of African American males'
aggression and achievement and the need for special education services based on
African American students' cultural movement styles (i.e., walking). The
participants, 136 middle school teachers, viewed a videotape and completed a
questionnaire which allowed teachers to express their immediate perceptions of what
they viewed. The study attempted to investigate the interaction effects between
student ethnicity and student movement and teachers' ratings of student achievement,
aggression, and need for special education, a completely randomized factorial
analysis of variance was employed. The results indicated that the teachers perceived
students with African American culture-related movement styles as lower in
achievement, higher in aggression, and more likely to need special education
services than students with standard movement styles. Additionally, Hosp &
Reschly (2003) believe students who come from a culture other than the teacher’s
have a higher likelihood of being identified as having behavior problems.
Consequently, these students are at a higher risk for being placed into special
education.
18
Teacher Beliefs
There is a large body of work examining the effects of teacher beliefs and
expectations on student achievement. These beliefs are directly related to the
decisions teachers make regarding special education referral. Podell and Soodak
(1993) investigated teacher special education referral tendencies. Each teacher was
given one of six case studies, in which students varied in socioeconomic status and
academic difficulty. Teachers were asked to make a placement decision. Results
indicated that teachers with a higher sense of their effectiveness or self-efficacy in
the classroom were less likely to refer students with learning problems. In addition,
they were less influenced by bias when making overall decisions about referral to
special education. Those teachers with a lower sense of self-efficacy in teaching
primarily used the student’s socio-economic status as a determining factor in special
education referral. Gredler (1980) and Crosser (1991) also identified that
characteristics such as teacher expectations and student attributes (e.g., SES, race,
and gender) play a considerable role in teachers’ special education referral decisions.
In addition, Drame, 2002 found that several sociocultural variables affect the
decisions teacher’s make when deciding whether to refer students to special
education.
19
Drame analyzed data from 63 first through fifth grade general education
teachers from three Midwestern public school districts to establish the impact of
sociocultural variables on teachers’ beliefs of classroom behavior, management and
referral tendencies. The study revealed that special education referrals were most
influenced by negative nonacademic behaviors.
High Stakes Testing
In addition to cultural and teacher-contrived biases in special education
referral, issues have risen regarding high stakes testing. These concerns have
prompted investigation into referrals presumably based on low performance on
district and government testing. Tests are considered “high stakes” when the results
prompt consequences for students, teachers or administrators; eventually reaching
top district levels (Corbett & Wilson, 1991). Depending on the state, students
receiving special education services may be given an alternative assessment,
accommodations, modifications or they may be exempt from taking these tests
altogether.
Fielding (2004) attempted to examine issues surrounding high stakes testing
and discovered high numbers of educational diagnosticians experiencing pressure
from administrators and teachers to qualify students for special education services.
A total of 866 surveys were collected from educational diagnosticians working in
Texas during the 2001-02 school year. Slightly more than 50 percent of the surveys
revealed educational diagnosticians believed initial special education referrals were
20
driven primarily by low performance on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills
(TAAS). In addition, results revealed over 86 percent of the educational
diagnosticians surveyed, reported a consistent feeling of some form of pressure from
administrators to recommend students who performed poorly on the TAAS, to
receive special education. A similar study conducted by Allington and McGill-
Franzen (1997), interviewed school administrators who reported that high stakes
testing has an obvious influence on the growing numbers of students diagnosed with
learning disabilities.
In conclusion, a teacher acts as a “screening device” according to
VanderHeyden and Witt (2005) they believe many teacher referrals and eventually
team-based decisions are largely due to “inaccurate perception.” Training general
education teacher’s strategies of accurate detection of at risk populations is crucial if
referrals are to be reduced. Wehmeyer and Swartz, 2001 believe teachers should be
provided opportunities to learn more about equitable education through in-service
training. Moreover, the focus on referring students to special education should be
redirected to enhancing the quality of classroom instruction (Muyskens & Ysseldyke,
1998).
Prevention of Reading Difficulties
Recently researchers have made great efforts to assemble valuable
information regarding the prevention of reading disabilities in hopes to increase
reading achievement in all students. It has been reported that although having
21
average cognitive ability and sufficient educational and socioeconomic opportunity
an estimated 10 percent of elementary school students fail to read at competent levels
(Shaywitz, 1998; Goulandris et al., 2000). Though years of attention have been put
toward reading, teachers still struggle in their attempts to teach all children to read
(Torgesen, 2002). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2001)
37 percent of fourth grade students are so delayed in reading skills they cannot
successfully complete grade level work. Furthermore, studies report that 74 percent
of students identified with reading difficulties in the third grade, remain considerably
delayed well into their high school career (Francis, et al., 1994). While, research has
identified theories regarding the prevention of reading difficulties, research is lacking
regarding intervening with those students already identified as at risk readers. Some
readers who continue to function below classroom peers despite quality reading
instruction could quite possibly benefit from effective supplementary assistance
(Berninger, 2003). Research suggests supplementary classroom strategies need to be
identified that are particularly time- and cost- effective. Research also indicates that
once students are identified to receive supplementary assistance it is frequently too
late due to “wait to fail” models and delayed identification of at risk readers. Once
the “discrepancy” is identified, these students are rarely able to catch up to peers and
meet grade level reading standards. Heath (2004) maintains that it is “of critical
importance to develop a means of accurately identifying children at risk of reading
difficulties as early as possible in their development (pg. 752).”
22
Torgesen (2002) explored instructional methods that can help to prevent
reading difficulties in children. Additionally, Torgesen’s methods target the
modification of instruction for children already identified as at risk for reading
difficulties. Three modifications are suggested to improve the ways in which reading
is taught a) classroom instruction specifically grades kindergarten through third,
must be skillfully delivered with a balanced emphasis on word level and reading
comprehension skills b) procedures must be in place to accurately identify children
falling behind in early reading growth, even when they are provided excellent
classroom instruction c) “at-risk” children must be provided with reading instruction
that is more intensive, more explicit and more supportive than can be provided in a
classroom of 20 to 30 children. Torgesen suggests that students identified as at-risk
require reading instruction that is a) explicit b) intensive and c) supportive. A study
conducted by Torgesen et al. (1999) examined three interventions used with at-risk
children during kindergarten through second grade. Only the most explicit
intervention resulted in a reliable difference in student word reading ability.
Torgesen defines more intensive as students given more teaching and/or learning
opportunities per day than typically implemented in the classroom. He primarily
suggests the use of peer tutoring and small group instruction (3-4 children). Finally,
Torgesen identifies the need for positive emotional support for at-risk children. He
suggests supportive strategies in the way of encouragement, feedback and positive
reinforcement.
23
Moats (1994) has similarly reported a need of explicit and supportive
instruction for at-risk children. Additionally, Moats postulates a higher level of
teacher training and knowledge is necessary than what is presently provided.
Prereferral Intervention Models
Prereferral intervention is defined as explicit general education changes in
instruction for students performing in the low range or identified as “at risk.” This
intervention is organized by a team of school professionals, such as the general
education teacher, principal, school psychologist and other special educators. The
multidisciplinary team works together to assist the student by consulting with the
general education teacher who receives intervention suggestions to work with the
student. Prereferral intervention aims to eliminate inappropriate referrals by
focusing attention on the quality of academic instruction. Some refer to prereferral
intervention as the “teach rather than test” model (Moore-Brown et al., 2005).
Prereferral intervention also increases the teacher’s ability to use intervention within
the classroom thus, assisting in the prevention of student difficulties and eliminating
the possibility of inappropriate labeling of students as learning disabled.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of
2004 changed the relationship between general education and special education
considerably. Essentially, IDEIA attempts to align its educational components and
requirements with those of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) established in 2001
(Gartin & Murdick, 2005). NCLB requires that in the 2013-2014 school year “all
24
children” by the end of third grade will be proficient in reading. Consequently, the
most prevalent modifications to the law supporting this study surround the issue of
general education integrating with special education. IDEIA specifically focused on
the reliance on I.Q. testing as criteria for learning disability identification. In other
words, states do not have to identify a “significant discrepancy” in order to identify a
learning disability. By removing this requirement, it allows districts to instead
utilize alternative models in identification of student with learning disabilities, but
most importantly focus has moved to student outcomes and preventative programs
are encouraged (Telzrow, 1999). Prereferral intervention has been named the
practice most closely related to the newly formed mandates (Truscott et al. 2005).
Several Prereferral Intervention Team (PIT) models have been developed in attempts
to serve children that are low performing though not identified as disabled. Table 1
provides a list of alternate names of PIT’s identified in the research. The following
section will discuss specific models of prereferral intervention discussing general
policy, practices and identified gaps in research.
25
Table 1. Intervention Team Models
Mainstream Assistance Teams
(Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bahr, 1990a,b)
Teacher Support Teams
(House & McInerney, 1996)
Instructional Consultation Teams
(Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996)
Student Assistance Teams
(House & McInerney, 1996)
Prereferral Intervention Teams
(Graden, Casey, & Bonstrom, 1985)
Intervention Assistance Teams
(Whitten & Dieker, 1995)
Instructional Support Teams
(Kovaleski, Tucker, & Duffy, 1995)
Child Study Teams
(Moore, Fifield, Spira, & Scarlato, 1989
Teacher Assistance Teams
(Chalfant & Pysh, 1989)
Problem Solving Teams
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 1989)
Although there are variations to the models of prereferral intervention,
typically, the formulation and goals of the intervention team models are similar in
design. Lau et al. (2006) identifies the process that occurs in what he refers to as a
problem-solving model:
1. Define and analyze the problem within the learning context,
considering factors such as environmental variables and
instructional match.
26
2. Develop a hypothesis about the problem and determine
instructional interventions that may meet the needs of the student.
3. Monitor progress on an ongoing basis and evaluate the
effectiveness of the interventions.
4. Continue the cycle as needed
Buck et al. (2003) surveyed state PIT’s examining guidelines, practices and
intervention strategies. Results indicated that PIT practices varied between states.
They also found that 70 percent of the states surveyed indicate that general education
teachers are responsible for prereferral intervention not special educators. Buck et
al. found that 96 percent of the PIT’s were using instructional modifications, in
which served as prevention of special education rather than a screening for special
education. An important factor identified surrounding the use of intervention was
that 64 percent of the teachers received training in order to implement intervention.
Finally, the study provided three implications for effective implementation of
prereferral intervention: 1) students receive intervention in the classroom setting
before special education referral 2) school faculty collaborate as multidisciplinary
teams and 3) the number of inappropriate referrals to special education decrease.
This study identified significant elements of prereferral intervention; however,
teacher perspectives and observation of implementing the intervention would have
been beneficial as well as direct observation of PIT operations.
27
A more recent study identified information contrasting the findings of Buck
et al. Truscott et al. (2005) examined the state education departments’ positions on
PITs and the prevalence and workings of existing PITs in elementary schools
through two national phone surveys. The first survey gathered information about
PIT regulations. The second survey gathered information about the prevalence of
PIT’s in elementary schools and common intervention recommendations in addition
to other PIT characteristics. Results indicated that 69 percent of states required
prereferral intervention and 86 percent recommend schools establish PITs. Surveys
indicated that states offered little support for implementation of such services.
Additionally, goals of the PIT team members were not in consensus. Truscott et al.
found that PITs generally suggested easy in class interventions and quickly resorted
to testing, the “refer-test-place” approach in lieu of developing substantive
instructional modifications (Lau et al., 2006). Teams were significantly lacking in
both conception of problems and in knowledge of interventions. The following will
explore the specific roles of each professional, which make up the multidisciplinary
prereferral intervention team.
Multidisciplinary Roles in Prereferral Intervention
Research identifies the need for multiple perspectives and collaborative
interactions when attempting to identify student academic weaknesses and in
determining instructional intervention (Paul, 2006). Prereferral intervention is
generally developed through multidisciplinary interactions in which a team of school
28
professionals, specifically the general education teacher, principal, school
psychologist and possibly other special educators gather in attempts to formulate in-
class interventions for individually struggling students. The team meets to consult
with the general education teacher who subsequently intervenes with the student.
Each team member plays a valuable part in the development of prereferral
interventions. Team member roles and responsibilities are discussed below.
General Education Teacher
Student referrals to prereferral intervention teams are commonly initiated by
classroom teachers. Research indicates that teachers are generally accurate when
identifying students requiring additional academic assistance. A great majority of
teachers refer their students to prereferral intervention teams in hopes to receive
useful information to assist students in the classroom setting. Yet others identify the
prereferral intervention process as an unavoidable first step toward special education
(Lau et al., 2006). Teachers are expected to attend the meetings to state student
concerns along with offering supporting evidence such as student work samples and
test scores, ideally providing a complete picture of the student’s strengths and
weaknesses. Once interventions are developed the classroom teacher is consistently
identified in research as the primary individual responsible in providing the
suggested intervention (Bradley et al., 2005).
29
Principal
Principals have high levels of influence on the school culture and
environment. Bahr (2006) identifies teachers as the most important component to
prereferral intervention because of said influence. Others believe principals are
critical in the role of initiation and maintenance of prereferral intervention and
specifically act as a catalyst to make these teams successful (Lau et al., 2006).
According to Tilly (2002), principals must communicate a need for change and
effectively describe the benefits behind using prereferral intervention specifically the
staff must understand that prereferral intervention is a long-term commitment by the
school and the district. Furthermore, principals are responsible for budgeting and
providing materials and professional development in which support teachers in
implementing prereferral intervention.
School Psychologist
School psychologists are often identified as professionals that facilitate
prereferral intervention meetings, providing teachers with interventions that will
target a student’s skill or academic area that is particularly delayed. National
Association of School Psychologists (NASP) specifically identifies the school
psychologist role as, “School psychologists work to find the best solution for each
student and situation and use different strategies to address student needs and to
improve school and district-wide support systems ” (Silva, 2003). Additionally,
school psychologist are frequently responsible for conducting treatment integrity
30
checks, making sure interventions result in positive academic changes (Elliot, 2000).
Research also identifies this particular role as sometimes held by consultants,
coordinators and program specialists. There is limited information pertaining to
these specific titles outlined in the literature.
Special Educators
Special educators are generally identified as speech and language pathologist
(SLP) and resource specialist teachers (RSP). These professionals are generally
limited to interactions with students already identified with disabilities. Since the
enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 significant focus
has been placed on reading acquisition and specifically the roles of special educators.
Research has begun to identify the important part that SLP’s and resources specialist
teachers play particularly in intervention development and implementation.
Research identifies SLP’s as having the ability to identify fundamental connections
between language and literacy forming beneficial collaborative models and literacy
partnerships (Paul, 2006). These collaborations can happen within the classroom as
well as through consultative strategies. Resource specialist teachers also have
specific backgrounds in reading acquisition due to their high caseloads of students
with reading disabilities. Co-teaching models are being developed where resource
specialist teachers team-teach general education classrooms.
31
Resource specialist teachers also form small group instruction within the
classroom including special education students and low performing general
education students. Having the presence of both SLP’s and resource specialist
teachers at prereferral intervention meetings has proven to be beneficial (Truscott et
al., 2005).
Team Concerns
Research has uncovered concerns and ultimately gaps regarding the
prereferral intervention team. Frequently multidisciplinary teams identify
themselves as efficient at formulating a collaborative environment, targeting student
concerns and designing interventions that teachers find acceptable (McDougall,
Clonan, and Martens, 2000). However, a study conducted by McDougall et al.
(2000) showed participants in the studies believe their consultation skills to be
lacking in numerous areas:
a) identifying antecedents and consequences for problem behavior, b) designing
effective interventions, c) supporting teachers in their implementation efforts, and d)
monitoring intervention integrity and outcome. Each of these concerns requires
additional consideration and research to identify causes and possible solutions.
Types of Reading Intervention
As previously mentioned interventions developed can be described as “easy”
or they are frequently determined by considerations such as familiarity and
practicality rather than exhausting all resources to make beneficial modifications for
32
individual student concerns (Martens, 2002). Most PIT’s refer to check off lists (e.g.
small group, peer reading buddy, seat moved to the front of the class, visual aids and
repetition, etc.) that provide classroom modifications that assumedly contribute to
the success of the low performing student. Many of these “interventions” can be
described as “easy” and “acceptable” to teachers, but they are not always
implemented with integrity and consequently rarely provide the academic assistance
these students desperately require. According to Lau et al. (2006) connecting
assessment to intervention is a significant component of effective prereferral
intervention. Assessment can best be defined as it relates to the growing popularity
of curriculum-based measurement (CBM), which has gained increasing momentum
in the matter of prevention and intervention. CBM can be described as a
standardized procedure used to collect student data to measure competency and
progress in basic academic areas (Graney & Shinn, 2005). Research has recently
reestablished the original purpose of CBM, which was for use in formative
evaluation. More specifically, formative evaluation involves collecting student data,
identifying weaknesses and modifying instruction when individual students
demonstrate inadequate progress toward academic goals.
33
An additional type of intervention gaining significant attention is a Response-
to-Intervention model. The RTI model is a technique using high-quality instruction
and continuous monitoring of student progress used for prevention of reading
problems and as a component for LD determination (Fuchs et al., 2003, Mellard et
al., 2004). Specifics of the use of CBM and RTI models as intervention will be
discussed highlighting benefits and concerns.
Curriculum-Based Measurement
Curriculum based measurement (CBM) is a standardized process for
gathering student data in basic skill areas such as reading and math. CBM has a
focus of prevention and subsequently aides in teacher instructional planning and
helps to identify students at risk academically (Shinn, Shinn, Hamilton & Clarke
2002; Deno, 2003). Research suggests when CBM is used as formative evaluation it
is also reliable in indicating the effectiveness of instructional programs and
intervention for individual students. (Graney & Shinn, 2005). Formative evaluation
entails gathering academic data on individual students, on a continuous basis so that
modifications can be made to instruction when a student is not progressing as
expected. CBM consistently meets the established criteria for efficient measurement
systems in formative evaluation. The criteria include a) meeting traditional
psychometric standards for test reliability and validity; b) having the capacity to
model growth over time; c) demonstrating sensitivity to instructional modifications
over a relatively short period of time; d) independence of any specific instructional
34
program or technique; e) providing specific information for instructional planning;
and f) being simple, cost effective, and efficient enough to implemented without
significantly distracting teaching efforts (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999)
Formative evaluation was originally designed to be used in special education.
Ensuring that students in special education were moving toward predefined goals
with their individual education plans (IEP). Special education has a focus on
individual students, this differs significantly when considering general education.
General education teachers are certainly aware of individual student functioning, but
are generally held responsible for group outcomes (Baker & Zigmond, 1990).
Formative evaluation has consistently demonstrated improved student achievement
when it has been used by special education teachers ( Fuchs, Deno, Mirkin 1984,
Wesson, Skiba, Sevcik, King & Deno, 1984).
Capizzi and Fuchs (2005) conducted a study with 19 second-grade teachers,
309 students without disabilities, 16 resource teachers and 127 students with mild
disabilities. Teachers were assigned one of three conditions: control, CBM and
CBM with diagnostic feedback. Teachers collected data as well as attended a 2-hour
workshop. Results indicated that teachers using CBM with diagnostic feedback were
able target appropriate skills more effectively for low performing students when
compared to the two other groups of teachers. Those teachers receiving diagnostic
feedback were given information on what to teach, they were no longer simply
evaluating a students performance.
35
A similar study conducted by Graney and Shinn (2005) examined the effects
of teacher feedback from Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM).
Forty-four second-grade teachers and 184 students in their low reading groups were
monitored. Teachers were given progress results of their students (i.e. feedback).
The control group received no feedback. Results of the study indicated no affect on
student progress due to teachers receiving feedback. The study identified the key
factor that teachers were not provided with adequate support to make effective
instructional modifications.
Response-to-Intervention
Response-to-Intervention (RTI) is gaining momentum in both the literature
and in classrooms. RTI refers to implementing evidence based intensive instruction
to students at-risk for reading difficulties, then monitoring their progress toward a
specific academic goal. The RTI model employs high-quality instruction used for
prevention of reading problems and as a component for LD determination (Mellard
et al., 2004). Wedl (2005), suggested important benefits of using the RTI model:
While the RTI model provides a valid means for identifying students, another
benefit of RTI is that it merges special education into the overall policies of
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) such as having clear standards, useful
measurement and sound instructional practices. It clearly lays the
groundwork for bringing a new focus on enhancing the performance of all
36
students including those with disabilities through a common system in which
classroom teachers, special education teachers and other specialists can work
together. (p.1)
Additionally, Speece, Case and Molloy (2003) identified advantages of using the
RTI model when considering its use in LD identification:
“a) reduced reliance on teachers’ initiating referrals; b) focus on academic skills,
not presumed processing deficits; c) focus on students’ learning not just current
achievement; d) elimination of the need for aptitude-achievement discrepancy
and intelligence testing; and (e) reduction in the false-positive error rate.”(p.)
RTI has several components and in its infant stages of being implemented in
school districts, various models have been employed. The following list consists of
core concepts of RTI as described by the National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities (NRCLD, 2004)
Students receive high quality instruction in their general education setting
General education instruction is research-based
General education instructors and staff assume an active role in students'
assessment in that curriculum
School staff conduct universal screening of academics and behavior
Continuous progress monitoring of student performance occurs
Continuous progress monitoring pinpoints students' specific difficulties
37
School staff implement specific, research-based interventions to address the
student's difficulties
School staff use progress-monitoring data to determine interventions'
effectiveness and to make any modifications as needed
Systematic assessment is completed of the fidelity or integrity with which
instruction and interventions are implemented
The RTI model is well described in written documents (so that the procedures
and criteria used in schools can be compared to the documents)
Sites can be designated as using a "standardized" treatment protocol or an
individualized, problem-solving model
Researchers have not come to consensus on the optimal RTI structure;
however, three main components of the model can be agreed on. Those components
being 1) employing high quality classroom instruction based in research 2) using
tiers of intervention and 3) continuous monitoring of student progress. To offer a
clear picture of RTI this section will describe the main components of a response to
intervention model in further detail.
First Component: Employing high quality classroom instruction based in research
The term evidence-based instruction also known as research-based
instruction and scientifically based research, has been used frequently in federal
legislation, particularly with the mandates surrounding No Child Left Behind
(NCLB). School districts have been encouraged to use evidence-based instruction in
38
attempt to focus on prevention and prereferral intervention when students struggle
with reading. Researchers have begun to study how students identified as “at-risk”
respond to intensive instruction specifically in the area of reading acquisition.
Evidence-based reading instruction can be defined as a collection of instructional
strategies that have consistently been effective in increasing classroom-reading
achievement. Specifically, there is valid and reliable evidence to suggest that when
the instructional techniques are used with a particular group of children, the children
can be expected to make sufficient progress toward reading success.
Second Component: Tiers of intervention
The first tier of intervention is centered on prevention activities (Mellard,
Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, and Boesche, 2004). Primarily implementing evidence
based instruction, employing core-reading instruction provided by the general
education teacher (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). According to O’Connor et al. (2005),
this stage is also a point of ongoing professional development for each teacher
implementing scientifically based reading intervention. When a student is not
responsive to the first tier of reading intervention, the student moves on to the second
tier of intervention; receiving more intensive intervention. Mellard et al. suggests
that students should move onto this tier when “screening procedures” imply
academic achievement is delayed in comparison to other students receiving the same
intervention. Mellard et al. describes intensive intervention as an increase in
frequency in which instruction is supplied as well as the length of time and duration
39
of the intervention. O’connor describes the second tier as intervention provided in
small groups, with instruction formulated specifically for struggling students. When
students are not responsive to the first and second tiers of intervention, students
move on to the third tier, which Mellard identifies as a stage that is no longer,
considered prevention. According to Vaughn, the intervention in the third tier is
provided by an “intervention specialist.” Using data collected through monitoring of
progress specific needs are identified and addressed in this tier. Mellard et al state,
“The instructional intensity, curriculum, instructional goals and instructional setting
might all be manipulated to increase the likelihood of the student responding
successfully.”
Third Component: Continuous monitoring of student progress
There is little agreement about what constitutes “adequate reading progress”
(Torgesen, 2000) or the specific methods in which students are to transition through
the tiers. However, the RTI model calls for continuous monitoring of student
progress. NRCLD (2006) states that progress monitoring should be scientifically
based in order to “assess academic performance” and to “evaluate the effectiveness
of the instruction they are receiving.” Progress monitoring allows teachers to collect
accurate levels of academic functioning as well as identify appropriate goals and
attainable benchmarks. According to NRCLD one such “scientifically validated”
form of progress monitoring is Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM). Teachers
40
can use this information to modify intervention intensity, thus identifying how
students should move through the tiers.
RTI is promising though researchers have discovered some factors that may
impede its success. According to the vast majority of literature concerning RTI, the
general education teacher appears to be the primary person responsible for all
instruction, monitoring and the transitioning of students between tiers (Reschly, &
Hosp, 2004). Research has shown teachers refer students to special education for
various reasons. One of the main reasons for special education referral appears to be
low teacher–efficacy. Teachers feel that their teaching efforts are not beneficial to
at-risk populations. They also admit that they do not have the skill in which to teach
these students effectively (Warren & Gibson, 2002). Similarly, to CBM, teachers
attempting to implement RTI will require support in both implementation and
progress monitoring. It is important to explore what aspects will have to change in a
teacher’s instructional strategies in order to implement RTI. Additionally, teachers
must be held accountable for implementing these strategies on a consistent basis. In
order for RTI to be beneficial, it must be utilized exactly as prescribed.
Brown, Montgomery and Bielinski (2005) conducted a study to evaluate the
effectiveness of using a response to intervention program in an urban school district
consisting of predominately minority students. Three research questions were
considered: (1) could an early intervening services program based on RTI principles
prevent students from requiring special education services? (2) could an RTI
41
program that provided students explicit, systematic instruction be equally beneficial
for English Learners and English-only students? and (3) could a sustainable program
be developed? One hundred and twenty three fourth and fifth grade students were
provided with one hour of reading intervention every day for nine weeks for a total
of 45 hours of intervention. The study revealed that all 123 students made
significant reading progress and ultimately only eight students of the original 123
students required special education two years later. Unfortunately, this study only
examined English and Spanish-speaking students, the researchers are not sure
whether this program would be successful across all languages.
The findings found above are consistent with another study done by Linan-
Thompson, Bryan and Dickson (2004) examining the effects of using systematic
instruction to teach reading components to kindergarteners identified as at-risk. Two
main research questions were considered: (1) what are the effects of reading
interventions on student achievement in phonological awareness, word identification,
oral reading fluency, and comprehension. (2) how effective are the professional
development practices implemented in the study? This study not only looked at the
reading interventions, but also those individuals responsible for implementing the
intervention. The study compared intervention students to a group of students with
higher ability at the same school and a group of same-ability students in a
comparison school. The study revealed intervention students presented with
significant differences from their typically achieving peers on letter naming, letter
42
sounds, initial sound identification, syllable segmentation, syllable blending and
word identification. Linan-Thompson, Bryan and Dickson noted that the duration of
the study was limited and continuing research on specific intervention for
prerequisite literacy skills is needed.
An additional study highlighting the effects of intensive remedial instruction
was conducted by Torgesen, Alexander, Wagner, Rashotte, Voeller and Conway
(2001). They examined the remediation of reading difficulties of children already
identified as having serious learning disabilities (LD). Three research questions
were considered: (1) can either of two carefully designed instructional approaches
accelerate reading growth sufficiently to bring the reading skills of children with
severe reading disabilities into the average range? (2) are there significant
differences in the effectiveness of two instructional approaches, both of which
contain many elements of effective instruction but differ broadly in the specific
instructional activities they emphasize? (3) are the two methods differentially
effective for children with different cognitive, linguistic, and demographic
characteristics? Sixty children with severe reading disabilities were randomly
assigned to two instructional programs that were identified as effective instruction
but the programs differed in content regarding phonemic awareness and phonemic
decoding. The students received 67.5 hours of one-to-one instruction in two 50-
minute sessions per day for 8 weeks. Students ultimately made significant gains in
43
phonological ability. Most importantly within one year of receiving the intervention
40 percent of the students were released from special education.
In sum, these studies identify the effectiveness of “intensive, systematic
instruction” lending credibility to theories surrounding RTI. It is apparent that the
discrepancy model can no longer be allowed to continue as the sole means of LD
identification. The decisions made in special education eligibility must be formed
after a comprehensive review of information derived from appropriate individual
evaluation (Tilly, 2002). RTI has been identified as a means in collecting that
necessary information to make informative decisions regarding special education.
Teacher Preparation and Acceptability of Prereferral Intervention
As focus shifts from special education to quality of instruction, researchers
identify ways in which to better prepare pre-service teachers to meet the needs of
struggling readers. The theory of using assessment in order to identify student
ability and need has not been an emphasis in teacher preparation programs. It is
improbable that pre-service teachers possess the skills to modify instruction for low
performing students when they are just learning to teach effectively. In a study by
Mayor (2005) a pre-service teacher states, “I am still trying to figure out how to
teach them. I can’t think about assessing them.” Mayor’s qualitative study followed
pre-service teachers as they developed the ability to identify student-reading
weaknesses and formulate plans for remediation. Another pre-service teacher in
Mayor’s study identified an important fact; she asks the question, “…..what type of
44
training are other teachers receiving in the assessment field. I am required to take
this course for a reading minor, but elementary education majors do not have to take
this kind of assessment course. Future teachers should be familiar with this
information.” Unfortunately, most teachers are not familiar with information
regarding assessment nor do they have a basic understanding of special education
fundamentals (Jobling and Moni, 2004).
Growing numbers of students with disabilities have begun to remain in the
general education setting due to requirements of placing students in the Least
Restricted Environment (LRE). General education teachers are now expected to play
significant roles in educating those students that are low performing as well as
students with disabilities. However, research is limited on information regarding the
extent to which these teachers are prepared to work with these students. Romi and
Leyser (2006) explored the attitudes of 1155 pre-service teachers as they grappled
with the idea of inclusion. In addition to overall attitude, personal efficacy, social
efficacy and teaching efficacy was scored. Results indicated teachers had a higher
sense of efficacy in regards to personal and social abilities for inclusion students than
with teaching ability. A similar study was conducted by Jobling and Moni (2004),
the focus of the study was to develop the skills of pre-service teachers to work with
special needs students. Interviews suggested pre-service teachers felt that they
lacked the experience, skills and understanding to effectively teach students with
45
special needs. Additionally, the teachers felt their teaching program lacked focus in
the field of special education.
California laws as well as school districts are encouraging inclusion models
and the use of evidence based instruction for all students whether they are low
performing or proficient in academic testing. Schools are consequently in the
process of introducing the idea of prevention and intervention to their teachers. In
addition to acquiring the knowledge necessary to assist low performing students,
teachers must also be willing and active participants. Teachers must be open to new
instructional strategies that may differ from techniques of which they currently
adhere. Research has identified several factors, which contribute to acceptability
levels in which teachers will employ new techniques or interventions in the
classroom. Unfortunately, there has been limited research done in the way of
academic intervention acceptability among teachers (Marcoe, 2001). However, there
have been studies that have explored teacher acceptability in the way of using
behavioral interventions in the classroom. Additionally, there has been a recent
interest in inclusion models, in which teacher acceptability and reasons behind
successful and/ or unsuccessful inclusionary experiences have been studied. In
general, several factors have been found that contribute to a teachers willingness to
implement behavioral intervention or in implementing instruction in inclusionary
models. Factors include teachers feel ill equipped to serve students that are special
needs or low performing, teachers have little time for collaboration, planning and
46
implementation of interventions, simplicity of implementation, teachers lack
materials and resources and level of support and/or feedback (McDougall, Clonan &
Martens, 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002).
Schools rely heavily upon professional development in the way of in-services
and trainings to fill in gaps assumedly left by teacher preparation programs. As new
scientifically based programs of intervention emerge, teachers undergo trainings
specific to the program they will utilize. A study conducted by O’Connor et al.
(2005), utilized a reading intervention for kindergarten through third grades.
Teachers underwent professional development courses in two areas a) teachers were
educated on the findings on effective reading instruction from the National Research
Council (Snow, Burns & Griffin,1998) and the National Reading Panel (2000) b)
teachers were also instructed on how to interpret student assessment results.
Successful professional development has been defined by researches as including
four important variables a) modeling intended behaviors b) discussing
implementation issues c) planning for adopting new strategies and d) providing
ongoing feedback on observed instructional changes (Darling-Hammond 2000).
Research consistently identifies a need for systematic and intensive training that
include evidence-based best practices for general education teachers. Additionally,
the idea of staff development must be mutually accepted, ongoing and participatory,
through the use of teacher collaboratives, feedback and follow-up (Little, 1993;
Wenitzky, Stoddart, &O'Keefe, 1992).
47
Conclusion
This review of literature provided an overview of the current methods used in
LD identification and investigated the process of referring low performing students
to special education. The review continued on to explore existing literature
regarding the prevention of reading disabilities and prereferral intervention related to
reading. Additionally, intervention models, intervention types and intervention team
professionals were discussed.
All of the information presented in this review highlights the necessity of
early identification, prevention and intervention for students demonstrating reading
difficulties. A traditional method of waiting for students to fail to provide additional
academic assistance has been found to significantly reduce a student’s chance of
attaining reading competence. Research must now focus attention on how to
accurately identify those students who would benefit from early academic
intervention that is explicit, intensive and supportive provided within general
education. Once students are, identified prereferral intervention teams must work to
form common goals and develop effective intervention, support teachers and monitor
intervention integrity.
Research has yet to identify the critical elements necessary for successful
prereferral intervention in reading. This study will primarily determine practical
methods of development and implementation of intervention for at risk populations,
48
explore strategies for educating and holding educators accountable for implementing
efficacious intervention and briefly discuss methods of prevention and early
identification of struggling students. Fundamental theories have been explored
through examination of past and present literature providing a foundation for this
specific study to investigate the above-mentioned components of reading prereferral
intervention. The following chapter will identify the methodology that will be used
in closing the gaps identified in the literature. Reading prereferral intervention will
be explored taking on perspectives of specific team members using record review
and questionnaires, but most importantly, observation will be used to validate
reported data.
49
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research design and methodology of the
dissertation study. The first section of this chapter provides an introduction
exploring the purpose of the research, followed by a review of the research questions
and then an explanation of the research methodology. The data collection
instruments and data collection process and procedures are reviewed. Finally,
preliminary data analysis procedures are discussed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study was to evaluate current prereferral
intervention practices in reading instruction and subsequently examine how these
interventions are developed, implemented and monitored. The study identifies
significant components pertaining to reading prereferral intervention by analyzing
the processes, practices and perceptions held by teachers, PIT coordinators and
special educators (i.e. psychologist, speech pathologists and resource specialist
teachers) in one school in a large urban school district. With increasing numbers of
students identified with reading disabilities, researchers question the methods that
ultimately identify students as disabled (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002). Moreover,
interest is now focused on the role of general education teachers and their efforts in
prevention and intervention. Specifically, those in general education are being
encouraged to use evidence-based practices to enhance the quality of instruction for
50
all students (NCLB, 2001). Research indicates promising benefits of prereferral
intervention; however, the process and structure of interventions vary from school to
school. Research has yet to identify the critical elements necessary to provided
beneficial prereferral intervention related to reading and gaps exist in understanding
how to assist existing prereferral intervention teams (PIT). This study will ultimately
identify effective reading prereferral intervention components, which may
subsequently yield a reduced number of special education referrals.
Prereferral intervention was analyzed using a formative evaluation, which
helped to determine techniques that are effective in current reading prereferral
intervention. The study uncovered structure and strategies implemented by one
elementary school, specifically examining the practices of two elementary school
teachers and their prereferral intervention team, as they attempted to assist students
demonstrating difficulty with reading. This study identified effective process and
practices that may be generalized to various settings currently using or anticipating
the use of prereferral intervention techniques.
Research Questions
In conducting, the dissertation study a qualitative approach answered the
primary question: What are the critical elements of effective prereferral intervention
for struggling readers? To answer this question, several more specific questions
were examined:
51
1. What skills do effective reading prereferral intervention teams possess
and by what means were, they acquired; which allow them to develop and
implement effective reading prereferral intervention?
2. What role do teachers, psychologist and other special educators play in
the development of reading prereferral intervention?
3. Can teacher perceptions of the use of prereferral intervention be
validated?
Population and Sample
Purposeful sampling was employed in selecting the district and elementary
school that was used as a study participant. Patton (2002) states, “Purposeful
sampling focuses on selecting information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the
questions under study” (pg. 230). This study was conducted at one elementary
school in one school district located in a suburban area of Southern California. The
elementary school was chosen because of meeting the following criteria:
1. An elementary school identified as having special education referrals in the
bottom 5% of the schools in the school district.
2. An elementary school currently meeting their Academic Performance Index
(API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
3. The school has a Prereferral Intervention Team (PIT) including an active PIT
coordinator.
52
The recruitment criterion above was chosen because research has shown that
referral for special education assessment has been identified as one of the most
significant indicators of future special education eligibility (Artiles & Trent, 1994).
Schools identified as having low numbers of special education referrals are assumed
to be employing methods in which defer the need of referrals and a school identified
as meeting its API and AYP demonstrate an overall competency in academic
instruction and student performance. For the purposes of this study, referral to
special education differs from a referral to the PIT process. When students are
referred to the PIT process, interventions are suggested and implemented by general
education teachers. Students who participate in the PIT process are not necessarily
referred for special education services.
School Selected
The elementary school used in the study has a total of 376 students in
kindergarten through fifth grade. The ethnic population is represented as follows:
African-American 1%; Asian 6%; Caucasian 7% and Hispanic 85%. The elementary
school has a full time PIT coordinator. The resource specialist teacher and the
speech pathologist are also at the school full time. The psychologist is present on
Wednesdays only.
53
Participants
This study included two classroom teachers, the site principal, the school
psychologist, resource specialist program (RSP) teacher and the schools PIT
coordinator. Teachers were selected using the following recruitment criteria:
1. Teachers must be instructing first, second or third grade.
2. Teachers must have a minimum of 3 years of teaching experience.
3. Teachers must have experience in using the Prereferral Intervention Team
resource.
4. Teachers must be in the process of referring a student to the Prereferral
Intervention Team for reading difficulties.
Teachers had to have taught either first, second or third grade. This is primarily
due to the fact that a great majority of special education referrals for reading develop
during these grades. Teachers also had to have adequate experience (at least 3 years)
in teaching in order to understand the premise behind prereferral intervention, which
may include the modification or implementation of new instructional styles.
Additionally, Gresham, MacMillan, & Bocian (1997) identify teachers as having
great accuracy in identifying those students that need additional academic assistance.
Therefore, teachers that have identified students as needing assistance in the past will
serve as “information-rich cases” for the anticipated study.
In addition to general education teachers, site principal, PIT coordinators,
school psychologists, and resource specialist teachers were asked to participate in
54
completing questionnaires to add to the information regarding prereferral
intervention. General education teachers served in identifying significant elements
in the use of reading prereferral intervention while supporting staff offered insight in
the advisement and development of prereferral intervention. Reading related
prereferral intervention strategies were the primary focus.
Data Collection Instrumentation and Procedures
Study Design
Data collection began during the 2006-2007 academic year during the month
of November. Teachers begin to refer students to the Prereferral Intervention Team
(PIT) shortly after school begins. Some of the students referred were cases
continued from the previous year. This study utilized three components in collecting
data. The first component was a document analysis of school PIT files, followed by
observations of individual teachers implementing suggested reading prereferral
intervention in their classrooms and finally questionnaires were completed by
general education teachers, PIT coordinators and special educators.
Data Sets
Document Analysis: Data from PIT meetings were gathered to compare information
reported by teachers to actual observation of teachers implementing interventions.
The following information was collected:
reading concerns
interventions
55
whether interventions were implemented consistently
ease of implementation
Table 2. Data from Prereferral Intervention Team Meetings
Concerns Interventions Implemented
Consistently
Ease of
Implementation
Ex. Reading
Fluency
Ex. Small Group Ex. Yes Ex. Practical
Observations: According to Patton 2002, there is only so much we can learn from
what people say. Patton suggests, “direct participation in and observation of the
phenomenon of interest” (pg. 21) in order to completely understand the intricacies of
a situation. To gain in depth data regarding teacher use of reading prereferral
intervention, structured observations took place in each of the classrooms. A
checklist describing specific reading prereferral intervention was used for each
teacher recording the frequency in which a teacher uses one of 20 predetermined
intervention strategies. Predetermined intervention were compiled from what
research identifies as best practices in reading intervention (Wright, 2001; Torgesen,
2002) In addition to a checklist, descriptive and interpretive field notes were taken
to support the validity that specific interventions were observed. Observations
occurred three times per week for three weeks in 30-minute increments.
56
Observations occurred specifically during reading periods or during periods of
reading intervention. Teachers consented to being observed, but specific observation
times were not announced.
Questionnaires: Questionnaires were the final component of the data collection.
Perspectives were obtained from general education teachers, site principal, PIT
coordinator, school psychologist and RSP teacher. Each member of the prereferral
process offered information rich perspectives into prereferral intervention
development. Knowledge was gained in the areas of intervention formulation,
implementation and monitoring.
All participants completed a questionnaire including a combination of closed
and open set questions where study participants had a fixed set of responses and
open-ended questions where there were no options or predefined responses. The
study participant provided his or her own answer to each question.
The general education teachers received questionnaires different from the PIT
coordinator and special educator questionnaires. Questionnaires are included as
appendix C, D, E, F and G of this proposal. Questionnaires were administered
during staff meetings and in some cases when participants were available. All
questionnaires were anonymous, teachers were asked to provide specifics such as
grade taught, years of experience and educational background. Special educators
were asked to report years of experience in their field and some elements of
educational background. Before administering questionnaires, questionnaires were
57
pre-tested for accuracy and relevance. The questionnaire was given to a small
sample of respondents that were representative of those participants in the study; this
was done by briefly interviewing respondents following the completion of the
questionnaire to get feedback on accuracy and relevance. The interview ensured that
the questions accurately captured the respondents intended opinions.
Analysis of Data
The data from both the observations and the questionnaire were qualitatively
analyzed using a system of codes derived from key research from the review of the
literature in the field. Codes from classroom observation were different from
questionnaire related codes. The classroom observation coding system consisted of
four main categories of intervening actions: a) environmental b) correction of error
c) assisted reading practice and d) other. These categories were further broken down
into 20 specific codes. Table 3 provides a list of the codes that were used in the
analysis (see Appendix B for a list of codes and explanations). This coding schema
was derived from research conducted by Wright (2001) and Torgesen (2002).
58
Table 3.
List of Observation Codes
Intervening Actions Used During Reading Instruction
Environmental
E.1 Elicit student participation
E.2 Praise and positive reinforcement
E.3 1:1 instruction
E.4 Small group
Assisted Reading Practice
A.1 Assisted Reading
A.2 Listening Passage Preview
A.3 Paired Reading
A.4 Repeated Reading
Other
O.1 Intensive reading program (RTI)
O.2 CBM used to modify instruction
O.3 Computer Reading Tutorial
O.4 Audio/ Visual Books on tape
The data gathered from the questionnaires was also coded and divided into units of
analysis. The questionnaire coding system/categorization consisted of five
categories considering aspects of reading prereferral intervention: a) team member
education/skills b) specific team member roles c) development of intervention d)
implementation of intervention and e) monitoring intervention. This information
was gathered to formulate overall perspectives possessed by multidisciplinary teams
working on reading prereferral intervention.
59
These categories were derived from research conducted by McDougall,
Clonan, and Martens (2000). A qualitative means of analysis was chosen for the
questionnaire due to the limited amount of study participants.
Conclusion
This chapter described the methodology used in identifying critical elements
of reading prereferral intervention. The procedures and methods identified assisted
in clarifying how reading related prereferral intervention is developed, implemented
and monitored. Additionally, the outlined methodology allowed for specific roles
and educational backgrounds of the multidisciplinary team to be explored.
Information from the observations was used in conjunction with data from the
questionnaires and document analysis to develop a narrative, which assisted in
answering the research questions of the dissertation. The comparison of data sources
allowed the researcher to develop inferences related to the dissertation findings.
60
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
This chapter contains an analysis of the key findings from the study
conducted. Data are reported in narrative and table format. The data presents key
themes identified through study observations, questionnaires and record reviews.
The purpose of this case study was to identify and describe the essential components
of effective reading prereferral intervention. The study explored the people and
processes behind successful intervention with struggling readers. This study was
organized around four research questions through which, best practices in reading
prereferral intervention emerged.
In the sections that follow, data was analyzed and subsequently research
questions were answered. The researcher identified and organized the study findings
to assist current prereferral intervention teams (PIT) in working more efficiently.
Additionally, the study constructed comprehensive guidelines for schools in the
beginning stages of developing prereferral intervention teams.
Data Collection
The data for this study was collected through classroom observations,
questionnaires with follow-up interviews and a review of existing prereferral
intervention team records. The classroom observations included two elementary
school teachers, one teacher instructing a first grade class and the other teacher
instructing a first and second grade combination class. The observations began with
61
a checklist of what research identifies as effective in class reading interventions.
Additionally, field notes were taken to capture the specific interventions and
strategies unique to each teacher that were implemented within the classroom.
Each teacher being observed along with the school psychologist, PIT
coordinator, resource specialist program (RSP) teacher and site principal took part in
reading prereferral intervention questionnaires. The questionnaires were developed
to identify specific information regarding the development, implementation and
monitoring of prereferral intervention as perceived by the individual members of the
prereferral intervention team. Finally, the records kept on students demonstrating
reading difficulty were reviewed and analyzed.
Skill Sets and Means of Preparation of Effective
Prereferral Intervention Teams
The school site selected for this case study was chosen through purposeful
sampling. This school site was identified as having one of the best prereferral
intervention processes in the district. The following narrative will identify the skills
that each of the PIT members possess which contributes significantly to the success
of the schools prereferral intervention process.
Through questionnaires and follow up interviews, the specific skills and
qualifications held by team members were identified. Additionally, the means in
which the team members acquired their skills were recorded. All participants were
asked a series of questions, with inquiry into years of experience in their particular
62
field and educational background being the most significant information. Stronge
(2002) identifies a quality of an effective teacher as having more than three years of
experience. Likewise, each of the PIT members questioned had several years of
experience. All of the PIT members had 5 years of experience or more in their
specific field. Stronge’s rationale behind experience and efficiency are directly
applicable to those skills of PIT members. Stronge links experience with better
planning skills, variation of strategies and understanding student needs.
Furthermore, some team members acknowledged specialized training which affected
their decisions in reading prereferral intervention, whilst other team members
identified “on the job learning” to be the most relevant training for reading
prereferral intervention. The combination of specialized training and skills “learned
on the job” created a balance that was based in both evidence and practicality.
Specific skills and qualifications as described by team members are summarized as
follows:
Principal
The site principal has been an administrator for five years and previously
taught in the classroom for 11 years. She holds both an administrative and teaching
credential and has “highly qualified teacher” status. A “highly qualified teacher” is
defined by fulfilling three main requirements (1) have a bachelor’s degree (2) have
state certification and (3) demonstrate subject matter competence for each core
subject they teach (California Department of Education, 2004). This is in
63
accordance with the federal requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). In
addition, the principal has a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science, Bachelor’s
degree in English, a Master’s degree in Education Technology and an Educational
Doctorate degree in Urban Leadership. The principal noted professional
development, learning on the job and individual research as significant experiences
that have shaped her ability to participate in reading prereferral intervention.
PIT Coordinator
The prereferral intervention team coordinator identified several skills and
qualifications that she holds in which contribute to her ability to participate
effectively in the process of prereferral intervention. The PIT coordinator has been
the elementary schools PIT coordinator for six years. Additionally, she has three
years of previous teaching experience in a primary classroom setting. She holds a
multiple subject teaching credential and has “highly qualified teacher” status. The
PIT coordinator also holds a dropout prevention certificate. This certificate is
obtained through state mandated training through the SB 65 Motivation and
Maintenance program of the California Dropout Prevention Network (CDPN). This
program was designed to assist students who are in high-risk situations, improving
student drop out rates, academics and overall social interactions. The guidelines set
forth in the SB 65 program define an infrastructure that the school must use to ensure
coordinated support for students. The SB 65 program defines a specific protocol for
involving parents, documenting results, and for coordinating site meetings that
64
include participants from all school disciplines (e.g. special education, English
Language Learners, GATE). The PIT coordinator identified professional
development offered by both the school district and outside agencies, university
courses and learning on the job as important experiences that have shaped her ability
to participate in reading prereferral intervention.
Teacher A
Teacher A has been a teacher for nine years. She holds a multiple subject
teaching credential and has “highly qualified teacher” status. Additionally, Teacher
A has a bachelor’s degree in child development and master’s degree in elementary
teaching with an emphasis in reading and literacy. Teacher A identified professional
development trainings offered by the site principal, university courses, individual
research and learning on the job as significant experiences that have shaped her
ability to participate in reading prereferral intervention.
Teacher B
Teacher B has been a teacher for seven years. She holds a multiple subject
teaching credential and has “highly qualified teacher” status. Additionally, Teacher
B has a bachelor’s degree in liberal studies and master’s degree in education with an
emphasis in special education.
65
Teacher B identified professional development trainings offered by the site
principal, university courses and learning on the job as significant experiences that
have shaped her ability to participate in reading prereferral intervention.
Psychologist
The school psychologist has been practicing for six years. He holds an
Education Specialist degree in psychology. The school psychologist identified
professional development offered through the district and learning on the job as
significant experiences that have shaped his ability to participate in reading
prereferral intervention. The school psychologist stated “Often times, we take what
we can get…from time spent with adult volunteers, to actual programs and
curriculum that the district has bought to address reading.”
RSP Teacher
The resource specialist teacher has been teaching in special education for
eight years. The RSP teacher holds a Bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education
and a Masters degree in Curriculum and Instruction. Additionally, she holds a
special education teaching credential. The RSP teacher identified professional
development offered by the school district and outside agencies, university courses
and learning on the job as significant experiences that have shaped her ability to
participate in reading prereferral intervention.
66
In sum, there were several similarities in skills and qualifications of the PIT
team members. The three most important elements in skills and qualifications were
(1) higher education (2) years of experience and (3) professional development.
Study questionnaires identified that each of the PIT team members except one held a
masters degree or higher. Additionally, all of the team members have been
practicing in their specific field for five years or more. The team members also
identified professional development and learning on the job as significant resources
that aided in their preparation to participate effectively in reading prereferral
intervention. The similarities identified within the team members are critical
elements in identifying the skills and qualifications as well as necessary avenues of
preparation; behind successful reading prereferral intervention teams.
Reading Prereferral Intervention Team Roles and Responsibilities
Research identifies “clearly defined roles” as a quality of a successful
prereferral intervention team (Lau et al., 2006). The prereferral intervention team
studied had specific roles and responsibilities outlined for each member. Each of the
team member’s roles and responsibilities are described as they pertain to each stage
of reading prereferral intervention. They are outlined as follows:
Principal
The principal’s role and responsibilities in reading prereferral intervention
were apparent in each of the three aspects of reading prereferral intervention. First,
67
there is the issue of reading prereferral intervention “development.” The principal
was present in each of the PIT team meetings in which specific student concerns
were discussed with parents, teachers and supporting staff members. The principal
was able to offer a valid perspective into current reading interventions that were
available. Additionally, the principal had a supportive role in the “implementation”
stage. She was able to provide valuable feedback to teachers when they were in the
process of intervening with struggling readers. Finally, the principal was involved
with the “monitoring” stage by consistently conducting classroom observations and
staying particularly aware of those students in the prereferral intervention process.
The principal also offered suggestions to teachers to assist them in effective
intervention implementation if the need was demonstrated.
Furthermore, the principal provided valuable resources to the PIT team
members and created an environment that not only valued the philosophy of
prereferral intervention, but also made the process imperative. The principal
maintained detailed records of student assessment data in which aided in the early
identification of struggling readers. “Referrals typically come from the classroom
teacher, but may also be initiated by the principal upon review of state test scores or
interim scores (PIT Team Coordinator).”
The principal has provided valuable professional development opportunities
to the staff, which covered literacy, writing and classroom management. Teachers
were provided with training in the use of instructional and support strategies in
68
which result in students being able to participate in grade level curriculum at their
individual learning levels. Educational consultants provide continuous professional
development specifically in the area of language arts instructing teachers in
evidence-based instructional strategies. Some of the professional development titles
include Marzano’s Classroom Instruction that Works, Marzano’s Reinforce Effort
and Providing Recognition and Ready to Learn SB65. Additionally, teachers on
special assignment supported teachers by modeling lessons, discussing data analysis
and by offering other instructional approaches to assist them in developing a plan to
address individual student needs.
Another valuable resource in which the principal made available was that of
specialized reading programs such as the Systematic Instruction in Phoneme
Awareness, Phonics, and Sight Words (SIPPS) program in which the teachers were
able to provide intensive reading intervention to struggling students in an after
school program. The principal was able to allocate funds toward programs such as
SIPPS and the Waterford computer program, which are discussed in further detail in
the intervention analysis.
Another significant resource provided to the teachers was access to student
teachers. The principal was able to secure a connection in which a specific
University consistently referred their student teachers to their elementary school.
During the time of the study, there were six student teachers on the elementary
69
campus, one of which was working in the classroom of Teacher A. Teacher B
discusses how she has previously used student teachers in her classroom:
“In the beginning weeks of student teaching the student teacher is mostly observing
and working with small groups. This is the time where the student teacher is most
effective on addressing the needs of struggling readers. I use my student teachers to
pull small groups during reading and once my student teacher starts taking over more
subjects I will then work with struggling readers more during reading time.”
The final resource the principal provided to PIT team members was an open
line of communication with regular one-on-one meetings, asking what team
members needed to support their intervention endeavors. The site principal made
funds available to assist any needs pertaining to reading prereferral intervention, in
which team members specifically identified.
PIT Coordinator
The PIT coordinators roles and responsibilities were central to developing
and monitoring reading intervention. The PIT coordinator plays a significant role in
the “developing” of reading prereferral intervention. The process of referring a
student to the PIT team begins with the teacher discussing the student with the PIT
coordinator. The PIT coordinator organizes and facilitates a PIT team meeting to
discuss the teachers concerns, inviting all relevant team members and the parents of
the student in question. The PIT coordinator takes notes during the PIT team
meeting and maintains all documents involved in the PIT team process.
70
Additionally, the PIT coordinator organizes, facilitates and documents all follow-up
meetings and coordinated services meetings for all referred students to assist in
intervention “monitoring.” Furthermore, the PIT coordinator acts as an outreach
consultant securing follow up with outside agencies (e.g. family counseling) and
volunteers for tutoring.
“Each intervention is evaluated for effectiveness at the follow up meetings. If results
are not positive, there is discussion about the process or the need for different
interventions. Our school has an average of 55 SST [PIT] cases each year with 85%
success (PIT Coordinator).”
Teacher
The primary role of the teacher in reading prereferral intervention is in
implementing and monitoring the reading intervention. The teacher’s role is as
follows:
The teacher plays a role in “developing” intervention, but may not be aware
of the current interventions available to assist students with their specific deficits.
However, the teacher can be considerably helpful in offering insight into programs
and interventions that have been beneficial or of little benefit in the past. Ultimately,
the teacher is responsible for organizing and planning the “implementation” of the
intervention in the classroom. The teacher must develop lesson plans and a
classroom structure in which they can incorporate the team’s suggestions of
intervening. The teacher also has a responsibility to frequently “monitor” the
71
progress of the student that is receiving intervention. This can be done through in
class assessment and through monitoring of the students accuracy in completing in
class and homework assignments. The teacher can then bring this information to the
follow up PIT meetings to discuss the outcomes of the intervention conducted.
Psychologist
The psychologist is primarily responsible for the developing and monitoring
stages of reading prereferral intervention. The psychologist’s role is as follows:
The psychologist has a background in assessment and has the ability to help teachers
and other staff members interpret district interim test scores. The psychologist can
identify “red flags” that may or may not be of urgent concern; quickly identifying the
appropriateness of special education assessment. The school psychologist reports the
following “I find that attending SST (i.e. PIT meetings) is crucial in deterring bad
referrals. I like to attend as many as possible, and to assist the team in coming up
with suggestions.” The psychologist also has the ability to offer suggestions of
district wide programs and interventions available in the “development” stages of
reading prereferral intervention. Concerning the role of the psychologist, Teacher B
stated, “Many times the team will be at SST's where we have seen no growth or have
a major concern. The psychologist is helpful in giving strategies and a different
perspective.”
The psychologist attends many of the follow-up PIT meetings to “monitor”
the progress of the intervention. The psychologist is also present at each coordinated
72
service meeting in which student successes and concerns are discussed. This is
generally a time when new suggestions of intervention are developed when students
are not demonstrating reading progress. Additionally, the psychologist stated, “The
COST [Coordinated Services] team helps to prioritize students and to provide
additional opportunities to come up with suggestions. The referrals for special
education have been very good the last 3 years. Very few kids, who are referred, are
DNQ’s [Do Not Qualify].”
RSP Teacher
The RSP teacher demonstrated significant responsibility in the developing
stage of the intervention, but also took part in the implementation and monitoring of
the interventions. Her participation was as follows:
In regards to “developing” The RSP teacher is invited to attend all PIT team
meetings. At the meetings, she offers suggestions of programs and interventions that
are available. The RSP teacher has a background in special education with specific
skills in reading acquisition. Due to a solid background in special education, the
RSP teacher frequently collaborates with teachers offering suggestions of how to
“implement” effective reading intervention within the classroom setting. The RSP
teacher may also pull struggling readers into the reading groups that she is working
with within the classroom. In regard to the collaborative roles, teacher B stated, “I
think the most effective parts of prereferral intervention is collaborating with other
teachers and staff. A lot of times an upper grade teacher will have a student who is
73
able to come down to the primary grades a couple times a week to help with skills. I
think another important part is that documentation is kept on specific children and if
nothing else, the red flag has been raised and he/she can't really get lost in the
crowd.”
The RSP teacher also attends follow-up PIT team meetings to assist in
“monitoring” interventions. The RSP teacher also attends and contributes to
Coordinated Services meetings to discuss the progress of specified students.
From the descriptions identified through participant questionnaires, specific
roles and responsibilities were outlined for each of the main PIT team members.
Beginning with the principal, the roles that were outlined primarily dealt with
providing specific resources or being the “supplier.” The principal was able to
supply funding for programs, supplied feedback and valid perspectives on innovative
intervention techniques. The psychologist described a unique role in that he was
able to make sense of data presented at PIT team meetings or alternately being the
“interpreter.” He is able to take testing data as well as information provided at the
meeting and make a determination as to whether the student may respond to a
specific intervention or may actually require a special education assessment. The
PIT coordinator had a major role in coordinating and facilitating meetings as well as
maintaining records of what occurred at the meeting. Overall, the PIT team
coordinator can be identified as the “facilitator.” The PIT team coordinator is
74
generally the catalyst in which moves a student from identification to intervention in
the PIT team process.
The teacher’s primary role as identified by the questionnaires was to carry
out the interventions that are developed at the PIT team meetings. Teachers can be
identified as “implementers.” Teachers are generally the lone providers of
intervening instruction. At times, they are assisted by the site RSP teacher who may
occasionally pull students into the special education reading group, which can occur
within the classroom. For that reason, the RSP teacher acts as the “collaborator.” In
addition to assisting students in the classroom, the RSP teacher also suggests reading
interventions and assists teachers with implementation techniques. As described
above each team member has a specific role to fulfill as they proceed in the
prereferral intervention process. Additionally, Table 4 outlines team member
specific roles and how the roles correlate to what team members perceived as
preparing them to function in the prereferral intervention process.
Table 4. Team Member Roles as Compared to Means of Preparation
School
District
Professional
Development
Outside
Agency
Professional
Development
University
Courses
Learned
on
the Job
Individual
Research
Supplier X X X
Interpreter X X
Facilitator X X X X
Implementer X X X X
Collaborator X X X X
75
The results indicate that team members found professional development
provided by the school district and learning on the job; equally the most beneficial
means of preparing them to develop, implement and monitor reading prereferral
intervention. Research consistently identifies professional development as a crucial
element in effective prereferral intervention (O’Connor et. al, 2005). Interestingly,
team members found that what they learned on the job was also important. Each
member is able to bring past experiences to the table, like teachers whom recall
interventions that had not worked for them in the past. Furthermore, the table shows
higher education experiences were also significant as assisting in decision making
for PIT team members. Team members also sought out additional resources from
outside agencies and individual research to assist them in prereferral intervention. In
sum, it is important for schools to provide professional development if they expect
PIT teams to be effective. Additionally, Universities and teacher preparation
programs must continue to provide an education that will prepare team members to
carry out the roles required of them when they are working to intervene with
struggling readers.
Teacher Reports of Prereferral Intervention Use Validated
Research consistently addresses the issue of prereferral intervention; most
frequently exploring prereferral intervention team deficiencies. Lane, Mahdavi and
Borthwick-Duffy (2003) identify treatment integrity as a significant factor in reading
76
prereferral intervention success or failure. Treatment integrity can be described as
the level to which an intervention is used as initially designed (Gresham, 1989).
Treatment integrity and ultimately successful intervention directly tie to teachers and
their “knowledge, skill and/ or resources (Lane, Mahdavi and Borthwick-Duffy,
2003).” There is minimal research exploring the accuracy of teacher perceptions of
employing suggested interventions. This study explored treatment integrity through
actual record review and observations. The researcher was able to identify key
interventions that were suggested by the reading prereferral intervention team and
subsequently observe the interventions being implemented by classroom teachers.
Additionally, the study explored what factors contributed to the use or non-use of the
interventions. A detailed analysis of the use of in-class intervention is described
below. Tables 5a, 5b and 5c categorize the specific reading concerns for each
student, three primary interventions, the consistency of implementing the
interventions and the ease of implementing those interventions. Finally, processes
regarding intervention implementation follow-up is discussed.
77
Table 5a. PIT Team Meeting Records
T S Concern Intervention
1
Implemented
Consistently
Ease of
Implementation
A 1 Phonics &
Reading
Fluency
1:1 with
Student
Teacher
Yes Moderate
B 2 Reading
Fluency &
Comprehension
Small Group
Instruction
No Moderate
A 3 Phonics Computer
Tutorial
Yes Practical
B 4 Reading
Fluency
Cross Age
Tutoring
Yes Moderate
(T) Teacher (S) Student
Table 5b. PIT Team Meeting Records
T S Concern Intervention
2
Implemented
Consistently
Ease of
Implementation
A 1 Phonics &
Reading
Fluency
Audio-Visual
Books on
Tape
Yes Practical
B 2 Reading
Fluency &
Comprehension
Intensive
Reading
Program
Yes Moderate
A 3 Phonics Small Group
Instruction
Yes Moderate
B 4 Reading
Fluency
Attend
Alternate
Classroom
for
Sight Words
Yes Moderate
78
Table 5c. PIT Team Meeting Records
T S Concern Intervention
3
Implemented
Consistently
Ease of
Implementation
A 1 Phonics &
Reading
Fluency
Computer
Tutorial
Yes Practical
B 2 Reading
Fluency &
Comprehension
Cross Age
Tutoring
Yes Moderate
A 3 Phonics Small Group
Instruction
No Moderate
B 4 Reading
Fluency
Audio-Visual
Books on
Tape
Yes Practical
Prereferral Intervention Team meeting records were analyzed and specific
concerns were identified for each student. Interventions were developed to address
the specific need of the student. The suggested interventions in this study were given
a rating of practical, moderate and difficult. Teachers were asked to rate the ease of
implementation as it related to their class and schedule. Table 3 presents the rating
scale that was provided by the researcher:
Table 6. Ease of Implementation Rating Scale
Practical Minimal level of planning and minimally
disruptive to classroom dynamics
Moderate Moderate level of planning (e.g.
modifying materials; time needed to
coordinate with other teachers) and
minimally to moderately disruptive to
classroom dynamics
Difficult Significant planning time needed and
moderately to substantially disruptive to
classroom dynamics
79
Results indicated that “difficult” to implement interventions were not
suggested by the PIT team. The prereferral intervention team considered time
demands on teachers; suggesting interventions that were efficient, but realistic. All
of the interventions that teachers found to be “practical” were implemented.
The majority of the interventions were employed consistently. The “small
group instruction” intervention was the only intervention that was used on an
inconsistent basis. Research identifies the “ease of implementation” as a key factor
in whether teachers employ suggested interventions in the classroom (Kovaleski,
2002; Clonan & Martens, 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Both Teacher A and
Teacher B stated that implementing small group instruction on a consistent basis
required substantial organization and planning. The teachers were required to
implement small group instruction and additionally make sure that the rest of the
classroom was on task.
Torgesens (2002) research stresses the importance of intensive and explicit
intervention to address the needs of struggling readers. Teachers A and B worked
toward intensive and explicit reading intervention using a variety of PIT team
developed reading intervention strategies. The following offers a detailed
description of the observed teachers and prereferral intervention team’s interpretation
of reading interventions.
80
Analysis of Intervening Actions
Observations of each teacher’s classroom revealed that teachers were in fact
implementing evidence-based interventions that were suggested at PIT team
meetings. The following narrative examines the three categories of intervening
actions teachers used to assist their students that were struggling with reading.
Environmental
Elicit Participation and Praise
Diperna (2006) identifies a connection between academic enablers
(motivation, engagement, study skills and social skills), instruction and achievement.
Diperna believes academic enablers should be considered when identifying needs of
students in the problem solving process (i.e. prereferral intervention) when students
are exhibiting academic deficiency. Research consistently suggests praise and
positive reinforcement in response to desired behaviors (Diperna, 2006; Torgesen,
2002). Subsequently, engagement as described by Diperna, “active participation in
classroom instruction” will follow. Teachers A and B were observed to frequently
praise their struggling readers and encourage active participation. The following is a
classroom dialog highlighting praise and student participation:
T: What sound does it make?
S: I (long /i/ sound)
T: Good. Use your finger....nice.
S: The red vowel does the talking!
81
1:1 with Student Teacher
In Teacher A’s classroom student teachers and classroom volunteers were found to
be an invaluable resource when attempting to intervene with struggling readers.
While the teacher taught whole class instruction, the student teacher was able to
work one on one with a student. The student teacher also worked one on one with a
student during “centers.” This intervention was given a rating of moderate in “ease
of implementation.” The teacher had to plan which students would receive
individual instruction as well as prepare materials and plan the lessons that would be
addressed in a one on one setting. In response to the question “Do student teachers
have an effect on addressing the needs of struggling readers?” Teacher A stated
“Definitely! I use them to give extra one on one time with struggling readers. They
do sight word practice with small groups using flashcards, bingo games etc. They
pull struggling readers to read to and with them.”
Small Group Instruction
Small group instruction consisted of groups of no more than four students. Each
student in the group had a similar deficit in the area of reading. Activities were
selected which addressed specific reading concepts. For example, one session
addressed identifying and decoding long vowels while another session involved
fluency and sight words.
82
Additionally, the small group reading session was not conducted during the
scheduled reading time. The small group session was held during “centers.”
Subsequently, students were able to get two reading periods each day.
Centers are a time when students had four activities that they needed to
complete. Each student was able to complete each center independently. If students
had questions during “centers,” they were instructed to ask three peers; subsequently
the students rarely interrupted the teacher while conducting the small group reading
session. This intervention was given a rating of moderate in “ease of
implementation.” Teachers had to address occasional times when students were not
on task in their centers and planning for the small groups was imperative.
Teachers used a curriculum Extra Support Handbook and an English
Language Development Handbook to plan small group curriculum. Each activity in
the small group reading session was systematic frequently covering concepts that
were taught earlier in the whole class reading session. Teachers use a pre-teach – re-
teach method. Students that have reading deficits participate in pre-reading activities
(e.g. vocabulary preview and picture walk) days before the whole class is introduced
to the new story. The materials used in the sessions were also important. Students
used materials such as letter tiles, dry erase boards and manipulatives in addition to
leveled reading books.
83
Assisted Reading
Teachers used several research based assisted reading techniques. Teacher A
used paired reading techniques consistently with her groups that were struggling with
reading fluency. Students would read collectively with the teacher. At one point the
teacher would stop reading and allow the students to carry on alone (Topping, K.
,1987). Teacher B was observed to use assisted reading as described in the research
by Shany (1995). The students read with assistance and if the student made a
mistake a more accomplished reader (i.e. teacher, student teacher, volunteer) was
there to offer support and assistance. Both Teachers A and B were observed to use
Listening Passage Preview. This is when the students listened to the teacher read the
passage first and subsequently the students read the same passage independently.
The student received feedback when necessary (Van Bon et al., 1991).
Other
Intensive Reading Program
Both teachers in the study taught an intensive reading program after school using a
program called Systematic Instruction in Phoneme Awareness, Phonics, and Sight
Words (SIPPS). The SIPPS program teaches curriculum that address decoding,
fluency and comprehension. This reading program is designed for students in
kindergarten through the third grade. SIPPS can be used as an initial reading
program for emergent readers or as an intervention for struggling readers. Key
aspects included in the program are assessment, structured-systematic instruction and
84
text that match instruction. Again, the SIPPS program was an example of what
Torgesen describes as reading intervention that is intensive and explicit. The SIPPS
program had an additional function, as a form of response-to-intervention. Teachers
used the SIPPS program for a specified amount of time. Teachers monitored student
progress reporting success and concerns of the intervention at follow-up meetings. If
students were not making sufficient progress alternative means of intervention were
developed.
CBM used to modify instruction
Curriculum based measure aides teachers in instructional planning and helps
to identify student that are at risk (Shinn, Shinn, Hamilton & Clarke 2002; Deno,
2003). Teachers A and B used curriculum-based measurement to modify instruction
throughout all reading intervention. Consistent monitoring of student progress
through district and teacher created classroom assessment took place. Teachers
assessed text reading with a running record, monitoring reading accuracy and
fluency. Additionally, teachers recorded data on sight words and reading
comprehension. Teachers recorded assessment data on students at their instructional
reading level every two weeks.
Computer Tutorial
Students used a computer program called “Waterford Early Reading Program” daily.
The daily use of the Waterford program coincides with Torgesen’s requirement of
intensive instruction with struggling readers. Waterford is a computer based reading
85
curriculum, which provides three levels of instruction. The program addresses a
range of concerns from the emergent reader to students developing fluency skills.
The program includes activities to improve letter mastery, reading and listening
development, spelling and comprehension skills. Waterford modifies instruction
according to each student's pace using “embedded assessment and responsive
sequencer software (Pearson, 2007).” The Waterford program consists of continual
assessment, quality curriculum and take-home materials, these components create an
explicit and systematic reading program. This intervention was given a rating of
practical in “ease of implementation.” Waterford is set up to automatically rotate
through students, but can also be manually controlled. Additionally, due to the
“assessment and responsive sequencer” teachers did not have to spend time
identifying the level that was necessary for each student.
Audio-Visual Books on Tape
The teachers used a phonics program that used both audio and visual aspects.
The program consisted of 24 phonics lessons that students completed on their own.
Activities varied from long and short vowels to decoding and word recognition. The
students used dry erase activity sheets as they listened to directions and stories
through headphones. This intervention was given a rating of practical in “ease of
implementation.” The audio-visual books on tape were a part of “centers” and
students were able to complete this activity independently.
86
Teacher A also used a PIT team developed intervention of tape recordings of
sight words that students of second language households could take home to work on
sight words. Teacher A found that parents that were English Language Learners had
a difficult time working on sight words with their children at home. She found that
parents were receptive to the support of the audio tape, which subsequently provided
the parent a means of helping their child with sight word practice.
Additional Intervening Actions Acquired Through Observation
Cross Age Tutoring
Cross-age peer tutoring activities have been identified in research as having
significant effects on reading achievement. Typically, cross-age tutoring involves
students assisting their peers in learning and subsequently students learn themselves
through teaching (Topping, 1996). Teacher B used cross age tutoring. The teacher
had to collaborate with a fifth grade teacher in order to have older students work with
younger students, which had reading deficits. Three fifth grade students came to
Teacher B’s classroom on Monday and Tuesday weekly to help students with vowel
practice, word reading and spelling. This intervention was given a rating of
moderate in “ease of implementation.” Collaboration with other teachers and
rotating/monitoring both tutors and tutees contributed some difficulty to this
intervention’s “ease of implementation.”
87
Attending Alternate Classroom for Sight Words
An additional intervention provided for Student 4 was attending an alternate
classroom for extra work in the area of sight words. Student 4 was performing
significantly lower than his peers with sight word knowledge. In order to get extra
practice he went to a classroom that was working on sight words at his particular
level. Student 4 was able to receive the extra help in sight words that he would not
have received if he had stayed in his particular classroom. This intervention had a
rating of moderate in “ease of implementation.” The teacher had to collaborate with
other teachers to find an appropriate setting, time and duration for the student to
attend the classroom.
Intervention Follow-Up
As described in the research, each student that is discussed at a PIT team
meeting is set up with a follow up meeting to discuss the intervention outcomes six
weeks from the initial PIT team meeting (Lau et al., 2006). The follow-up meeting
typically includes all of the members that were at the initial PIT team meeting. At
times additional team members (e.g. speech pathologist, occupational therapist) are
invited to the follow-up meeting when progress has not been demonstrated.
In addition to a follow-up PIT team meeting, an additional meeting takes
place each month called the “Coordinated Services Meeting.” The PIT Coordinator
adheres to SB 65 guidelines that provide a foundation, which the school must use to
ensure coordinated support for at risk students. “Coordinated services” meetings
88
provide a platform to discuss at risk students and intervention successes and failure.
The meetings assure the most appropriate and timely support is in place for students
that are at risk. The SB 65 guidelines require that parents be involved, results must
be documented and site meetings must be conducted with all coordinating services
(e.g. Special Education, English Language Learner representative, Gate)
professionals in attendance.
The Critical Elements of Effective Prereferral Intervention
for Struggling Readers
In order to identify the critical elements of effective prereferral intervention
for struggling readers it was important to explore the subject matter discussed above.
The prereferral intervention team, their skill sets and means of preparation were
investigated. Additionally, classroom teachers and their actual implementation of
suggested prereferral intervention strategies were explored. This information is
necessary in identifying essentials related to reading prereferral intervention. The
following section takes an in depth look at each stage of reading prereferral
intervention; developing, implementing and monitoring, ultimately identifying the
critical elements of effective reading prereferral intervention.
Reading Prereferral Intervention Development
The critical elements of reading prereferral intervention development
involves a team of professionals in which possess five critical elements. The PIT
team should be skilled, cohesive, organized, have specific roles and responsibilities
89
and should be effective in their efforts. The study explored the specific skills of the
PIT team studied. Most members of the PIT team had a Master’s degree or higher in
their specific field. Additionally, team members had five years of experience or
more, pulling largely from on the job learning to guide their development of
intervention. Furthermore, team members used knowledge deriving from
professional development and University preparation. The PIT team was cohesive in
their actions, identifying a specific goal for struggling readers. Ultimately, the team
identified a focus of need and worked to develop an intervention that addressed
specific needs. The PIT team was organized in their actions identifying the student’s
strengths, known information, previous modifications, concerns, questions, strategies
and actions. Additionally, each team member had a specific role and responsibility
in developing the intervention. The PIT team’s goal was to be effective; developing
effective interventions; taking into consideration intervention ease of
implementation, making sure that interventions were appropriate for the specific
student and area of need.
Reading Prereferral Intervention Implementation
Reading prereferral intervention implementation largely applies to the
referring teachers. The study found teachers implementing in class intervention need
support, need to challenge their students, need to be organized, need resources and
need to encourage and be encouraged. The teachers in the study were supported by
their site principal with consistent observation and feedback. The RSP teacher was
90
also present to support teachers in areas where they were less familiar with
interventions. The teachers made sure that the students that needed intervention
were appropriately challenged adjusting instruction to each student’s individual
need. Planning and organization was integral to the teachers implementing
intervention. The teachers had to plan interventions while making sure that the rest
of the classroom was also receiving effective instruction. Resources were also
necessary and available to the teachers of the study. They were able to conduct an
intensive reading program for struggling readers, use computer programs and
participate in professional development opportunities. The teachers were
encouraged by the PIT team, most importantly by the site principal who was largely
responsible for providing support, resources, and a school atmosphere that promoted
reading prereferral intervention. Teachers also encouraged their students with
frequent amounts of praise throughout intervening.
Reading Prereferral Intervention Monitoring
The study identified five critical elements to reading prereferral intervention
monitoring. Reading prereferral intervention monitoring efforts should be student
centered, continuous, organized, reliable and efficient. The PIT team used a protocol
of initially documenting student concerns and suggested actions. Subsequently, the
team conducted follow- up meetings to discuss student outcomes after approximately
six weeks of intervention. Follow-up meetings were continuous until student
concerns were adequately addressed. In addition to follow-up PIT team meetings,
91
students struggling with reading were discussed at the coordinated services meetings
in which student success and concerns were discussed with a team of school
professionals (e.g. Speech Language Pathologist, English Language Learner
representative, etc.). Some of the professionals involved with the coordinated
services meeting may not have attended the initial or follow-up PIT team meetings.
With their new outlook on the student’s case, additional interventions could be
developed as appropriate. Monitoring efforts should also be reliable; teachers
discussed monitoring tools used within the classroom, which were efficient and used
regularly. Monitoring tools were proclaimed to test appropriately, what the teachers
wanted to test.
In sum, each element of reading prereferral intervention; developing,
implementing and monitoring include critical elements. Table 7. the Reading
Prereferral Intervention S.C.O.R.E. sheet, offers a visual summary of each
component and the five critical elements described above. The table can be used as a
guide for existing reading prereferral intervention teams or those teams that are in the
early stages of development.
92
Table. 7 Reading Prereferral Intervention S.C.O.R.E. Sheet
Reading Prereferral Intervention
S.C.O.R.E Sheet
Developing, Implementing and Monitoring
Developing
An efficient prereferral intervention team should be.....
Skilled
Cohesive
Organized
Responsible
Effective
Implementing
Teachers implementing in-class interventions.....
need Support
need to Challenge students
need to be Organized
need Resources
need to Encourage students
Monitoring
All prereferral interventions monitoring efforts should be.....
Student Centered
Continuous
Organized
Reliable
Efficient
93
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
This final chapter reviews the problem being examined, restates the purpose
of the study and presents a synthesis of the key findings as they relate to the research
questions posed at the beginning of the study. Implications for the research and
generalizability of study will be discussed and conclusions provided. Additionally,
this chapter will present recommendations for future research.
Review of the Problem
Successfully teaching all children to read persists as one of the most
challenging issues in classrooms across the nation. Students continue to be identified
as reading deficient and these deficiencies are liable to extend across all subject
areas. Teacher’s lack the resources and the know how to assist their struggling
readers (Jobling and Moni, 2004). In an effort to help these students, teachers refer
students to special education services beginning in the 2
nd
and 3
rd
grade. Research
suggests that many students that end up in special education have preventable
academic deficits (Gresham,2002). Additionally, the support these students
eventually receive is typically delayed and deficits are then particularly difficult to
remediate (Donovan & Cross 2002).
Due to the mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) school districts have
been urged to identify “at risk” and “low performing” students early and have been
encouraged to implement preventive and prereferral instruction. School districts
94
have put together teams of professionals in which develop and monitor interventions
for use in the general education setting. This process supports students early and
prior to special education consideration.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the case study conducted was to identify the critical elements
of reading prereferral intervention. The focus of the case study was an elementary
school, which presented with an effective prereferral intervention process
demonstrating specific elements which research identifies as necessary to implement
effective reading prereferral intervention. The case study analyzed specific elements
of reading prereferral intervention, specifically analyzing the development,
implementation and monitoring of reading intervention. The study identified
specific elements, which were necessary for successful intervention and how to
implement them effectively.
Synthesis of Key Findings
In order to answer the questions posed by the study, data were gathered using
classroom observations, questionnaires and data analysis. The major findings are as
follows:
1. Planning and Organization: The theme of planning and organization was a
key element in all aspects of reading prereferral intervention. Lau et al.
(2006) specifies that time be allotted to team members for “planning,
95
training, meeting and evaluating.” Each stage of reading prereferral
intervention will be discussed:
Developing
When team members met to discuss a student, they implemented a
plan; identifying the student’s strengths, known information and
modifications, concerns, questions, strategies and actions. The team
identified a primary focus of need and worked together to develop an
intervention that addressed that need.
Implementing
The implementation stage of reading prereferral intervention needed a
substantial amount of planning and organization. Each phase of the reading
intervention within the classroom required planning that was extensive and
purposeful. Teachers have a responsibility to their class in its entirety not
just to those students that are struggling (Baker & Zigmond, 1990).
Therefore, a considerable amount of planning time went into the
implementation stage. While teachers intervened with students, they had to
make sure that the rest of the class was also engaged in activities that
facilitated learning. Teachers had extensive lesson plans that identified the
goals of their small groups (intervention groups) and additional in class
interventions (e.g. student teacher activities and computer programs).
96
Monitoring
The monitoring of reading prereferral intervention also included a
great amount of planning and organization. Follow up prereferral
intervention meetings were scheduled where the team met to discuss new
information, previous actions, outcomes and new actions. When new actions
were proposed the person responsible to implement the action as well as
when the actions was to be completed were recorded. Additionally,
coordinated services meetings were also conducted once each month to
review student outcomes (successes and concerns). Each student in the
prereferral intervention process was discussed and new intervention
suggestions were developed if necessary.
Ultimately, planning and organization was necessary to create an
effective plan to assist the students. Without planning and organization, the
team would not have a shared goal in which to develop effective intervention.
Without planning and organization, teachers would not be able to manage the
classroom and address the needs of struggling students. Without planning
and organization, the PIT team would not have been able to monitor student
progress to modify interventions as needed.
2. Identify roles and responsibilities: Research identifies the need for multiple
perspectives and essentially specific team roles when working to identify and
address student academic concern and in developing instructional
97
intervention (Paul, 2006). Each team member had a specific role and
responsibility in the process of reading prereferral intervention. Not only
were roles and responsibilities identified, but also when actions were
presented a specific team member was assigned to complete the action. The
PIT team coordinator was a significant aspect of the PIT team and reading
prereferral intervention process, acting as a lead facilitator and manager.
Research states that there should always be a representative to “organize and
maintain” the prereferral process (Lau et al., 2006). The psychologist was
able to assist in identifying key intervention strategies of which other team
members were not familiar. The psychologist had the ability to identify “red
flags” of more severe reading deficits and intervened appropriately. The
resource specialist program (RSP) teacher also had specialized skills in the
area of how to assist low performing students, specifically in reading. The
RSP teacher was able to provide assistance to teachers as they implemented
interventions within the classroom. The site principal was able to provide
necessary resources to the PIT team and facilitated an environment that
supported prevention and an early intervention philosophy.
3. Support and Resources: Research identifies the importance of support and
resources in reading prereferral intervention, frequently focusing on cases of
lack there of (McDougall, Clonan & Martens, 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri,
2002). Each of the teachers observed as well as the additional PIT team
98
members discussed the need for support and resources in order to develop
and implement successful reading prereferral intervention. Resources such as
student teachers, teacher’s aides and parent volunteers were extremely
helpful in the classroom. PIT team members also discussed the importance
of specialists that visited the school such as reading first teachers who could
offer support in specific reading curriculum. Resources such as curriculum,
computers and specialized programs were also significant in the intervention
process in which the site principal was able to provide.
Implications for Practitioners
There are a variety of factors that lead to an effective prereferral intervention
team. The study conducted, analyzed an existing prereferral intervention team and
their procedure in assisting struggling readers. Additionally, two-classroom teachers
in the process of referring students to the PIT team were observed to identify
whether they used the interventions suggested by the team. The study identified key
factors in developing, implementing and monitoring reading prereferral intervention.
As a result of this study, specific guidelines were created in how to develop an
effective prereferral intervention team, how to implement the suggested interventions
and how to monitor the use of those interventions.
99
Any elementary school in the midst of developing a prereferral intervention
team would be able to use the information presented in the study. Additionally,
existing prereferral intervention teams that are not effective can gain useful
information to assist their team through the guidelines developed from this study.
Practitioners must also become familiar with current best practices as they
develop their PIT teams. The NCLD along with Torgesen identify the need for
struggling readers to be identified early. As practitioners attempt to form prereferral
intervention teams and address struggling readers, the “big ideas” developed by the
NCLD and Torgesen is a useful guide. These “big ideas” can assist practitioners and
help them identify if their students may have later difficulty with reading. The first
“big idea” is that children that struggle to “sound out” words may have later
difficulty with reading. Children may additionally have difficulty with reading
fluency and accuracy. The second “big idea” is that children that enter school with
limited vocabularies may have a harder time learning new vocabulary, which can
cause reading comprehension to be delayed. Practitioners and parents can help
increase student vocabulary by pointing out and discussing new words. Lastly,
children that do not enjoy reading do not participate in reading practice. Torgesen
likens reading difficulties with a person who competes in a sport. In order to become
good at a sport you must practice likewise with reading. Consistent reading practice
results in the ability to decode and ultimately students will be able to derive meaning
from what is being read. Torgesen suggests that parents should read to their children
100
often and help their children understand the value in reading. Practitioners should
also assist in developing a student’s interest for reading in the classroom.
Implications for Families of Struggling Readers
According to the National Center for Learning Disorders (NCLD), parents
spend millions of dollars on reading programs that may not be completely beneficial
for their children. Many of the programs are largely advertised and may cause
parents to have impractical expectations. Torgesen suggests that parents can assist
their children in an effort to prevent and address reading deficits. Torgesen’s main
focus and suggestion for parents is to stimulate reading habits early; he says “early is
better.” If parents perceive that there may be a problem, they should try to find
assistance early (NCLD & Torgesen, 2005). This is where schools and practitioners
must devise a way to inform parents on the early signs of reading difficulty and train
these parents on how they can help their child at home. The school site studied make
parents an important part of the school by offering trainings (e.g Shared Decision-
Making Model, Numbers at Noon and Literacy Lunch) and placing parents on site
committees. Additionally, parents are kept informed by receiving a parent
handbook, resourceful academic brochures, classroom newsletters and resources on
the school website.
101
Generalizability of the Study
The study conducted used classroom observations, questionnaires and record
reviews all of which can be replicated in other elementary schools and therefore has
generalizability. Replicating this study in other elementary schools could help the
schools identify the strengths and weaknesses incorporated in their reading
prereferral process.
Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of this study was to identify the critical elements of effective
reading prereferral intervention. The specific interventions developed and
implemented were an integral part of the study. There was a limited amount of
intervention choices available. Further research should explore the latest approaches
and or programs available in reading intervention. It would have been interesting to
delve further into the computer reading programs that have the ability to focus in on
the child’s specific deficits. The study found that computer programs were one of
the most practical in-class reading interventions. This was primarily due to the ease
of set up and implementation allowing the teacher the time to attend to the needs of
other students.
The study examined one elementary schools process in reading prereferral
intervention. Their prereferral intervention team (PIT) included a PIT coordinator,
who played an integral part in the reading prereferral intervention process. It is
important to note that not all schools have the benefit of a PIT coordinator. In some
102
schools, teachers and other staff must act as PIT meeting facilitators. Research
should explore how the reading prereferral intervention process would change if the
school did not have the benefit of a full time PIT coordinator. Finally, there were
several elements explored in the study, however, identifying whether or not
interventions were successful was not an aim of this study. A future point of
research would be that of exploring the effectiveness of specific interventions.
Conclusions
Reading prereferral intervention aims to identify and support those students
that are struggling in the area of reading early and effectively. With a team of
professionals each with specific roles and responsibilities, working toward a shared
goal, successful reading achievement is possible. Students no longer have to wait
until their reading performance falls significantly lower than that of their peers to
receive assistance. With the support of a team, intervention can be developed,
implemented and monitored effectively in the classroom setting.
103
References
Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A. & Schick, R. (1997). How administrators
understand learning difficulties: A qualitative analysis. Remedial & Special
Education, 18, 223-232.
Andrews, T., Wisnniewski, J. & Mulick, J. (1997) Variables influencing teachers’
decisions to refer children for school psychological assessment services.
Psychology in the Schools, 34(3), 239-244.
Artiles, A. J. & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in
special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27, 410-
437.
Bahr, Michael W., & Kovaleski, Joseph F. (Jan-Feb 2006) The need for problem-
solving teams: introduction to the special issue. In Remedial and Special
Education, 27, p2(4).
Baker, J. M. & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to
accommodate students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 56, 515-
526.
Berninger, V., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R. D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, S. & Cude, J.
et al. (2003). Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading
instruction for low-achieving second grade readers. Language Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 101-116.
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. and Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted
instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of
Educational Research, 72(1), 101-130.
Bond, G.& Dykstra, R. (1997). The Cooperative Research Program in First-Grade
Reading Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly ,32(4), 348-427
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to Intervention. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 485-486.
Burns, M. K. & Symington, T. (2002). A meta-analysis of pre-referral intervention
teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40,
437-447.
104
Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., Smith-Thomas, A. & Wilcox Cook, K. (2003).
Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional
Children, 69, 349-360.
Capizzi, Andrea M., & Fuchs, Lynn S. (May-June 2005) Effects of curriculum-based
measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher
planning. In Remedial and Special Education, 26, 159(16).
Chalfant, J. C., & Pysh, M. V. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive
studies on 96 teams. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 10, 49–58.
Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). Testing, reform, and rebellion. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Crosser, S. L. (1991). Summer birth date children: Kindergarten entrance age and
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 140-146.
Darling-Hammond,L. (2000) Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review
of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(1).
Dechant, E. (1991) Understanding and teaching reading: An interactive model.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deno, S. L. (2003) Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement. Journal of
Special Education, 37, 184-192.
Diperna, J. (2006) Academic enablers and student achievement: Implications for
assessment and intervention services in the schools. Psychology in the
Schools, 43(1), 7-17.
Donovan, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (2002). Minority students in special education and
gifted Education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Dowhower, S.L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional
readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389-
406.
Drame, E. (2002) Sociocultural context effects on teachers’ readiness to refer for
learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 41-53.
Dunn, L.M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it
justifiable? Exceptional Children, 23, 5-21.
105
Elliot, J.(2000). The psychological assessment of children with learning disabilities.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 59-66.
Fielding, C. (2004) Low performance on high-stakes test drives special education
referrals: A Texas survey. The Education Forum, 68, 126-132.
Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches
for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected
underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545-552.
Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L.,& Mirkin, P. K. (1984). Effects of frequent curriculum-
based measurement on pedagogy, student achievement, and student
awareness of learning. American Educational Research
Journal, 21, 449–460.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1989). Exploring effective and efficient prereferral
interventions: a component analysis of behavioral consultation. School
Psychology Review, 18, 260– 283.
Fuchs, L. S.,&Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the
development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-
based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28,
659–671.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bahr, M. W. (1990a). Mainstream assistance teams: a
scientific basis for the art of consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 128–
139.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bahr, M. W. (1990b). Prereferral intervention: a
prescriptive approach. Exceptional Children, 56, 493– 513.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying
construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
25, 33-45.
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical
issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172-186.
106
Fuchs, D., Deshler, D., & Reschly, D. (2004). National research center on learning
disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 27, 189-195.
Gartin, B. & Murdick, N. (2005). IDEA 2004: The IEP. Remedial and Special
Education, 26, 327-331
Gerber, M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to intervention
strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 516-524.
Goulandris, N. K., Snowling, M. J. & Walker, I. (2000). Is dyslexia a form of
specific language impairment? A comparison of dyslexic and language
impaired children as adolescents. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 103-120.
Graney, Suzanne Bamonto, & Shinn, Mark R. (Spring 2005)Effects of Reading
Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM) teacher feedback in general
education classrooms. In School Psychology Review, 34, p184(18).
Gredler, G. R. (1980). The birthdate effect: Fact or artifact. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 13, 239-242.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to
the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P.
Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice
(pp 467-564). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gresham, F. M. & MacMillan, D. L. (1997). Teachers as tests: Differential validity
of teacher judgments in identifying students at risk for learning difficulties.
School Psychology Review, 26(1), 47-61.
Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Bonstrom, O. (1985). Implementing a prereferral
intervention system: II. The data. Exceptional Children, 51, 487– 496.
Gravois, Todd A., & Rosenfield, Sylvia A. (Jan-Feb 2006)Impact of instructional
consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority
students in special education. In Remedial and Special
Education, 27, p42(9).
Heath, S. M. & Hogben, J. H. (2004). Cost-effective prediction of reading
difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47, 751-
765.
107
Hall, T. E., Hughes, C. A. & Filbert, M. (2000). Computer assisted instruction in
reading for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis.
Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 173-193.
Haring, N.G., Lovitt, T.C., Eaton, M.D., & Hansen, C.L. (1978). The fourth R:
Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing.
Herman, P.A. (1985) The effect of repeated readings on reading rate, speech pauses,
and word recognition accuracy. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 553-565
Hosp, J. & Reschly, D. (2003). Referral rates for intervention or assessment: A meta-
analysis of racial differences. The Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 67-80.
House, J. E., & McInerney, W. F. (1996). The school assistance center: an alternative
model for the delivery of school psychological services. School Psychology
International, 17, 115– 124.
Jenkins, J. & Larsen, D. (1979). Evaluation of error-correction procedures for oral
reading. Journal of Special Education, 13, 145-156.
Jobling, A. & Moni, K. (2004). 'I never imagined I'd have to teach these children':
Providing authentic learning experiences for secondary pre-service teachers
in teaching students with special needs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 32(1), 5-22
Kamps, D. & Greenwood, C. (2005). Formulating secondary-level reading
interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 500-509.
Kavale, K. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to
intervention the answer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 553-562.
Kavale, A., & Forness, S. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and
don’t say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239-256.
Kavale, K., Holdnack, J., & Mostert, M. (2005). Response to intervention and the
identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative
proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2-16.
Kovaleski, J. F., Tucker, J. A., & Duffy, D. J. (1995). School reform through
instructional support: The Pennsylvania Initiative (Part I). Communique´,
23(8), (insert).
108
Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., VanKeuren, B. & Marston, D.
(2006). Perspectives on the use of the problem-solving model from the
viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator, and teacher from a large
midwest urban school district. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 117-127.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evahlation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129-
150.
Marcoe, M. S. (2001). Treatment acceptability of teachers across different school
levels. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 2029.
Marston, D. (2005) Tiers of interventions in responsiveness to intervention:
Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 539-544.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2005) Feasibility and Consequences of Response to
Intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for
the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 525-531.
Martens, B. K. & Ardoin, S. P. (2002). Training school psychologists in behavior
support consultation. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 147-163.
Mayor, S. (2005). Preservice Teachers' Developing Perspectives on Assessment and
Remediation of Struggling Readers. Reading Improvement, 42(3), 164-179.
McDougall, J., Clonan, S. & Martens, B. (2000). Using Organizational Change
Procedures To Promote the Acceptability of Prereferral Intervention
Services: The School-based Intervention Team Project. School Psychology
Quarterly , 15(2), 149-71.
McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Compton, D. (2005) Responding to
nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention
methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4) 445-463.
Mellard, D., Byrd, S., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J. & Boesche, L. (2004). Foundations
and research on identifying model responsiveness-to-intervention sites.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 243-256.
109
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the
structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
Moore-Brown, B. J., Montgomery, J. K., Bielinski, J. & Shubin, J. (2005).
Responsiveness to intervention: Teaching before testing helps avoid labeling.
Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 148-167.
Moore, K. J., Fifield, M. B., Spira, D. A., & Scarlato, M. (1989). Child study team
decision making in special education: improving the process. RASE:
Remedial & Special Education, 10, 50– 58.
Muyskens, P. & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Student academic responding time as a
function of classroom ecology and time of day. Journal of Special Education,
31, 411-424.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications
for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). NAEP 2000 Reading. A report card
for the nation and the states. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Research Center for Learning Disabilities (2004). Response to Intervention
from http://www.nrcld.org/
Neal, L., McCray, A., Webb-Johnson, G., & Bridgest, S. (2003). The Effects of
African American Movement Styles on Teachers' Perceptions and Reactions.
Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 49-57.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.
O’connor, R., Harty, K., & Fulmer, D. (2005) . Tiers of intervention in kindergarten
through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 532-538.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paul, D., Blosser, J., Jakubowitz, M. (2006). Principles and challenges in forming
successful literacy partnerships. Topics in Language Disorders, 26(1), 5-23.
110
Podell, D. & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education
referrals. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247-253.
Public Law 101-476. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEIA).
Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness of a
group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 24,2-17.
Rashotte, C.A. & Torgesen, J.K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in
learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180-188.
Reschly, D., & Hosp, J. (2004) State SLD identification policies and practices.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197-213.
Romi, S.& Leyser, Y. (2006) Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A study
of variables associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European
Journal of Special Needs Education. 21(1), 85-105.
Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T. A. (1996). Instructional consultation teams:
collaborating for change. New York: Guilford.
Roth, F. & Troia, G. (2006). Collaborative Efforts to Promote Emergent Literacy and
Efficient Word Recognition Skills. Topics in Language Disorders.
Partnerships for Literacy: Principles and Practices, 26(1), 24-41.
Santrock, J. W. (2006) Life-span development. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing
the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 25, 155-164.
Serafica, F. & Learner, K. (1989). Teachers' Conceptions of Specific Learning
Disabilities: Relationships to Expectations, Placement, and Programming.
Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Kansas City, MO, April 27-30
Shaywitz, S. (1998). Current concepts: Dyslexia. New England Journal of Medicine,
338, 307-312.
111
Shany, M.T. & Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted reading practice: Effects on
performance for poor readers in grades 3 and 4 . Reading Research Quarterly,
30, 382-395.
Shinn, M.R., Shinn, M.M., Hamilton, C., & Clarke, B. ( 2002). Using curriculum-
based measurement in general education classrooms to promote reading
success. In M.R. Shinn, H.M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for
Academic and Behavior Problems II: Preventive and Remedial Approaches
(pp. 113-142) Washington DC: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior
problems: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 113-142). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-479.
Silva, A. ( 2003, Summer). What is a school psychologist? Retrieved October 12,
2004, from http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/whatisa.html
Singh, N.N. (1990). Effects of two error-correction procedures on oral reading
errors: Word supply versus sentence repeat. Behavior Modification, 14, 188-
199.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Speece, D.L., Case, L.P., & Molloy, D.E. (2003). Responsiveness to general
education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities
identification. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 147–156.
Stage, S. A., Abbott, R. D., Jenkins, J. R. & Berninger, V. W. (2003). Predicting
response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related
language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy:
Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36,
24-33.
Stronge, J.H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. : Association for Supervision
& Curriculum Deve.
112
Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E. &
Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading
difficulties: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39,
469-518.
Telzrow, C. F. (1999). IDEA amendments of 1997: Promise or pitfall for special
education reform. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 7-28.
Thompson, S. & Hickman-Davis, P. (2002) Supplemental reading instruction for
students at risk for reading disabilities: Improve reading 30 minutes at a time.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(4), 242-251.
Tilly, W.D., III. (2002). Best practices in school psychology as a problem-solving
enterprise. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology IV (pp. 21–36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Topping, K. j. (1987). Paired reading: A powerful technique for parent use. Reading
Teacher, 40, 608-614.
Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher
education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32,
321-345.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C.A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T. , &
Garvin, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with
phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to
instruction. Journal of Educational Psycholog, 91, 579-593.
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in
reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 15, 55-64.
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School
Psychology, 40, 7-26.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.,
Conway, T. & Rose, E. (2001). 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.
113
Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. (2001). 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.
Truscott, S. D., Cohen, C. E., Sama, D. P., Sanborn, K. J. & Frank, A. J. (2005). The
current state(s) of prereferral intervention teams: A report from two national
surveys. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 130-140.
VanDerHeyden, A., & Witt, J. (2005) Quantifying context in assessment: Capturing
the effect of base rates on teacher referral and a problem-solving model of
identification. School Psychology Review, 34(2), 161-183.
Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L. (2003) Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate
response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137-146.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003) Response to instruction as a
means of identifying students with reading/learning disability. Exceptional
Children, 69(4), 391-409.
Linan-Thompson, S., Bryant, D., Dickson, S., Kouzekanani, K. (2003). Spanish
literacy instruction for at-risk kindergarten students. Remedial & Special
Education, 26(4 ), 236-244
Van Bon, W.H.J., Boksebeld, L.M., Font Freide, T.A.M., & Van den Hurk, J.M.
(1991). A comparison of three methods of reading-while-listening. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 24, 471-476.
Warren, Tessa and Edward Gibson. 2002. The influence of referential processing on
sentence complexity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Department of Brain
and Cognitive Sciences MS.
Wallingford, E. L. & Prout, H. T. (2000). The relationship of season of birth and
special education referral. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 379-387.
Wedl (2005), http://educationevolving.org/pdf/Response_to_Intervention.pdf
Wehmeyer, M. & Schwartz, M. (2001) Disproportionate representation of males in
special education services: Biology, behavior or bias? Education and
Treatment of Children, 24(1), 28-45.
114
Wenitzky, N., Stoddart, T., & O'Keefe, P. (1992). Great expectations: Emergent
professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education,
43(1), 3-18.
Wesson, C. L., Skiba, R., Sevcik, B., King, R., & Deno, S. (1984). The effects of
technically adequate instructional data on achievement. Remedial and
Special Education, 5, 17-- -22.
Whitten, E., & Dieker, L. (1995). Intervention assistance teams: A broader vision.
Preventing School Faliure, 40, 41–50.
Wright, J. (2001) The savvy teacher’s guide: Reading interventions that work.
Retrieved May 26, 2006, from
www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/brouge/rdngManual.PDF
Ysseldyke, J. (2005) Assessment and decision making for students with learning
disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets? Learning Disability Quarterly,
28, 125-128.
115
Appendix A: Classroom Observation Checklist
Date: ___________ Reading Prereferral Intervention Teacher: ____________
Time: ___________ Student ID: ____________
Environmental Field Notes
E.1 Elicit student participation
E.2 Praise and positive reinforcement
E.3 1:1 instruction
E.4 Small group

Assisted Reading Practice
A.1 Assisted Reading
A.2 Listening Passage Preview
A.3 Paired Reading
A.4 Repeated Reading

Other
O.1 Intensive reading program
O.2 CBM used to modify instruction
O.3 Computer reading program
O.4 Books on tape-read along
116
Appendix B: Observation Codes, Explanations and References
Environmental
E.1
Elicit student participation Diperna (2006)
E.2
Praise and positive
reinforcement
Diperna (2006)
E.3
1:1 instruction Torgesen, Alexander, et al. (2001)
E.4
Small group Rashotte, MacPhee, & Torgesen, 2001
Assisted Reading Practice
A.1
Assisted Reading The student reads with the assistance of a more capable
reader. If the student makes a mistake the helping reader can
offer assistance. Shany (1995).
A.2
Listening Passage Preview The student listens as the accomplished reader reads. The
student then reads receiving corrective feedback from the
accomplished reader if necessary. Van Bon et al. (1991)
A.3
Paired Reading The student reads in tandem with an accomplished reader. At
certain points the accomplished reader stops reading and the
student continues alone. Topping, K. (1987).
A.4
Repeated Reading The student reads a passage repeatedly until the student reads
the passage 4 times (Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985) or reads at a
rate of 85 to 100 words per minute (Dowhower, 1987; Herman,
1985).
Other
O.1
Intensive reading program Torgesen, Alexander, et al. (2001)
O.2
CBM used to modify
instruction
Graney and Shinn (2005)
O.3
Computer reading Tutorial Bloc et al. (2002)
O.4
Audio/ Visual Books on tape Rasinski et al. (2006)
117
Appendix C: Questionnaire #1 Principal
Prereferral Intervention Questionnaire
Principal
Thank you for taking time to answer this questionnaire regarding prereferral intervention. The
research aims to identify critical elements of effective reading prereferral intervention. The
questionnaire asks general closed and open questions regarding your personal experience in dealing
with the development, implementation and monitoring of prereferral intervention. Your participation in
this study is voluntary and there are no foreseeable risks associated with it. Your questionnaire
responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported in the dissertation
anonymously.
1. How many years have you worked as a principal or an assistant principal?
2. What is your role in the SST process as it pertains to reading prereferral
intervention?
3. What educational experience has prepared you most for participation in the SST
process?
Training or In-service (offered by school district)
Training or In-service (outside of school district)
Course taken during undergraduate and/ or graduate school
Learned on the job
Individual research
I have not been prepared
Comments:
4. What do you believe ineffective reading prereferral intervention is primarily
caused by:
118
(Check one only)
Lack of intervention choices
Lack of monitoring
Teachers do not implement suggested interventions
Teachers do not know how to implement intervention effectively
Other (Please specify) ________________________________
Comments:
5. What process does your school use to monitor the implementation of suggested
interventions?
6. Out of all of the schools you have worked in, how would you describe the SST
process at Kwis Elementary (e.g. Excellent, Average, Poor)? Explain.
7. How would you describe the level of intervening (e.g. Excellent, Average, Poor)?
Explain.
8. As an administrator, how do you support (e.g. resources, feedback) your teachers
in their efforts to assist students with reading difficulties?
119
Appendix D: Questionnaire #2 Psychologist
Prereferral Intervention Questionnaire
Psychologist
Thank you for taking time to answer this questionnaire regarding prereferral intervention. The
research aims to identify critical elements of effective reading prereferral intervention. The
questionnaire asks general closed and open questions regarding your personal experience in dealing
with the development, implementation and monitoring of prereferral intervention. Your participation in
this study is voluntary and there are no foreseeable risks associated with it. Your questionnaire
responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported in the dissertation
anonymously.
9. How many years have you worked as a Psychologist ?
10. What primarily determines your presence at a Student Study Team (SST)
meeting?
(Check the box that occurs most frequently)
I attend all SST meetings
SST coordinator and/ or teacher request I attend specific meetings
A student has been considered for special education assessment
Comments:
11. What is your role in the SST process as it pertains to reading prereferral
intervention?
(Check all that apply)
I assist in developing appropriate reading prereferral intervention
I conduct treatment integrity checks for all suggested interventions
I do not have a role in developing prereferral intervention
Comments:
12. What educational experience has prepared you most in developing reading
prereferral intervention?
Training or In-service (offered by school district)
Training or In-service (outside of school district)
Course taken during undergraduate and/ or graduate school
Learned on the job
Individual research
120
I have not been prepared
Comments:
13. What do you believe ineffective reading prereferral intervention is primarily
caused by:
(Check one only)
Lack of intervention choices
Lack of monitoring
Teachers do not implement suggested interventions
Teachers do not know how to implement intervention effectively
Other (Please specify) ________________________________
Comments:
14. What information do you rely on when choosing/developing reading prereferral
intervention?
15. In your experience, what elements of reading prereferral intervention are
effective?
16. What do you believe will improve reading prereferral intervention outcomes?
17. Name three reading interventions you have found most effective.
18. What process is used to monitor the implementation of suggested interventions?
121
19. Some school districts hold psychologist responsible for monitoring intervention.
How do you feel about this?
20. Out of all of the elementary schools you have worked in, how would you describe
the SST process at Kwis Elementary (e.g. Excellent, Average, Poor)? Explain.
21. How would you describe the level of intervening (e.g. Excellent, Average, Poor)?
Explain.
122
Appendix E: Questionnaire #3 General Education Teachers
Prereferral Intervention Questionnaire
General Education Teachers
Thank you for taking time to answer this short questionnaire regarding prereferral intervention.
The research aims to identify critical elements of effective prereferral intervention. The questionnaire
therefore asks general closed and open questions regarding your personal experience in dealing with
the development, implementation and monitoring of prereferral intervention. It will take approximately
10 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is voluntary and there are no foreseeable risks
associated with it. Your questionnaire responses will be strictly confidential and data from this
research will be reported in the dissertation anonymously.
1. How many years have you been a teacher?
2. On average, how many students do you refer to the SST process in a year?
3. What educational experience has prepared you most in implementing prereferral
intervention?
Training or In-service (offered by school district)
Training or In-service (outside of school district)
Course taken during undergraduate and/ or graduate school
Learned on the job
Individual research
I have not been prepared
4. Students are typically referred to a Student Study Team (SST) meeting because of:
Academic difficulty, specify subject area _______________
Behavior management
Low test scores (District Assessments, STAR, CAT 6)
Other (Please specify) ________________________________
5. In your experience, SST’s typically result in:
(Check one only)
Effective in-class intervention suggestions
Ineffective in-class intervention suggestions
Special education assessment
Other (Please specify) ________________________________
123
6. How does the multidisciplinary team (psychologist and special educators) assist you in
the prereferral process?
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
7. In your experience, what elements of prereferral intervention are effective?
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
8. What do you believe will improve prereferral intervention outcomes?
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
9. Name 3 interventions you have found most effective.
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
10. What process is used to monitor the implementation of suggested intervention?
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
124
Appendix F: Questionnaire #4 RSP Teacher
Prereferral Intervention Questionnaire
RSP
Thank you for taking time to answer this questionnaire regarding prereferral intervention. The
research aims to identify critical elements of effective reading prereferral intervention. The
questionnaire asks general closed and open questions regarding your personal experience in dealing
with the development, implementation and monitoring of prereferral intervention. Your participation in
this study is voluntary and there are no foreseeable risks associated with it. Your questionnaire
responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported in the dissertation
anonymously.
22. How many years have you worked as a RSP teacher or in the special education
field?
23. What primarily determines your presence at a Student Study Team (SST)
meeting?
(Check the box that occurs most frequently)
I attend all SST meetings
SST coordinator and/ or teacher request I attend specific meetings
A student has been considered for special education assessment
Comments:
24. What is your role in the SST process as it pertains to reading prereferral
intervention?
(Check all that apply)
I assist in developing appropriate reading prereferral intervention
I conduct treatment integrity checks for all suggested interventions
I do not have a role in developing prereferral intervention
Comments:
25. What educational experience has prepared you most in developing reading
prereferral intervention?
Training or In-service (offered by school district)
125
Training or In-service (outside of school district)
Course taken during undergraduate and/ or graduate school
Learned on the job
Individual research
I have not been prepared
Comments:
26. What do you believe ineffective reading prereferral intervention is primarily
caused by:
(Check one only)
Lack of intervention choices
Lack of monitoring
Teachers do not implement suggested interventions
Teachers do not know how to implement intervention effectively
Other (Please specify) ________________________________
Comments:
27. What information do you rely on when choosing/developing reading prereferral
intervention?
28. In your experience, what elements of reading prereferral intervention are
effective?
29. What do you believe will improve reading prereferral intervention outcomes?
30. Name three reading interventions you have found most effective.
126
31. What process is used to monitor the implementation of suggested interventions?
32. Out of all of the elementary schools you have worked in, how would you describe
the SST process at Kwis Elementary (e.g. Excellent, Average, Poor)? Explain.
33. How would you describe the level of intervening (e.g. Excellent, Average, Poor)?
Explain.
127
Appendix G: Questionnaire #5 SST Coordinator
Prereferral Intervention Questionnaire
SST Coordinator
Thank you for taking time to answer this short questionnaire regarding prereferral intervention.
The research aims to identify critical elements of effective prereferral intervention. The questionnaire
therefore asks general closed and open questions regarding your personal experience in dealing with
the development, implementation and monitoring of prereferral intervention. It will take approximately
10 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is voluntary and there are no foreseeable risks
associated with it. Your questionnaire responses will be strictly confidential and data from this
research will be reported in the dissertation anonymously.
1. How many years have you been a coordinator for Prereferral Intervention Team (PIT)
meetings?
2. What qualifies you to be a PIT coordinator?
3. What is your role in the PIT team process as it pertains to prereferral intervention?
(Check all that apply)
I assist in developing appropriate prereferral intervention
I conduct treatment integrity checks for all suggested interventions
I do not have a role in developing prereferral intervention
4. What educational experience has prepared you most in implementing prereferral
intervention?
Training or In-service (offered by school district)
Training or In-service (outside of school district)
Course taken during undergraduate and/ or graduate school
Learned on the job
Individual research
I have not been prepared
5. Students are typically referred to a Student Study Team (SST) meeting because of:
Academic difficulty, specify subject area _______________
Behavior management
Low test scores (District Assessments, STAR, CAT 6)
Other (Please specify) ________________________________
6. In your experience, SST’s typically result in:
(Check one only)
Effective in-class intervention suggestions
Ineffective in-class intervention suggestions
Special education assessment
Other (Please specify) ________________________________
128
7. In your experience, what elements of prereferral intervention are effective?
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
8. What do you believe will improve prereferral intervention outcomes?
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
9. Name 3 reading interventions you have found most effective.
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
10. What process is used to monitor the implementation of suggested intervention?
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Successfully teaching all children to read continues to be one of the most challenging issues in classrooms across the nation. Students are being identified with reading deficiencies in their primary years and these deficits persist through adulthood. Teachers are being challenged to address student reading difficulty in the classroom setting with limited skill and resources. Research has identified a rising trend in prevention and prereferral reading intervention. Schools have begun to develop multidisciplinary teams known as prereferral intervention teams (PIT) to work together to assist in developing effective reading intervention for struggling readers.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

PDF

An examination of response-to-intervention as a framework for school improvement: educators' perpectives regarding implementation

PDF

Play, read, learn: building young Black males literacy skills through an activity-based intervention

PDF

The successes and challenges of response to intervention: a case study of the impact of RTI implementation

PDF

The effects of a multi-linguistic diagnostic spelling intervention on the writing achievement and writing self-perception beliefs of secondary students: phonology, orthography, and morphology

PDF

Effective reading instruction for English learners

PDF

The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners

PDF

The role of storybook reading in a twilight preschool head start program

PDF

Factors associated with second language anxiety in adolescents from different cultural backgrounds

PDF

The effects of a reading fluency intervention on the reading outcomes of middle school students with severe reading disabilities

PDF

Inside out: teacher factors that assist in the facilitation of the implementation of early literacy interventions for at-risk first graders in an urban school

PDF

On-site impacts of Title I and Title III grant flexibility

PDF

CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents

PDF

A dialogic reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome

PDF

What about the children left-behind? An evaluation of a reading intervention program

PDF

Exploring the effects of media on the self-concepts and achievement of African American high school students

PDF

The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes

PDF

The effectiveness of the literacy for success intervention at Wilson Middle School

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school

PDF

A father, a son, and a storybook: a case study of discourse during storybook reading

Asset Metadata

Creator Curry, Felicia Marguerite (author)

Core Title Reading prereferral intervention: developing, implementing and monitoring

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Psychology)

Degree Conferral Date 2007-08

Publication Date 07/05/2007

Defense Date 05/09/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,prereferral,Reading

Language English

Advisor Ragusa, Gisele (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis J. (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email spchladi@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m588

Unique identifier UC1378309

Identifier etd-Curry-20070705 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-515361 (legacy record id),usctheses-m588 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Curry-20070705.pdf

Dmrecord 515361

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Curry, Felicia Marguerite

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu