RTI in a middle school: Findings and practical implications of a tier 2 reading comprehension study

Learning Disability Quarterly

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 35-49

  Faggella Luby, Michael ^a   Wardwell, Michelle ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955811346     PISSN: 07319487     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/073194871103400103     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Andrews, B., & Quinn, R. (2004). First-year teaching assignments. Clearing House, 78(2), 78-83.
2. Connecticut State Board of Education (CSBE). (2007). Connecticut mastery test, fourth generation: 2007 interpretive guide. Hartford, CT: Author.
3. Coyne, M., Simonsen, B., & Faggella-Luby, M. (2008). Cooperating initiatives: Supporting behavioral and academic improvement through a systems approach. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 54-59.
4. Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the studentcentered classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
5. Dimino, J., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students' comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19-32.
6. Faggella-Luby, M., & Deshler, D. (2008). Reading Comprehension in Adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70.
7. Faggella-Luby, M. N., Schumaker, J. S., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 131-147.
8. Faggella-Luby, M., Ware, S., & Capozzoli, A. (2009). Adolescent literacy - Reviewing adolescent literacy reports: Key components and critical questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 453-475.
9. Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. (2007, May 1). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129.
10. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.
11. Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.
12. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320. (Pubitemid 33401602)
13. Graner, P., Faggella-Luby, M., & Fritschmann, N. (2005, January 1). An overview of responsiveness to intervention: What practitioners ought to know. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2), 93.
14. Gresham, F., Gansle, K., Noell, G., & Cohen, S. (1993). Treatment integrity of school-based behavioral intervention studies: 1980-1990. School Psychology Review, 22(2), 254-272.
15. Hiebert, E., Fisher, C. (2005). A review of the National Reading Panel's studies on fluency: The role of text. Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 443-460. (Pubitemid 40912134)
16. Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. B. Rudell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270-1324). Newark, DE: International Reading Assoc.
17. MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2002). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, fourth edition. Technical report for forms S &T. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
18. McMillan, J. H. (2008). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
19. Mellard, D. (2004). Understanding responsiveness to intervention in learning disabilities determination. Retrieved from http://www. nrcld.org/about/publications/papers/mellard.html
20. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation's report card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010-458). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
21. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
23. Oakland, T., & Lane, H. (2004). Language, reading, and readability formulas: Implications for developing and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 4(3), 239-252.
24. Olson, M. W., & Gee, T. C. (1988). Understanding narrative: A review of story grammar research. Childhood Education, 64(5), 302-306.
25. Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., KewalRamani, A., & Kemp, J. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
26. Shadish W. R., Cook, T., Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin and Company.
27. Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2003). AIMSweb™ Training workbook administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome Measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation, Inc.
28. Simonsen, B., Shaw, S., Faggella-Luby, M., Sugai, G., Coyne, M., Rhein, B., Madaus, J., & Alfano, M. (2010). A schoolwide model for service delivery: Redefining special educators as interventionists. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 17-23.
29. Spear-Swerling, L. (2008). Using scientific research-based interventions: Improving education for all students/Connecticut's framework for RTI (executive summary). Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Department of Education.
30. State Department of Education, Connecticut. (2007). Status report: Reading achievement in our public schools. Connecticut Reading Summit, Waterbury. Retrieved from http://clearlychildbood. org/FileManagerRecursive/ customerFiles/CT-Reading-Summit-112907-Assessment-Data-FINAL.ppt
31. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1978). An analysis of story composition on elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Volume 2, pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32. Swanson, H. L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instructional method. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(3), 129-140.
33. Swanson, H., Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124-135. (Pubitemid 36404087)
34. Troia, G. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Roles for speechlanguage pathologists in the prevention and identification of learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2), 106-119.