After carefully
analyzing multiple data sources, both qualitative and quantitative, four themes
were discovered: importance of reading intervention, implementation, time, and
intervention tools. The survey and
interview revealed teacher opinions regarding the current reading intervention
setup at Greenfarm Middle School. The
AIMSweb data provided an insight on the difference in student achievement
between students receiving consistent reading intervention daily and students
who did not receive consistent daily reading intervention.
Importance
of Reading Intervention
Importance of reading intervention was assessed through a teacher survey and interviews with two staff members. The teachers that completed the survey all agreed that reading intervention is important at the middle school level. 60% of the teachers responded with “Agree” and 40% of the teachers responded with “Strongly Agree”. The teachers also answered “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to the statement “Reading intervention is something that should have taken place in k-6 classes”.
Mrs. Clark, Special Education Department
Chair, responded passionately and excitedly when asked why she felt it was
critical to have a reading intervention program in place for middle school students. “Because in
order for the students to access their curriculum, they need to be able to
read. By providing them with reading intervention we can provide them
with reading skills and build their confidence, helping them to increase their
abilities in the classroom!” (personal communication, July 11, 2013). Mrs. Olds, an English Language Arts Teacher,
also replied positively to the importance of reading intervention. “Reading intervention has really provided the students with a better
foundation for reading. The skills learned during intervention are
showing up in my classroom and on the OAA [Ohio Achievement Assessment]”
(personal communication, July 15, 2013).
Implementation of Reading Intervention
While survey and interview results illustrate a clear consensus of the importance of reading intervention, the data shows a wide variance in levels of implementing reading interventions at Greenfarm Middle School.
Quantitative
data was analyzed from two groups of 7th grade students’ AIMSweb
reading improvement reports. Both groups
are a mix of tier 2 and tier 3 readers based on their Fall 2012 benchmarking
scores. Both groups consist of a mix of
regular education and special education students. Group A received reading interventions
consistently on a daily basis. Group B
did not receive consistent daily reading interventions.
Figure 1.3
Figures
1.3 and 1.4 illustrate the reading achievement scores of 37 students at
Greenfarm Middle School. Group A
consisted of 11 Special Education students and 7 Regular Education students
that received daily reading interventions from fall-spring. Group B consisted of 5 Special Education
Students and 14 Regular Education students that did not receive daily reading
interventions. Group B originally
consisted of a total of 26 students, 7 were removed from the study due to
insufficient data.
For
7th grade students, the fall AIMSweb fluency benchmark is 136 wpm
and the spring AIMSweb fluency benchmark is 171 wpm. The expected growth of a 7th grade
student from fall-spring is 35 words per minute (wpm) (Pearson, 2012). Students in Group A averaged 101.5 words per
minute on the fall fluency benchmark.
Group A increased the average to 136.7 words per minute on the spring
fluency benchmark, resulting in an increase of 35.2 words per minute. Students in Group B averaged 99.7 words per
minute on the fall fluency benchmark.
Group B increased the average to 124.9 words per minute on the spring
fluency benchmark, resulting in an increase of 26.2. These means that students in Group A averaged
9 words per minute more than students in Group B after receiving daily reading
intervention. With daily reading
interventions, students in Group A were able to achieve the expected growth
rate from fall-spring benchmarking in fluency.
For 7th
grade students, the fall AIMSweb MAZE comprehension benchmark is 22, the spring
AIMSweb MAZE comprehension benchmark is 29.
The expected comprehension growth is 7 points. Students in Group A averaged a score of 16 on
the fall MAZE benchmarking. Group A
increased their MAZE score to an average of 23 on spring benchmarking,
increasing the scores by an average of 6.4 points. Students in Group B averaged a score of 17.2
on the fall MAZE benchmarking. Group B
increased their MAZE score to an average of 19.5 on the spring benchmarking,
increasing their scores by an average of 2.3 points. Students in Group A were 0.6 points shy of
averaging the expected 7 point growth, while students in Group B were 4.7
points away from the fall-spring expected growth rate.
Based on the
student achievement data from AIMSweb, data shows that students who participate
in daily reading interventions are more likely to maintain expected growth and increase
their fluency and comprehension scores more than students that did not receive
daily reading intervention.
Time Allotted for Reading Intervention
Teachers responded with mixed views on the aspect of time allotted for reading interventions.
The current
reading intervention model allots for 30 minutes of reading intervention. English Language Arts teachers are
responsible for intervening with tier 2 readers and Intervention Specialist are
responsible for intervening with tier 3 readers. Two survey responses indicate that the time
allotted is not enough or is schedule in at a time in the daily schedule that
does not best accommodate a reading intervention environment. One teacher suggests that the time is
available, but not all staff members are currently using the time for
interventions.
In an interview with Mrs. Olds, English Language Arts teacher, she also
indicates that all teachers are not utilizing the allotted intervention
time. Mrs. Olds was asked what she felt
was the largest obstacle Greenfarm Middle School faces in regards to reading
interventions and how the obstacle can be overcome. She responded, “The biggest obstacle would
definitely be getting the entire ELA department to understand interventions and
why we (ELA teachers) play an important role in the interventions. I
think the data is a huge part of the buy-in, but unless everyone gives it a
try, they won’t feel a connection to the data.” (Personal communication, July
15, 2013).
Intervention Tools for Reading Intervention
A major aspect of the qualitative research collected through the staff survey was focused on the multiple intervention tools currently used in reading intervention. When surveyed, staff members were asked if there should be on set reading intervention program building wide. The question scored the lowest overall average, averaging 2.8 (1: strongly disagree-5: strongly agree). The survey also asked if teachers should have the ability to select how they want to implement reading intervention, this question averaged 3.8 with responses ranging from 2-5. When asked what aspects of the current reading intervention program were going well, one staff member responded “I feel that we have several options to provide reading intervention (including Soar to Success, Six Minute Solution, Project MORE, Read Naturally, etc.) The benchmarks provide a measure to gauge success and make instructional decisions” (Anonymous survey, July 8, 2013).
Figure 1.6
This figure
provides a visual of the range of responses to the questions regarding types of
intervention tools used in reading intervention.
Based on the
results of the survey, the staff at Greenfarm Middle School appears to range
widely in their opinions of the best tools to use when providing
intervention. The survey results also
indicate a range in opinions regarding how much freedom teachers should have to
choose the materials to use during reading interventions.
