1. Responsiveness of Students With Language Difficulties to Early Intervention in Reading O’Conner, R.E., Bocian, K., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., Linklater, D.R. ( 2010 ). Responsiveness of students with language difficulties to early intervention in reading. Journal of Special Education, 43, 220-235.

2. Purpose of Study Because most studies have excluded students with low language scores, researchers don’t know the extent of how language ability helps or hinders responsiveness to reading interventions in the early grades.

3. Research Questions 1.Is the response rate among kindergartners different for those who start intervention in September as opposed to February? 2.Do students with low receptive language in English respond differently than students with language difficulties because they are English learners? 3.What are the short term effects of early reading intervention in kindergarten for students with low language ability? 4.What proportion of students respond poorly to intervention? 5. Can student characteristics predict response?

4. Method All kindergartners in 8 schools: 4 in California (urban), 4 in Montana (rural) California Montana Hispanic 44%-77% 1%-2% English Learners 19%-25% 0% Nearly half of the students in California schools were Hispanic. Most were boys 1 in special education

5. Method Universal screening done in September of kindergarten in letter naming fluency and initial sound identification— predictors of reading at that age Final sample was 69 students from schools in California (57) and Montana (12) who scored < 85% on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III Random assignment of immediate (September/October) and delayed (February) intervention groups Pretest Posttest

6. Dependent Variable Measures Pretests: Letter Naming Fluency - subtest of Aimsweb Initial Sound Fluency – DIBELS PPVT III Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence III – measures full scale, verbal and performance IQs, and processing speed California English Language Development Test –given to all English learners in California at the beginning of kindergarten to see the level of proficiency in listening, reading, speaking and writing English

7. Dependent Variable Measures Screening and progress measures Exit criteria – > 40 letters per minute on LNF > 35 on PSF Posttests: Letter Naming Fluency Phoneme Segmentation Fluency – DIBELS Used in January because it is a better predictor of early literacy growth after December of kindergarten Non Word Fluency – DIBELS

8. Independent Variable Pull out instruction by 11 Teacher Assistants (all persons delivering instruction) 15 minute sessions, 3 times weekly, small groups of 2-3 students Instruction focused on alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness and oral language (Ehri et al., 2001). Immediate instruction started in September/October for some groups. Delayed instruction started in February for the control groups.

9. Independent Variable California schools used: Houghton Mifflin Series Ladders to Literacy Montana schools used a combination: Zoo Phonics McGraw Hill Reading Series District reading instruction plan

10. Results Pretests: No significant differences between the immediate and delayed intervention groups Posttests : Showed advantages for immediate intervention

11. Results Responsiveness to Intervention: Fast responders – caught up with peers and maintained until the end of the year 34% - immediate group 25% - delayed group Good responders – progressed more than poor responders but didn’t meet exit criteria 44% - immediate group 39% - delayed group Poor responders – received intensive instruction and modifications but named less than 19 letters and 16 segments in words at end of kindergarten 44% - immediate group 39% - delayed group

12. Student Characteristics Related to Responsiveness to Intervention Researchers considered: English language status IQ subtests Range of vocabulary These characteristics didn’t determine if a student would be a fast, good or poor responder: 7 English learners in the fast group and 6 English only students with receptive language scores < 65

13. Proportion of Poor Responders 19 students or 28%

14. Discussion Most of the English only students had language and IQ scores associated with low cognitive development. The English learners were learning English as a second language. No statistical difference in outcomes between the two groups mentioned Best practice interventions (phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, oral language) for English only students can work with English learners and those with poor vocabulary in English.

15. Discussion Poor responders did better with segmenting than letter knowledge: segmenting can be generalized letter knowledge is stimulus oriented; the letter is associated with the sound

16. Limitations Identifying students with language scores that suggested cognitive problems; most students aren’t identified in kindergarten PPVT III and the WPPSI unreliable for younger students Criteria for cognitive disabilities varied from state to state TAs had fidelity of implementation problem

17. Implications The majority of students with poor English language, regardless of reason, were successful with the instruction. English learners and English only students with similar skills were combined for instruction. Response rates can help with regrouping students. Use of pictures increased understanding and encouraged participation. A segmentation measure near the start of kindergarten should be researched.

18. Analysis/Relationship Curriculum Based Measurement is essential for progress monitoring, determining benchmarks and instructional planning. CBM tells us when to change or add intervention, stop intervention, continue with the same intervention, or increase the student’s goal.

19. Analysis/Relationship Systematic and explicit evidenced based instruction in reading is effective with students with disabilities as well as those with poor language skills. It is better to help students early with poor language and who struggle to read. Teacher delay can lead to special education later because either the student didn’t get proper instruction or there was actually a problem and the student was not referred when needed (Schiff-Meyers et al., 1993).