The problem I sought to address in this study was a lack of research on how elementary school teachers in the United States use diagnostic assessments, instructional strategies, and progress monitoring in Tier 2 interventions to improve skills for students identified as at-risk in reading. Tier 2 interventions are particularly critical to the success of students at-risk in reading. In addition, effective Tier 2 interventions may prevent unnecessary placement of students in special education services.
Several studies were conducted concerning effective diagnostic assessments that teachers have used as part of the universal screening process and for Tier 2 placement (see Black et al., 2011; Compton et al., 2010; Crepeau-Hobson & Bianco, 2011; Gersten et al., 2009; Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S., 2012; Goetze & Burkett, 2010; Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009; Kilgus, Methe, Maggin, & Tomasula, 2014; Lam & McMaster, 2014; Meisinger, Bloom, & Hynd, 2010; National Joint Committee on Learning Disability (NJCLD), 2011; Park & Lombardino, 2013; Shepherd & Salembier, 2011; Snowling, Duff, Petrou, Schiffeldrin, & Bailey, 2011; Wolff, 2014). Prior research was also conducted on effective instructional practices that teachers use in Tier 2
interventions (Kilgus, Methe, Maggin, & Tomasula, 2014; Merino & Beckman, 2010; Oslund et al., 2012; Reschly, Busch, Betts, Deno, & Long, 2009). In addition, research was conducted on progress monitoring related to Tier 2 interventions (Chambers et al., 2011; Denton et al., 2011; Flint, 2010; Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, 2014; Slavin, Lake, Davis, & Madden, 2011).
However, based on my review of the literature, few researchers have explored how teachers in the early elementary grades use assessments and the scaffolding process for Tier 2 reading instruction. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore how teachers in Grades 1-3 use assessments and instruction in Tier 2 interventions for students at-risk in reading.
In this chapter, I describe the literature search strategies that I used to review relevant research on my topic and the conceptual framework that supported this study. I also analyze research related to the placement of students in Tier 2 interventions,
including how teachers use diagnostic assessments and progress monitoring in Tier 1 interventions to determine student placement in Tier 2 interventions. In addition, I analyze research related to the types of curricular materials and instructional strategies that teachers use in Tier 2 interventions. I also analyze research studies related to progress monitoring in the RTI model. I conclude this chapter with a discussion of the major themes and gaps found in the research literature.
Literature Search Strategy
For this literature search, I used multiple databases to locate peer-reviewed research articles published from 2009-2014. I accessed the following databases from the Walden University Library: Academic Search Complete, Science Direct, Education Search Complete, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global. I also searched Google Scholar, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the International Literacy Association, and the International Dyslexia Association. The key
words used in the data search were assessing reading and literacy deficits, curriculum-
based measurements, diagnostic assessments, dyslexia interventions, instructional strategies, intensity of instruction, interventions and literacy deficits, interventions and reading deficits, progress monitoring, reading assessments, reading interventions, reading intervention programs, scaffolding instruction, struggling readers, RTI, RTI and assessments, RTI and curriculum, RTI and instruction, RTI and reading deficits, RTI and struggling readers, Tier 2 reading assessments, Tier 2 reading interventions, Tier 2 reading instruction, Tier 2 reading programs, and universal screening.
I also conducted follow-up searches to verify and expand on information found in selected journal articles. Full implementation of the RTI model is still fairly recent in the United States (Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, 2010), which made finding current research studies a challenge. Some of the research studies that I found do not focus on Tier 2 placement or instruction, but instead focus on how educators identify and address the learning needs of students who are unable to maintain grade-level academic
achievement in reading (Gersten et al., 2009; Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L., 2012; Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009; Lam & McMaster, 2014; NJCLD, 2011; Snowling et al., 2011). Another major challenge was finding definitions of the RTI model and its components, because general education and special education educators often differ in their ideas about the nature and purpose of RTI.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study was based on Vygotsky’s (1929) cultural-historical theory of psychological development, particularly in relation to
cognitive development and the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky maintained that cognitive development includes (a) the processes of mastering the external means of cultural development and thinking in relation to language, writing, counting, and drawing and (b) the processes of higher mental functions, which include logical memory,
categorical perception, voluntary attention, and conceptual thinking. In terms of designing instruction to develop these higher mental functions, Vygotsky particularly emphasized the importance of the role of the teacher.
In examining the role of the teacher, Vygotsky (1935/2011) discussed the meaning of collaboration, the importance of the ideal form, and the role of the zone of proximal development. Concerning the meaning of collaboration, Vygotsky emphasized that a teacher and student need to work together in order to solve a learning problem. Vygotsky also believed that for learning to occur in the classroom, teachers need to constantly model and explain tasks and to ask students for explanations of tasks, because these responses help students develop the ability to ask questions and explain concepts. Students with advanced cognitive abilities can take on the role of the teacher in assessing their peer’s emerging cognitive functions through collaborative work with their peers (Flint, 2010; Vygotsky, 1935/2011).
In relation to the ideal form, Vygotsky (1934/2002) argued that students’
cognitive growth will be limited without the modeling of higher mental functions. These functions include logical categorical perception, voluntary attention, and conceptual thinking. Teachers model the ideal form of action(s), which is mirrored by the student in order to complete instructional tasks or set goals. Teacher modeling of the ideal form often changes to match the current maturation level of students (Vygotsky, 1934/2002).
Teacher modeling of the ideal form is also important in relation to the zone of proximal development, which Vygotsky (1935/2011) defined as “the distance between the level of actual development, determined with the help of independently solved tasks, and the level of possible development, defined with the help of tasks solved by the child under the guidance of adults or in cooperation with the more intelligent peers” (p. 204). Vygotsky stated that a critical component of the zone of proximal development is students’ persistent imitation of the ideal form, which helps them develop higher mental functions, including logical memory, categorical perception, voluntary attention, and conceptual thinking. Vygotsky (1934/2002) also stated that “the only good kind of instruction is that which marches ahead of development and leads it; it must be aimed not so much at the ripe as at the ripening function” (p. 189). Thus, Vygotsky meant that instruction, in the form of teacher modeling, should take place just beyond the tasks that a student can accomplish.
Vygotsky’s (1934/2002) zone of proximal development is a concept particularly important to intervention instruction because it is the point at which instruction will be
most effective for the individual student. A student will also be able to grasp new skills at the zone of proximal development. In earlier research, Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) contended that teachers should control task elements that are beyond the student’s
capability by scaffolding instruction, which they defined as “controlling those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus permitting him to
concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of
competence” (p. 90). Scaffolding allows students to concentrate on the task elements that they can complete. However, Vygotsky also proposed a role for scaffolding in the
assessment of a student’s capabilities. Vygotsky believed that each student has a unique learning level that is based on past interactions of adults, peers, culture, and natural environment and biological factors. Vygotsky believed that interaction between the student and the teacher must involve a process of removing the scaffolds in order to allow the student to complete the assessed skill using his or her own abilities (as cited in
Gredler, 2009).
Current research supports the concept of scaffolding for both instruction and assessment. In a micro-analysis of teacher-student interactions in relation to scaffolding learning, van de Pol and Elbers (2013) found that student learning increased when teachers scaffold the lesson. Van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen (2010) defined
scaffolding as contingent, fading over time, and aimed at transferring responsibility to the student. Van de Pol and Elbers developed the contingent shift principle, which has two rules: (a) to increase control when students fail and (b) to decrease control when students
succeed. In a related study, Spörer, Brunstein, and Kieschke (2009) examined the effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension skills of
students in Grades 3-6 and found that students who practiced teacher modeled strategies during interventions improved their abilities to summarize, question, and predict written text. In a third study, Van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen (2010) reviewed a decade of research about scaffolding in teacher-student interactions and found that the key
components of the scaffolding process include contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. Van de Pol et al. (2010) defined contingency as the responsiveness, which is tailored, adjusted, and differentiated, that a teacher gives to a student during
instruction. They defined fading as “gradual withdrawal of the scaffolding” (Van de Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010, p. 275). Transfer of responsibility, according to Van de Pol et al. is the completion of the fading stage, when students can independently process the task (p. 275). Van de Pol et al. (2010) concluded that more research needs to be conducted about how to define the process of scaffolding and the effectiveness of specific scaffolding strategies that teachers use to improve learning. These studies are important because findings indicate that teachers who use specific scaffolding strategies during instruction improve student learning. More research, however, needs to be conducted to develop a universal definition of scaffolding and the components that comprise an effective scaffolding process.
Vygotsky’s (1934/2002) research is relevant to this study because teachers need to provide the appropriate level of instruction during an intervention in order to ensure
students’ development of higher mental functions. Vygotsky’s cognitive learning theory suggests that cognitive growth takes place at the student’s zone of proximal development. For this study, Tier 2 interventions in reading were defined as intense instruction directed at students’ individual learning needs, and Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development was defined as guidance for teachers in scaffolding assessments and instruction that helps students improve their cognitive growth.
Literature Review
The literature review includes three majors sections related to Tier 2 instruction in the RTI model. The first section includes an analysis of research related to the diagnostic assessments teachers use to effectively screen and place students in Tier 2 instruction. The second section includes an analysis of research related to Tier 2 instructional interventions, particularly concerning the specific curricular materials and instructional strategies that teachers use to scaffold instruction and improve reading achievement. The third section includes an analysis of research related to how teachers monitor student progress during reading interventions.
Placement of Students in Tier 2 Reading Interventions
Placement of students in Tier 2 reading intervention begins with Tier 1
intervention instruction. According to the IDEA (2004) federal mandate, teachers are required to collect student performance data in Tier 1 for evaluation of student
achievement and placement of students demonstrating need in different tiers of the RTI model. IDEA legislation also encourages state and local education agencies to verify if
students can respond to research-based interventions as part of the evaluation process for identifying their specific learning disabilities (NJCLD, 2011). IDEA legislation also allows public school educators to choose the types of curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessments to use in the RTI model to better meet the learning needs of identified students (Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, 2010).
Current research also suggests the placement of students in Tier 2 interventions is part of a larger process. In an investigation of early screening for students at risk for reading disabilities, Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs, D., and Fuchs L. S. (2012) presented a four-step screening process that teachers should use to accurately identify students who may be at-risk for reading disabilities. Step 1 involves universal screening that is conducted with all students as a part of Tier 1 instruction to verify that students are proficient in reading at their grade level. Students who demonstrate reading deficits receive Tier 1 or Tier 2 interventions, depending on the results of follow-up assessments. Step 2 involves monitoring student progress in Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Step 3 involves
confirming Step 1 and Step 2 by using follow-up assessments to alleviate false positives and to provide information for further intervention instruction. Step 4 involves
evaluating student progress and making adjustments to current instruction. The following sections include an analysis of the research literature related to (a) universal screening, (b) diagnostic assessments used for Tier 2 placement and instruction, and (c) other factors that help teachers make effective placement decisions using the RTI model of systematic intervention.
Universal screening. The purpose of universal screening is to identify students who may be at-risk for grade level reading acquisition and who may require intervention instruction (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009; Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009; Kilgus, Methe, Maggin, & Tomasula, 2014). Universal screenings are usually given to all students three times a year to determine students at-risk for failure in reading or to determine those students who are functioning at grade level (Goetze & Burkett, 2010; Kilgus et al., 2014; Shepherd & Salembier, 2011). If implemented appropriately, universal screening should identify 90% of students who are at-risk for reading
acquisition (Kashima et al., 2009). Universal screenings are usually comprised of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes (Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S., 2012). An example of this type of probe is oral reading fluency. Universal screening is often used to monitor student progress and as a diagnostic assessment to determine students’ individual learning needs (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
Several researchers have examined the specific reading skills that teachers need to assess during a universal screening in relation to RTI placement and instruction for students in the early elementary grades. Gersten et al. (2009) developed a guide titled
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi- Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades, which is based on the most current research
regarding intervention instruction. Gersten et al. recommended that teachers assess the reading skills of Grade 1 students in relation to the following concepts and skills: (a) letter naming and fluency, (b) phoneme segmentation, (c) nonsense word fluency, (d)
word identification, and (e) oral or passage reading fluency. In this guide, Gersten et al. recommended that Grade 2 students be assessed for word identification skills and oral reading or passage fluency skills. In related research, Kashima, Schleich, and Spradlin (2009) examined the core components of RTI in relation to curriculum, assessment and progress monitoring, and data-based decision making and found that the universal screens used in universal screening should be accurate and efficient for identifying at-risk
students. Kashima et al. recommended that other grade-level skills should be assessed during universal screenings to better determine those students at-risk for reading
acquisition. They also recommended that Grade 1 students should be assessed for sound repetition and vocabulary skills, Grades 2 students should be assessed for comprehension skills, and Grade 3 students should be assessed for comprehension and oral reading fluency skills. This research is significant because teachers need to know the appropriate grade level skills to effectively identity students who need Tier 2 intervention placement.
In relation to universal screening, different types of assessments should also be used at different grade levels to determine grade-level achievement and specific learning deficits for individual students. Lam and McMaster (2014) analyzed 14 research studies for predictors of responsiveness to early literacy intervention and found that word identification, alphabetic principle, fluency, and phonemic awareness are predicators of RTI intervention and that IQ and memory are inconsistent predicators of RTI
universally screened for word identification, alphabetic principle, reading fluency, and phonemic awareness as predictors of reading deficits.
Table 1 includes a grade level timeline for universal screening, based on a summary of research studies related to this topic. Columns A, B, and C include
recommendations about when specific reading skills should be assessed in Grades K-3 in order to identify students at-risk for reading deficits. Column D includes
recommendations about when specific learning disabilities should be assessed in Grades K-3.
Table 1
Universal Screening Grade Level Timeline
Reading Skill Column A Gersten et al., 2009 Column B Kashima et al., 2009 Column C Lam & McMaster, 2014
Column D NJCLD, 2011
Letter naming & fluency Grade K-1 Grade K-1 Grade K-1 Phoneme segmentation Grade K-1 Grade K-1
Phonemic awareness
Nonsense fluency Grade 1
Grade K-3
Word identification Grade 1-2 Grade K-3
Oral reading fluency Grade 1-2 Grade 1 Grade K-3 Grade K-3
Sound repetition Grade K-1
Vocabulary Grade 1
Reading comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Listening comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Written expression Grade K-3
Basic reading skills Grade K-3
Oral expression Grade K-3
Note: Column A was adapted from “Assisting Students Struggling with Reading:
Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades” by R. Gersten et al., 2008, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2009-4045, p. 13.
Column B was adapted from “The Core Components of RTI: A Closer Look at Evidence- Based Core Curriculum, Assessment and Progress Monitoring, and Data-Based Decision Making by Y. Kashima, B. Schleich, and T. Spradlin, 2009, Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, p. 6. Column C was adapted from “A 10-Year Update of Predictors of Responsiveness to Early Literacy Intervention” by E. A. Lam and K. L. McMaster, 2014,
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 37(3), p. 143. Column D was adapted from
“Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Students with Learning Disabilities” by The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2011, Learning Disability
Table 1 indicates that universal screening should match grade-level standards for literacy. In Table 1, I also included a description of the specific reading skills that students should master at each grade level, which is also information that teachers should know when conducting universal screenings.
In other research related to universal screening, Partanen and Siegel (2014) examined long-term outcomes for the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities. They included subsets of the Phonological Abilities Test (PAT) to develop an initial base-battery or universal screening of student reading abilities in kindergarten that could predict future reading deficits. The development of an effective base-battery gives educators a tool to identify students that need early intervention. These subsets included rhyme detection, a phoneme deletion task, syllable identification, and phoneme identification. Partanen and Siegel found that “word and letter recognition, phonological processing, rapid naming, working memory and language tasks differentiated the at-risk and not-at-risk groups” (p. 680) and that most students who received early intervention during kindergarten tended to score in the average range for reading achievement in Grades 1-7. This research is particularly relevant because the earlier at-risk students are identified, the earlier they can receive intervention instruction, which can reduce their need for intervention instruction in later school years.
In another study related to universal screening, Clemens, Shapiro, and Thoemmes (2011) investigated how to improve universal screening for Grade 1 students. They used