SUPPLEMENTAL READING INSTRUCTION

A Model for Supplementing Reading Instruction for Young Children WithBehavioral Risk Factors

WENDY PEÍA OAKFS. AHIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

PAMRI.AJ. HARRIS, SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVF^RSITY

LINDA CHURLEV BABR, ARIZONA LITERACY AND LEARNING CENTER

C hildren with behavioralchallenges are at the greatestrisk for chronic school failure

(Lane et al., 20Ü2}. The response-to-intervention (RTI) model was writteninto law through the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act of2004 as a means to identify childrenwith learning disabilities. The RTTmodel provides for increasedintervention based on students'response to instruction. Anotherimportant application of this problem-solving model is to intervene withchildren who demonstrate academicand/or behavioral need prior to areferral for special education (Vaughii& Fuchs, 2003). Using RTI, educatorscan begin to screen students' academicprogress in kindergarten. Soniechildren show signs of learning andbehavior problems from an early age(Kamps et al., 2003; Lane,O'Shaughnessy, Lambros, Gresham,& Beebe-Frankenberger, 2001) sointervening in the first years of schoolis critical.

Specific learner characteristicshave been found to affect a child'sresponse to early literacy instruction(Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002). Nelson,Benner, and Gonzalez (2003)conducted a meta-analysis todetermine the effect of each of thesefactors. The characteristics that hadthe greatest effect on RTIs weredifficulties with rapid naming,phonological processing, andproblem behaviors. In this study, anintegrated intervention was designedto teach reading while providingspecific behavioral supports. Eachcomponent of the researchintervention was chosen by theresearchers to address the top three

characteristics of students found to beresistant to interventions.

In this article, we describe aresearch study conducted to exploredelivering instruction in a tieredmodel that addresses the reading andbehavioral needs of students who arepoor readers in the primary grades.Our study begins with students in thewinter of first grade and continuesthrough the end of second grade. Wealso explore the duration ofintervention cycles needed forstudents with risk in reading andbehavior to make meaningful gainsthat change their reading trajectories.Our model included using universalscreenings for both reading andbehavior to identify students withdual risk, teaching directly to bothreading and behavioral needs, andusing frequent curriculum-basedmeasurement (GBM) monitoring todocument student growth.

A Method for Teaching Readingand Behavior

Screening for Reading and BehavioralRisk ill an RTI Model

Universal reading screeuiu;^. TheRTI model for reading calls foruniversal reading screenings inkindergarten through third grades(Torgesen, 2002). Dynamic Indicatorsfor Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS;Good & Kaminski, 2002) was used inour study as the general readingscreening measure for children in theprimary grades because it was in placeat the host school. Other tools thatmeet the scientific rigor recommendedby the National Center on StudentProgress Monitoring sponsored by theU.S. Office of Special Education

Programs may also be used for whole-school screening purposes (seehttp: / / www.studentprogress.org/chart/chart.asp).

Our study began when studentswere screened in the winter of firstgrade. Three DIBELS subtests servedas predictors of end-of-year readingprogress. Each subtest was a 1-n:iinute probe to measure nonsenseword fluency (NWF), phonemesegmentation fluency (PSE), and oralreading fluency (ORE). Compositescores determine overall reading risk(Good & Kaminski, 2002). DIBELSoffers decision rules and instructionalrecommendations for establishingcutoffs that predict the meeting ofearly literacy goals. If students' scoresfell below the 15th percentile, thestudents were determined to haveintensive reading needs; studentsscoring between the 15th and 39thpercentile were identified withstrategic reading needs; and thosewith scores greater than the 39thpercentile were considered atbenchmark or being at low risk forreading difficulties (see Good &Kaminski, 2002). This screeningprocess was used to determine whichstudents required additionalInstruction in reading and identifiedpotential participants in our study.

Once identified on the screener asneeding additional readinginterventions, students moved to Tier1 in the RTI model The host districtdifferentiated core readinginstruction from Tier 1, thus using afour-tiered process. All studentsreceived core reading instruction,which consisted of instruction using abasal series. Instruction was providedin phonics, phonological awareness

10 BEYOND B IÍHAVIOR

SUPPLEMENTAL RFADING INSTRUCTION

Figure 1 UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR READING AND BEHAVIOR

ReadingCurriculum-BasedMeasure (CBM)

TeachingDesigned for

students with riski n bath areas

Students at risk

BehaviorUniversal screenerbehavior disorders

(i.e., rhyming, segmenting, andblending activities), weeklyvocabulary, reading practice, andcomprehension strategies for45 minutes per day. Students whoscored in the intensive need categoryon DIBELS were targeted foradditional reading instruction. Thisinstruction, identified as Tier 1, wasdelivered by the classroom teacher insmall groups with regular (biweekly)progress monitoring with DIBELSprobes (National Joint Committee onLearning Disabilities, 2005). Tier 1instruction was in addition to the coreprogram and focused on phonemicawareness, phonics, and readingpractice. Students who did notrespond with adequate readingprogress during Tier 1 (after 8^12weeks of instruction) moved to amore intensive level of readinginterventions. Tier 2. Adequateprogress was defined as a rate andlevel of progress that predictedachievement of end-of-year readingbenchmarks. The second tierintervention occurred outside theclassroom with the reading specialist.The Tier 2 intervention was ofincreased intensity and includedweekly progress monitoring(National Joint Committee onLearning Disabilities, 2005). Thisstudy describes the Tier 2intervention.

Universal behavior screening. Toidentify children with behaviorchallenges in the classroom, theSystematic Screener for BehaviorDisorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson,1999) was used. Gate 1 was used asthe screener for the purposes ofidentifying children with challengingschool behaviors. The tooldistinguished between children withinternalizing (i.e., "low activity level,shyness, Lmassertive, avoid orwithdraw in social situations, notparticipating in games/activities")and externalizing (i.e., "aggression,arguing, defiance, out of seat,noncompliance, tantrums,hyperactivity, not following rules,stealing") behavioral challenges(Walker & Severson, 1999). Oncestudents were identified by teachersusing the SSBD, a list was compiledof the five students from each classwhom teachers identified as havingthe greatest internalizing andexternalizing risk characteristics.

Targeting Children With Dual Riskfor Small-Group Instruction

The students on the behavior risklist were then cross-referenced withthe list of students who were in needof Tier 2 reading intervention.Children who were on both lists wereconsidered eligible participants forthe study unless they were already

receiving special education servicesin the area of reading. Parents werecontacted by mail regarding thepurpose of the study. Parentalconsent and student assent wereobtained prior to instruction.Standardized, norm-referencedmeasures were administered to allparticipants to confirm and describereading and behavioral challenges.The Social Skills Rating Scale (SSRS;Gresham & Elliott, 1990) wascompleted by the teachers andparents on each student participatingin the study. The SSRS was used todescribe tlie extent of each student'sbehavior on a standardized scale.

The students on the behavior risklist were then cross-referenced with thelist of students who were in need of Tier2 reading intervention (see Figure 1).

Teaching Reading With Behaviorin Mind

Our goal was to develop anintervention that could beimplemented and sustained over timewithin the school's current structureof Tier 2 interventions. We chosematerials already in the school.Consequently, we used the SondaySystem 1 (Sonday, 1997) forphonemic awareness and phonicsinstruction and Great Leaps(Campbell, 1998) for fluency practice.

S P R I N G 2ÜÜ9 1 1

SUPPLEMENTAL READING INSTRUCTION

There are other scientific research-based reading programs that couldbe used in these components ofthe intervention (see http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/).

Instructional Group OrganizationThe intervention groups met for

30 minutes 4 days per week withprogress monitored every 5th day.The group of four students and oneteacher met in a room outside of thegeneral classroom. Groups of four orfewer have been shown to be themost effective group size forinterventions (Torgesen, 2002). Aconsistent procedure was taught sothat the students entered the room,picked up their folder, took a seataround the table, and placed theirbehavioral self-monitoring sheet onthe table in front of them. Studentfolders contained Great Leapsmaterials, sticker reward charts, andprogress graphs. All teacher materialswere ready prior to students' arrivalsso that the full 3Ü minutes were usedfor instruction. These materialsincluded: three countdown timers,Sonday teacher's plan book andprogram materials, stickers, pencils,student progress-monitoringbooklets, and sticky note pads. Theteacher kept track of lesson progressby marking the teacher's plan book;additional anecdotal notes (errorspatterns and such) were made on adaily log sheet. A timer was used toensure that there was adequate timeso that all components of the lessonwere delivered consistently.

Lesson Component 1: PhonemicAwareness and Phonics Instruction

The first component of theintervention package addressed thephonological needs of students withreading challenges. Sonday System 1is a research-based reading programthat teaches phonological skills in adirect and explicit format. Theprogram is soft scripted in that itfollows a daily sequence of structuredlessons: spell sounds, read sounds,spell words, read words, newlearning, and shared reading with

suggestions and guidelines given ineach category. Specific teacherwording, however, is not included.The curriculum spirals previouslytaught material so that skills arecontinually practiced and reinforced.Mastery checks are built into theprogram at regular intervals, withreteaching lesson plans provided foras-needed use. The Sonday lessonwas used with students for 20 of the30 allotted minutes.

Lesson Component 2: Fluency PracticeFor the last 10 minutes of each

intervention session, fluency waspracticed using the Great Leapsprogram (Campbell, 1998). Studentspracticed reading passages in pairs.One child timed while the other readfor 1 minute, then they switchedroles. Students marked on theirpassage where they were when thetimer sounded. Each time, the goalwas to complete the passage with twoor fewer errors in 1 minute. Studentsdetermined when they had practicedenough to accomplish the fluencygoal, and then the teacher timed thestudent. After students passedtheir timings with the teacher, theymarked the nun^ber of words in thepassage on their fluency monitoringcharts.

Self-monitoring graph. In additionto the reading probes. Great Leapsprovides a graph for student progressthat accounts for errors and correctresponses per minute. Therrien (2004)found preliminary evidence that thecharting component may have apositive effect on fluency gains. Weincorporated self-graphing using astandard bar graph. The studentscould mark or color in the number ofsounds or words correct during thefluency portion of each lesson.

Lesson Component 3:Behavioral Teaching

A critical element of thisintervention was the behavioralteaching component. A structuredbehavioral reinforcement system wasimplemented to augment the readinginstruction. This system was similar

to the Student-Teacher LearningGame (Nelson, Benner, & Mooney,2008). Students were positivelyrewarded for both reading andattending behaviors.

The distinction between readingand attending behaviors is animportant one because students withreading and behavioral challengesneed reinforcement in both areas(Hinshaw, 1992). Reading behaviorsinclude conduct such as tracking,sounding out, pacing, blending, andusing learned strategies for decodingunknown words (see Figure 2).Appropriate reading behaviors weremodeled and then reinforced throughpoints awarded to students whodemonstrated attempts at thesebehaviors. Points were not deductedfor poor reading behaviors;instead, the teacher would interveneso that the student would not practiceerrors.

Attending behaviors, on the otherhand, include such behaviors as eyecontact, hands/feet to self, sittingupright, taking turns, raising hands,and such (see Figure 2). Positive andnegative examples of appropriatebehaviors were regularly modeled forstudents. Facilitating behaviors werereinforced using a positive pointsystem, whereas interferingbehaviors, such as talking out of turn,resulted in point deductions. Pointswere monitored by the teacher forseveral weeks and then transferred tothe students for self-moni to ring. In theStudent-Teacher Learning Game,points are totaled at the end of eachsession, and if sKident points exceedteacher points, the student gets a stickerfor his or her behavior chart. Wheneight stickers were earned, representingapproximately 2 weeks of instruction, asmall token prize was awarded,graphic: t-chart of reading behaviors vs.attending behaviors.

Monitoring progress. Effectivenessof the Tier 2 intervention for childrenwith reading and behavioralchallenges was obtained throughregular progress monitoring usingcurriculum-based assessments.Consistent progress monitoring has

12 BEYOND BEHAVIOR

SUPPLEMENTAL READING INSTRUCTION

Figure 2 BEHAVIORAL TEACHING

Reading Behaviors

Tracking with fingerSegmenting and blendingTracing to practice sight wordsPacingSelf-corrections

Attending Behaviors

Sitting in a learning positionTaking turnsHands and feet to selfEyes on the speakerTransitioning smoothly

between activities

several distinct advantages. First, itprovides the teacher with regularfeedback on student perforn:iance.This feedback is critical for makingfuture instructional decisions (Deno,2003; Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005).If students are progressing at apredictable and acceptable pace, thenthe teacher can continue teaching inthe same way; however, if progress isnot acceptable or misrules are beinglearned, the teacher will need toreadjust instruction to meet studentneeds and correct errors.

Second, progress monitoring on aregular basis provides neededfeedback for the students {Coleman &Vaughn, 2000; DiGangi, Maag, &Rutherford, 1991). Although thesestudents were young, they were stillquite capable of self-monitorLng bymarking their weekly progressgraphs and understanding theirprogress toward an identified goal.Weekly feedback helped them settheir own progress goals, which wasan important step towardindependent reading. Finally,consistent progress monitoringprovided feedback to classroomteachers and parents on studentprogress.

Student Outcomes

JoseJose was an English language

learner (ELL) who was considered a

limited English speaker through thedistrict eligibility process. He wasidentified with internalizingbehavioral challenges includingschool anxiety and extreme shyness.Jose had some of the lowest readingscores in the first grade, and both histeacher and parent rated him on theSSRS as having below-average socialskills. He was not rated as havingsignificant problem behaviors on theSSRS. He received special educationservices in speech and language. Joseattended an ELL class for 30 minutesper day working on story-relatedvocabulary from the generaleducation class text. In addition, helearned and practiced namingvocabulary such as holiday-related(i.e., tooth fairy) and functionalvocabulary {i.e., body parts). Josereceived 38 weeks of Tier 2 readinginterventions (130 sessions, 65 hours)in first and second grades combined.

He made slow but steadyprogress on oral reading fluency(ORF) throughout the firstintervention period. Cycle 1 (seeFigure 3). During classroom and Tier1 reading instruction, Jose's growth ofone-half word per week and averagecorrect words per minute (CWPM) of3.25 were minimal. He demonstrateda positive response to the Tier 2intervention program in first grade,with a change in rate of growth to1.14 words per week and an averageCWPM of 11.55 after 11 weeks of

intervention. He did not, however,meet the end-of-year first gradebenchmark of 40 CWPM; in fact, heachieved less than half the expectedrate, with a benchmark score of 14CWPM on end-of-year first gradetext.

Jose participated in Tier 2interventions for 13 weeks in the firsthalf of second grade. Cycle 2. Hisaverage CWPM increasedsubstantially to a rate of 22.53,although there was fluctuation is hisweekly scores. Importantly, his rateof growth also increased to 1.46correct words per week. Although hedid not make gains at a rate thatwould meet the midyear benchniarkof 68 CWPM, his score of 34 CWPMwas more than 3 times his beginningyear score. After the winter break, hecontinued Tier 2 interventions. Cycle3, with the school reading specialistfollowing the same protocol. Joseended second grade reading 81CWPM, missing the benchmark byjust 9 CWPM, placing him at thehigher end of the "some risk"category. Jose made importantgains in second grade, increasing 71CWPM on grade-level text in 1 schoolyear.

AmosAmos was also a limited English

ELL student, but he had externalizingbehavioral challenges. He was ratedhighly on the SSRS for problem

S P R I N G 2 0 0 9 1 3

SUPPLEMENTAL READING INSTRUCTION

F!gure3 JOSG'Í OR/\I. READING FI.I'IÍNCY GROWTH

First GradeBaseline InterventionTier Tier 2

Second GradeInterventionTier2

Follow Up

Tier 2

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43

Weekly Probes

behaviors by both teacher andparent. He was also rated as havingfewer social skills than typicalchildren. He attended an ELL classwith Jose for 30 minutes per day.Amos received 36 weeks (124sessions, 62 hours) of Tier 2 readinginterventions.

Amos also n:iade slow but steadyprogress through the first gradeintervention period (see Figure 4).During classroom instruction andTier 1 interventions in first grade,Amos demonstrated a decreasingtrend, meaning he was losing onaverage 1.50 words per week as

measured by ORF. He averaged 5.25CWPM during classroom and Tier 1interventions. Amos participated in11 weeks of Tier 2, Cycle 1, readinginterventions with a positive growthrate of 1.73 words per week and anaverage of 11.91 CWPM. He did notmake enough reading fluency growth

Figure 4 AMOS-P ORAL RRAOING

c

I0

u

100-,

90-

80-

First GradeBaseline InterventionTier 1 Tier 2

InterventionTier 2

Second GradeFollow UpTier 2

Aim line

1—I—I—I—I—I

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Weekly Probes

14 B E Y O N D B E H A \ ' I O R

SUPPLEMENTAL READING INSTRUCTION

Figure 5 KATE'S ORAL READING FLIIENCY GROWTÍI

.E 100-,S 90-5 80-Q. 70-

-S 60-O 50-

5 40-* - 30-

£ 20-o 10-

KJ 0

First GradeBaseline InterventionTier 1 Tier 2

r ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

Second GradeInterventionTier 2

A ¡^//

Follow UpTier 1

Aim line/ •

/ . ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

~i 1 1 1 1 f 1 T r 1 f 1—T—r—T—T—1—r~n—\—i—i—i—\—i—i—r—\—i—i

17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Weekly Probes

during the first intervention phase tomeet the end-of-year benchmark of 40CWPM, achieving half that rate at 20CWPM.

Amos began second grade at 15CWPM on second grade text, whichremains in the at-risk range. ÖLiringthe first intervention phase of secondgrade, Cycle 2, Amos's growth ratenearly doubled at 3.20 correct wordsper week. His average CWPM duringthis phase increased almost fourfoldto 41.15, although his weekly ratefluctuated during this phase. On themidyear benchmark, Amos read 54CWPM, placing him in the some-riskcategory.

Amos continued Tier 2interventions with the school'sreading specialist, replicating theoriginal Tier 2 intervention throughthe second half of second grade,Cycle 3. During that time, his averageCWPM increased to 3.19, with aweekly average of 57.34 CWPM. Thisincrease more than doubled hisgrowth In cycle 2. Amos ended theyear in the some-risk category, with80 correct words per minute. The endof second grade benchmark was 90CWPM.

KateKate was identified as having

internalizing behavioral challenges.Her behavioral ratings were notconsistent between home and school.Her parent rated her in the averagerange on the SSRS, but her teacherrated her as having fewer social skillsthan typical peers. She was also ratedby the teacher as being morehyperactive than typical children.Kate received 22 weeks (75 sessions,37.5 hours) of Tier 2 readingintervention in first and secondgrade.

Kate was the only student withan increasing rate of growth duringclassroom instruction and Tier 1 (seeFigure 5). Kate's rate of growth wasan increase of 3.4 correct words perweek, with an average of 8.5 CWPMprior to Tier 2 intervention. Kate'smidyear benchmark score of 6CWPM fell in the at-risk range. That,paired with her teacher's concernsabout her progress demonstrated inthe classroom and her behaviorconcerns, made her eligible for Tier 2interventions. Cycle 1. Katedemonstrated a decrease in theaverage weekly rate of growth at 1.41

words per week for Tier 2, Cycle 1,whereas her average CWPMincreased to 18.45. Her end-of-yearbenchmark of 26 did not meet thecriterion for benchmark of 40CWPM, placing her in the some-riskcategory for the isolated ORF score;however, given her strengths in theNWF and PSF, Kate's compositescore placed her in the low-riskcategory. Kate remained eligible forTier 2 reading intervention at thebeginning of second grade. With anORF score of 21 CWPM on thesecond grade fall benchmark, Katescored in the at-risk category. Duringthe 13-week second grade Tier 2intervention, Cycle 2, her averageCWPM more than doubled to 48,with a nearly fourfold iiicrease inaverage increase of correct words perweek at 4.36. Midyear, Kate wasreading 70 CWPM on DIBELS andachieved the benchmark for low risk,and she returned to Tier 1 instructionin her classroom (Cycle 3). AlthoughKate's progress slowed to an averageof 0.77 CWPM, she did continue tomake progress with less intenseinterventions. She ended the year atbenchmark with 98 CWPM.

S P R I N G 2 0 0 9 1 5

SUPPLEMENTAL READING INSTRUCTION

Figured TRENT-S ORAL RHADINC FLUENCY GROWTH

c

0)CLlA

"S0

0

100-j90-

80-

70-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-0

BaselineTier 1

<

1 3 5

First GradeInterventionTier 2

7 9 11 13

Second GradeInterventionTier 2

/ v ^V

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 2^

Weekly Probes

Follow UpTier 2

Aim line

? 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

TrentTrent had externalizing

behavioral risk. On the SSRS, histeacher rated him high on problembehaviors, but his parent ratingsreflected more concern about socialskill deficits. Trent received 36 weeksof Tier 2 reading interventions (124sessions, 62 hours) in first and secondgrades combined.

Trent had a decreasing rate ofgrowth during classroom and Tier 1instruction, losing 0.10 words perweek with an average of 7.75 CWPMread (see Figure 6). During the Tier 2intervention in first grade. Cycle 1,Trent's rate of growth increased, withan average gain of 2.15 correct wordsper week with an average CWPM of17.82, more than doubling theprevious instructional phase. Trentended first grade reading 23 CWPM,which fell into the some-riskcategory. With his strengths in FSFand NWF, his composite score fell inthe benchmark range of low risk.

Trent's second grade fallbenchmark score placed him oneword per minute above the at-riskcategory; the school RTI team andclassroom teacher felt he shouldcontinue in the Tier 2 interventions.

Cycle 2. His rate of growth was anaverage of 1.12 words gained perweek; the number of correct wordsread per week increased to anaverage of 32.38, almost doublingfrom the first intervention period.Trent's midyear benchmark score of49 CWPM placed him in the at-riskcategory; he therefore continued inTier 2 interventions with the school'sreading specialist.

In the second half of secondgrade. Cycle 3, Trent's progressincreased to a weekly average of 2.67CWPM, more than doubling hisreading rate to 69.19 CWPM. On theend-of-year benchmark, Trent scored77 CWPM, placing him in the some-risk category.

Summary/Conclusion

In this study, we measured theeffect of a Tier 2 reading inten-entionon the ORF of students with dual riskfactors in reading and behavior. Theintervention was composed of threecomponents: direct explicitinstruction in phonemic awarenessand phonics, fluency instruction andpractice with self-monitoring of dailyprogress, and a structured behavioral

support program. We found that allstudents made adequate gains, withdiffering amounts of interventionneeded to sustain steady growth.

There were early differences inthe rate of ORF growth betweenstudents based on the behaviorcategory. The two students withinternalizing behavior (Jose and Kate)had increasing trends duringclassroom instruction with Tier 1supports; conversely, both of thestuderits demonstrating externalizingbehaviors (Amos and Trent) haddecreasing trends. Certainly thiscannot be generalized with such asmall sample, although it would beworthy of additional research. This isparticularly true given that all of thestudents reached benchmark atdifferent rates. Students withexternalizing behavior problems havebeen found to have the poorestacademic outcomes (Hinshaw, 1992)and to be more resistant to readinginterventions (Nelson et al., 2003). Ofconcern are the studies that haveshown that students with challengingbehavior spend more time doingseatwork, worksheets, and timewaiting than they do engaged inreading instruction (Vaughn, Levy,

16 BEYOND BEHAVIOR

SUPPLEMENTAL READING INSTRUCTION

Coleman, & Bos, 2002). It seems tofollow that students who spend lesstime engaging in meaningful readinginstruction will have decreased ratesof reading growth. Consequently,planning reading instruction toincrease engaged time for studentswith behavioral challenges is critical.

Decreasing Special EducationReferrals: Students With Dual RiskMay Need More Time in Tier 2

A consistent finding acrossstudies is that students with bothreading and behavioral challengesoften make slow progress comparedwith their peers who have onlyreading challenges (Lane, 2004).Therefore, we extended the Tier 2intervention, ranging from 28 (Kate)to 38 Gose) weeks. The typical path, atthat time, would have been to refermany of these children on to Tier 3,which included a referral for a specialeducation evaluation after two cyclesor about 16 weeks of Tier 2instruction. Students in this studywere in Tier 2 intervention groups formore than a school year.

None of the students madeadequate gains in the 11-week firstgrade inter\'ention to justifycurtailing the Tier 2 intervention.Furthermore, students approachedbenchmarks at different rates: Kate,28 weeks; Amos, 36 weeks; Trent, 35weeks; and Jose, 38 weeks.Consequently, all participants madeadequate growth to justify a return toclassroom instruction by the end ofthe second grade year, and none werereferred to special education.Although students with readingdifficulties have been found torespond to interventions in arelatively short period of time(Simmons et al., 2008), students withchallenging behavior continuallymake inadequate gains (Nelson et al.,2003). Given that students withreading and behavior problems havebeen found to respond inadequatelyto relatively short-term interventions(less than 20 weeks; Kamps et al.,2003; Nelson et al., 2003), it would beimportant to determine the amount of

time needed in an intervention forthis population of students to makemeaningful gains. The students in ourstudy ranged from 28 to 38 weeks.Moreover, research for thispopulation must account for theamount of time students are engagedin research-based reading instructiongiven the findings of Vaughn andcolleagues (2002).

The Importance of Behavioral andReading Instruction

Students at risk for behavioraland academic difficulties can beidentified at a very young age, oftenin the tirst years of school (Kamps etal., 2003; Lane et al, 2001), and thepotential long-term negativeacademic outcomes can becircumvented (Walker, Ramsey, &Gresham, 2004). Results from studiesthat account for reading and behaviorhave shown improved academics anda decrease in behavior problems(Stewart, Beruier, Martella, &Marchand-Martella, 2007). Tosupport teachers and students,behavior must be accounted for whenplanning academic interventions.Disruptive and antisocial behaviornegatively affects all students in theclass (Gresham, 2004; Stewart et al.,2007). Implementing targetedbehavior supports during instructionhas been found to reduce the numberof students with disruptive behaviorsfrom approximately 20% to 5% or less(Stewart et al, 2007). Althoughdecreasing disruptive classroombehavior has immediate benefits forteachers and peers, the biggestwinners are the individual studentsthemselves. Students such as Jose,Amos, Trent, and Kate have access tothe world of reading and schoolcurriculum because of increasedreading skills. Through instructionthat targets both reading andbehavioral teaching, using evidence-based practices, the progress of thesefour students highlights the promiseof early intervention and the need forthe research and teaching communityto investigate and explore

methodologies that work for thispopulation.

REFERENCESAl Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002).

Characteristics of children who areunresponsive to early literacyintervention. Remedial and SpecialEducation. 23, 300-317.

Campbell, K. U. (1998). Great leaps readingprogram (K-5). Gainesville, FL:Diarmuid Inc.

Coleman, M., & Vaughn, S. (2000).Reading interventions for studentswith emotional/behavioraldisorders. Behavioral Disorders, 25,93-104.

Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments incurriculum-based measurement.journal of Special Education, 37,184-192.

DiGangi, S. A., Maag, J. W., & Rutherford,R. ß. Jr. (1991). Self-graphing of on-task behavior: Enhancing the reactiveeffects of self-monitoring on on-taskbehavior and academic performance.Leartwig Disability Quarterly, 14,221-230.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.).(2002). Dynaviic indicators of basic earlyliteracy skilh (6th ed.). Eugene, OR:Institute for the Development ofEducational Achievement.

Grestiam, P. M. (2004). Current status andfuture directions of school-basedbehavioral interventions. SchoolPsychology Reviexv, 33, 326-343.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990).Social Skilh Rating System (SSRS).Circle Pines, MN: AmericanGuidance Services.

Hinshaw, S. (1992). Academicunderachievement, attention deficits,and aggression: Comorbidity andimplications for intervention. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology,60, 893-903.

Kamps, D. M., Wills, H. P., Greenwood,C R., Thome, S., Lazo, J. F., &Crockett, J. L., et al. (2003).Curriculum influences on growth inearly reading fluency for studentswith academic and behavioral risks:A descriptive study. Journal of

S P R I N G 2 0 0 9 1 7

SUPPLEMENTAL READING INSTRUCTION

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11,211-224.

Lane, K. L. (2004). Academic instructionand tutoring interventions forstudents with emotional/behavioraldisorders: 1990 to present. In R. B.Rutherford, M. M, Quinn, & S. R.Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research inemotional and behavioral disorders(pp. 462-486). New York: GuilfordPress.

Lane, K. L., O'Shaughnessy, T., Lambros,K., Gresham, F., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2001). Theefficacy of phonological awarenesstraining in first- grade students whohave behavior problems and readingdifficulties, journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 9, 219-232.

Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., Menzies, H. M.,Gregg, R. M., Doukas, G. L., &Munton, S. M. (2002). Early literacyinstruction for first-grade students at-rlsk for antisocial behavior. Educationand Treatment of Children, 25, 438-456.

National Joint Committee on LearningDisabilities. (2005). Responsiveness tointervention and learning disabilities.Internet site: http://www.nrcld.org/mission.shtml (Accessed February 4,2008).

Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J.(2003). Learner characteristics thatinfluence the treatment effectivenessof early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning DisabilitiesResearch and Practice, 18, 255-267.

Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Mooney, P.(2008). Scientifically based instructionalpractices for teaching students withserious behavioral disorders earlyreading, written language, andmathematics skills. New York:Guilford Press.

Simmons, D. C, Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O.M., McDonagh, S., Ham, B. A., &Kame'enui, E. J. (2008). Indexingresponse to intervention: alongitudinal study of reading riskfrom kindergarten through thirdgrade, journal of Learning Disabilities,41,158-173.

Sonday, A. (1997). Sonday System learningto read: Beginning and intervention. St.Paul, MN: Windsor Learning.

Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D.(2005). Using curriculum-basedmeasurement to improve studentachievement: Review of research.Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795-819.

Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella,R. C, & Marchand-Martella, N. E.

(2007). Three-tier models of researchand behavior: A research review.Journal of Positive BehaviorInterventions, 9, 239-253.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency andcomprehension gains as a result ofrepeated reading. Remedial & SpecialEducation, 25, 252-261.

Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention ofreading difficulties. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 40, 7-26.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003).Redefining learning disabilities asinadequate response to instruction:The promise and potential problems.Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 38(3), 137-146.

Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos,C. S. (2002). Reading instruction forstudents with LD and EBD: Asynthesis of observation studies.Journal of Special Education, 36, 2-13.

Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresbam,F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior inschool: Evidence-based practices.Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1999).Systematic Screener for BehaviorDisorders fSSBD}.- User's guide andtechnical manual (2nd ed.). Longmont,CO: Sopris West.

18 B E Y O N D B E H A V I O R