TIER 3 Intensive
5.4 FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION AND RESEARCH
During the study, discussions were held with fourth-grade teachers to share what I was implementing and how the students were responding. Both teachers were interested in the strategy with one of them downloading the voice recorder app to allow her students to record themselves reading. In further discussions we focused on how we could
implement the RMA strategy as an intervention tool as a grade level team next year. A possible schedule was suggested to administration that includes a 45 minute daily ELA RTI time. A common RTI time would allow us to regroup students based on need and and have additional teacher support assisted by the resource teacher, Advanced Academic
Program teacher, and reading tutors during the shared time. Students would be grouped by need across teachers so group sizes might vary. We would discuss students’ progress monitored on a regular basis during grade level meetings to make decisions about
appropriate placement changes for RTI groups.
Implementation of the strategy with fourth-grade students next year will focus on the use of Dominie for assessing reading levels and progress monitoring. As a result of the growth rates of the students over a ten week period, it appears that the use of this assessment would be an appropriate assessment tool. The remaining team members will have to be trained in the use of Dominie at the beginning of the school to ensure fidelity of its use. A standard record keeping method for regrouping will need to be established as students make progress, thereby implementing an accurate RTI model. School administration is open to the idea and willing to support the process depending on staff decisions made by the district.
Because the students respond positively to the use of technology an additional component to the plan for the next academic year might be the use of electronic devices by students to read books. There are several websites available that provide books for children, and the local public library allows patrons to borrow books by downloading to electronic devices. The school district is working towards one-to-one technology for all students which would be helpful in providing this service to students. A study question could be: Would having students read on electronic devices along with the use of RMA during RTI increase their time spent reading and the number of books they read, and improve their reading comprehension? An additional question could also be, Is there a way to utilize RMA with an entire class?
One additional component I would like to add to my curriculum next year is the concept of inquiry circles. This would allow students to engage in more conversations about books and reading strategies as they make sense of text. I feel that this will not only improve their reading comprehension, it will also encourage them to engage with a wider variety of books. Students will also support each other with those difficult sections making them less dependent on an adult to do it for them.
With the statewide goal of every child reading at grade level by the end of third grade, this research could be significant. The use of RMA at the third-grade level could assist students that are reading below grade level achieve success allowing them to advance to fourth grade reading on grade level. It could also be implemented as part of a summer remedial program for students who did not reach grade level expectations at the end of the school year. The model could assist them in achieving appropriate gains allowing them to progress to fourth grade when the school year begins without repeating third grade.
5.5 SUMMARY
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition increased motivation, but children do not realize the influence of their effort on their success (Marzano et al, 2001). Marzano also stated that providing an objective and offering feedback gave students direction and an opportunity to think about their learning. Feedback provided to students needed to be timely and specific that identified what the student was doing well along with an area of weakness. This was the focus key idea behind the use of RMA.
Based on Dominie assessment all four students showed growth ranging from one to two years of their grade equivalency level within a twelve week period as shown in
Table 4.14. Miscues collected at the end of the intervention were usually semantically and syntactically acceptable. Students all had repetition miscues as they tried to pronounce words correctly but self-corrected more frequently during post assessment. Retelling improved on post-assessment along with comprehension levels indicating improved reading ability for all students involved in the study.
The study appeared successful in achieving the goals. First, it positively affected student reading levels and the time they spent reading independently. All students in the study showed growth in reading levels using two different sets of assessment data. KW had the largest gain and would continue to benefit from continued one-on-one instruction. Secondly, the students became aware of the strategies they were using with automaticity and acquired additional strategies that increased their comprehension of text. Thirdly, the students became more efficient in self-monitoring their reading. They were able to identify their miscues and express their misunderstandings and areas they needed
assistance with to make improvements. Finally, the students were more engaged with the text, made better book selections and enjoyed talking about their reading. All students in the study were more attentive to the level of books they were reading and were more selective of the types of books they checked out of the library. Overall the study indicated that the use of Retrospective Miscue Analysis during Response to Intervention benefited students who were reading below grade level by bringing them up to or closer to reading on grade level in a short amount of time.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2006). Research and the three-tier model. Reading Today, 23 (5), 20.
Almazroui, K. M. (2007). Learning Together Through Retrospective Miscue Analysis
Salem’sProject Innovation (Alabama)Gale, Cengage Learning.
Anderson, M. (2010). The well-balanced teacher: How to work smarter and stay sane
inside the classroom and out. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Aspegren, C. & Moore. R. (2001). Reflective conversations between two learners:
Retrospective miscue analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(6), 491-
503.
Altwenger, B. & Goodman, Y. (1981). Study in Text Difficulty through Miscue Analysis: A Research Report
Barnes, A. C., & Harlacher, J. E. (2008). Clearing the confusion: Response-to-
intervention as a set of principles. Education and Treatment of Children, 31 (3),
417-431.
Barnett, D. W., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2007). Achieving science-based practice through response to intervention: What it might look like in preschools.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17 (1), 31-54.
Black, W. (2004). Assessing the metacognitive dimensions of Retrospective Miscue
Brown, E. A. (1996) Collaborative miscue analysis: Implementation of an instructional tool to revalue fourth-grade readers in trouble. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Brown, J., Goodman, K., & Marek, A., (1996). Studies in miscue analysis: An annotated
bibliography. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Brown, S. C. (1980). The efficacy of the Reading Miscue Inventory in evaluating the
reading performance of college freshmen. New Mexico State University Las
Crucos.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to Intervention: Principles and
strategies for effective practice. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Brown-Chidsey, R. (2007). No more "waiting to fail". Educational Leadership, 65 (2),
40-46.
Burke, C. (1987). Reading interview. In Y. M. Goodman, D. J. Watson, & C. L. Burke
(Eds.). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures. New York: Richard C.
Owen.
Burns, M. K. & Gibbons, K. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in
elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practice. New York: Routledge.
Campbell, R. (1993). Miscue Analysis in the Classroom. United Kingdom Literacy
Association.
Clay, M. M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2nd Ed)
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New ZealandJournal of
Educational Studies, 22(1), 155–173.
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in firstgrade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision
rules and practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2), 394-409.
Costello, S. A. (1992). Collaborative retrospective miscue analysis with middle school
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Daly, Fletcher & Vaughn (2009). Response to Intervention and Remediating Academic
Difficulties. Child Development Perspective. 3 (1), 30-37.
Daly, E., Glover, T., & McCurdy, M. (2006). Response-to-intervention technical
assistance document. Nebraska Department of Education & the University of
Nebraska.
Davenport, M. R. and Watson (2002). Miscues not mistakes: Reading assessment in the
classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
DeFord, D. (2004, 2002) Dominie reading & writing assessment portfolio (K-3 & 4-8).
CA: Dominie. Press, Inc.
Demski, J. (2009). Assess. Instruct. Repeat. T.H.E. Journal: Transforming Education
Through Technology, 36 (5), pp. 30-36.
Deno, S.L. (2005). Problem-Solving Assessment. In Brown-Chidsey, R. (Ed). Assessment
for intervention: A problem-solving approach. (10-40). New York, NY, US:
Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and
remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3. (1). 30-37.
Heinemann.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, J., & Davis, G. N. (2008). Making "secondary intervention" work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National
Research Center for Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21 (4), 413-436.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: what, why
and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 93-99.
Fuchs, D., Deshler, D. D., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). National research center on learning disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification issues.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 27 (4), 189-195.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S. & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2008). Response to Intervention: A
Framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association, Inc.
Geer, M. L. (2008). Response to intervention: Incorporating problem validation and Increasing intensity designs into interventions for oral reading fluency. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/view/acc_num=miami1217691358
Gerber, M. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (6),
516-524.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special
education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research
Quarterly41 (1), 99-108.
Goodman, K. S. (2003). Revaluing readers and reading. In A. D. Flurkey & J. Xu (Eds.).
Annotated Bibliography. International Reading Association.
Goodman, D. (1996). The Reading Detective Club. In Y. M. Goodman & A. M. Marek
(Eds.) Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading. Katonah,
NY: Richard C. Owen.
Goodman, K. S., (1965). A Linguistic Study of Cues and Miscues in Reading.
Elementary English 42: 639-643.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic Guessing Game Journal of the
Reading Specialist 6: 126-135.
Goodman, K. S. (1972). Miscues: Windows on the reading process. In K. S. Goodman
(Ed.) Miscue analysis: Application to reading instruction. Urbana, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council of Teachers of English.
Goodman, K. S., ed. (1973). Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Goodman, K. S. 1984 “Unity in Reading.” In Becoming Readers in a Complex Society,
ed. A.C. Purves and O. Niles, 79-114. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goodman, K. S. (1996). On Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. S. (2004). Revaluing readers and reading. In A. D. Flurkey & J. Xu (Eds.).
On the revolution of reading (pp. 421-429). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. S., & Burke, C. L. (1973). Theoretically Based Studies of Patterns of
Miscues in Oral Reading Performance. Detroit: Wayne State University
ERIC:ED 079 708.
Goodman, Y.M. (1976) Strategies for Comprehension Findings of Research in Miscue
IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council of Teachers of English.
Goodman, Y. M. (1996). Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves:
Retrospective Miscue Analysis. The Reading Teacher, 49(8). 600-609.
Goodman, Y. M. & Burke, C. (1972). Reading Miscue Inventory Manual: Procedures
For Diagnosis and Evaluation. NY: Richard C. Owen Publication, Inc. Goodman,
Y. M. & Flurkey, A. (1996). Retrospective Miscue Analysis in the Middle
School. In Retrospective Miscue Analysis: Revaluing readers and reading, ed. Y.
M. Goodman and A. M. Marek, 87-105. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen
Goodman Y. M. & Marek A. (1996) Retrospective Miscue Analysis in the Classroom,
Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
Goodman, Y., Marek, A., Costello, S. Flurkey, A., Wizinowich, J. & Brown, J. (1989).
Retrospective miscue analysis with 7th and 8th grade good & poor readers.
NCY/U of AZ Research Project, NCTE Grant.
Goodman, Y. M., Martens, P., & Flurkey, A. D. (2014). The essential RMA: A window
into readers’ thinking: Retrospective Miscue Analysis. Katonah, NY: Richard C.
Owen Publishers, Inc.
Goodman, Y. M., Martens, P., Flurkey, A. & Brown, J. (2008). Retrospective Miscue
Analysis: An Overview http://booksreadr.org/doc/retrospective-miscue-analysis-
an-overview- 1105412.html
Goodman, Y. M., & Paulson, C. J., (2000). Teachers and Students Developing Language
about Reading through Retrospective Miscue Analysis. Urbana, IL: National
Alternative Procedures. New York: Richard C. Owen.
Goodman, Y. M., Watson D. & Burke, C. L. (1996) Reading strategies: Focus on
comprehension. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.
Goodman, Y. M.; Watson, M.; & Burke, C. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From
evaluation to instruction. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owens Publishers, Inc.
Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods.
Psychology in the Schools, 43 (7), 753-770.
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., Miles, J. N., Carroll, J. M., Hatcher, J., Gibbs, S., et al. (2006). Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading
delay: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 47 (8), 820-827.
Heath, S, B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hosp, J. L. (2008). RTI action network RTI and the disproportionate representation of
Culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. Retrieved
March 14, 2009, from RTI Action Network: http://www.rtinetwork.org
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.
Johnston, P.H., Ed. (2010). RTI in Literacy—Responsive and Comprehensive. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association, Inc.
prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 37, 284-297.
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to
intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 108-117.
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (Eds). (2010). Successful Approaches to RTI:
Collaborative Practices for Improving K-12 Literacy. Newark, DE. International Reading Association.
Leach, J. M. & Scarborough H. S. (2003). Late emerging reading disability. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 95(2). 211-224
Long, P., (1985). The Effectiveness of Reading Miscue Instrument – A Research Report
(Occasional Paper No. 13). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona College.
Marek, A. M. 1987. Retrospective miscue analysis as an instructional strategy with adult
readers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona
Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in Responsiveness to Intervention. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38 (6), 539-544.
Martens. P. (1997). What miscue analysis reveals about word recognition and repeated
reading: A view through a “miscue window”. Language Arts, 47(8), 600-609.
Martens, P. (1998). Using retrospective miscue analysis to inquire: Learning from
Michael. The Reading Teacher, 52, 176-180
Marzano, R. J., Norford, J. S., Paynter, D. E. Pickering, D. J., & Gaddy, B. B. (2001). A
Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J. & Pickering, D. J. (2011). The Highly Engaged Classroom. Bloomington,
IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (6), 525-531.
McEneaney, J. E., Lose, M. K., & Schwartz, R. M. (2006). A transactional perspective on
reading difficulties and response to intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 41
(1), 117-128.
Menosky, D. (1971). A psycholinguistic description of oral reading miscues generated
during the reading of varying portions of text by selected readers from grades,
two, four, six and eight. Detroit: Wayne State University. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.
Mesmer, E. M., & Mesmer, H. A. (2008/2009). Response to Intervention (RTI): What
teachers of reading need to know. The Reading Teacher, 62 (4), 280-290.
Moore, R. A., & Aspergren, C. M. (2001). Reflective conversations between two
learners: Retrospective miscue analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.
44(6), 492-503
Moore, R. & Gilles, C. (2005). Reading conversations: Retrospective Miscue Analysis
for struggling readers 4-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Moore, R. A. & Seeger, V. N. (2009). Building classroom reading communities:
Retrospective miscue analysis and Socratic circles. CA: Corwin
Newkirk, T. (1991). The middle class and the problem of pleasure in N. Atwell (Ed.)
Workshop 3: The politics of process. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ohaver, A. R. (1972). A comparison study of semantic and syntactic cueing by low
reading performance college freshmen. N F. Greene (Ed.), Investigation relating
to mature reading, Twenty-first Yearbook of the National Reading Conference
Paulson, E. J. (2001). The discourse of retrospective miscue analysis: Links with adult
learning theory. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 32(1), 112-127.
Paulson, E. J., & Mason-Egan, P. (2007, Winter). Retrospective miscue analysis for
struggling, postsecondary readers. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(2), 2-
12.
Renaissance Learning. (2008). Renaissance learning tools and response to intervention.
Retrieved March 15, 2009, from Renaissance Learning: http://www.renlearn.con/RTI/RLIand RTI.aspx
Reschly, A. L., Coolong-Chaffin, M., Christenson, S. L., & Gutkin, T. (2007). Contextual influences and response to intervention: critical issues and strategies. In S. R.
Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden, Handbook of response to
intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 148-
160). New York: Springer.
Rhodes, L. K. & Shanklin, N. L. (1993) Windows into Literacy: Assessing learners K-8.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Richards, M. R., & Omdal, S. N. (2007). Effects of tiered instruction on academic
performance in a secondary science course. Journal of advanced academics, 18
(3), 424-453.
Samson, S. (2000). What and when do they know? Web-based assessment. Reference
services review, 28 (4), 335-342.
Samuels, C. A. (2008, January). Embracing "Response to Intervention". Education Week,
27 (20), pp. 22-24.
Sherman, A. (2010) Retrospective miscue analysis and the use with struggling
elementary readers: An educational grant proposal. University of Wisconsin- Stout, Menomonie, WI.
Shores, C., & Chester, K. (2008). Using RTI for school improvement. Tyler, Texas:
Corwin Press.
Slavin, R. E., Chamberlain, A., & Daniels, C. (2007). Preventing reading failure.
Educational Leadership, 65 (2), 22-27.
Smith, C, C. (1980). The relationship between oral reading miscues and comprehension:
A study of developmental reading at the college level. In G. Enright (ED.). The
1980s: New sources of energy for learning. Proceedings of the 13th Annual
Conference of the Western College Reading Association (pp. 65-69). Whittier,
CA: Western College Reading Association.
Theurer, J. L., (2002). The power of retrospective miscue analysis: one pre-service
teacher’s journey as she reconsiders the reading process. The Reading Matrix,
2(1) 1-23.
Tovey, D. R. (1979). Teachers’ perceptions of children’s reading miscues, Reading
Horizons 19:302-307.
Valencia, S. W., Hiebert, E. H., & Afflerbach, P. P. (1994). Authentic reading
assessment: practices and possibilities. Newark, Delaware: IRA