The document discusses research-based best practices and interventions for struggling readers in grades K-2. It begins by establishing the rationale for focusing on early intervention for struggling readers. It then defines the three-tiered Response to Intervention (RTI) model and provides research supporting early intervention. The document outlines both general best practices, such as increasing engaged reading time and using appropriately leveled texts, as well as specific interventions like Visual Phonics, Peer Assisted Learning Strategies, and Targeted Reading Intervention. It concludes with suggestions for effective professional development to support teachers in helping struggling readers.

1. Approaches to
Interventions With
Struggling Readers in
Grades K-2
Presented by
Ashley, Crystal & Kristy

2. Rationale
There are struggling readers everywhere. This is an
issue every teacher will encounter in his/her teaching
career. We chose to focus on interventions for Grades
K-2, because early intervention seems to be most
effective in improving the overall reading abilities of
students.
We will suggest ten research-based “best practices” for
struggling readers, as well as an in-depth focus on
three specific interventions--Visual Phonics, Peer
Assisted Learning Strategies, and Targeted Reading
Intervention--for use within a Tier 2, classroom
intervention model.

3. What does “Tier 2” mean?
“…in 2004, Congress provided educators with an option
that just might help us to undo some of the mistakes of
the past and close the current reading achievement gap:
the Response to Intervention (RTI) initiative.”
A 3-Tiered Model has become the most common form of
RTI
•Tier 1: classroom reading lessons (core)
•Tier 2: additional expert reading instruction typically
offered daily in a small group
•Tier 3: one-on-one daily tutorials based on individual
needs
(Allington, 2011)

4. Research That Supports Our
Rationale
“Too often ‘what the research says’ has been ignored and
ineffective instructional practices continue unabated in
U.S. classrooms.” (Allington, 2013)
“Entrepreneurial enterprises continue to hold much more
sway on daily practice than do research activities.”
Reading lessons, curriculum, and assessment have been
altered in accordance with the “research” presented via
Reading First. Unfortunately, much of this “research” was
based on entrepreneurial benefit rather than valid and
reliable results. (Allington, 2013)

5. More Research That Supports
Our Rationale
“Studies have shown that virtually every student could be
reading on grade level by the end of 1st grade and that the
cost of achieving this goal is substantially less than the
current system of remediation, special education, and
grade retention.” (Allington, 2011)
“…good readers typically spend 500% more time reading
than struggling readers.” (Guthrie, 2004)
“Children who are behind in reading at the end of the first
grade usually continue to be behind at the fourth grade
and throughout their schooling” (Cihon, 2008)

6. Even More Research That
Supports Our Rationale
Effective reading interventions are comprised of 3 key
elements:
1. Explicit instruction of the alphabetic principle
grounded in reading for meaning
2. Early intervention - Kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd
grades
3. Small group and/or one-on-one intensive instruction
(Foorman & Moats, 2004)

7. How do we define struggling
readers?
Struggling readers are children who cannot
keep up with the reading demands placed
upon them by school curriculum based on
any number of factors.
Adapted from http://mcieinclusiveschools.org/15362

8. How can we help our
struggling readers?

9. Worst Practices for Struggling
Readers
 Teaching children to read nonsense words (and
assessing them using timed measures) (Allington,
2013)
 Phonics worksheets (Allington, 2013)
 Computer-based reading products (Allington, 2011)
 Labeling children who “don’t read so good” (Morrow &
Gambrell, 2011)

10. More Worst Practices for
Struggling Readers
 “Not a single reliable study supports the use of any of the
commercial core programs…of the 153 different reading programs
reviewed by the WWC, only one had ‘strong evidence’ that it
improved reading achievement! That program was Reading
Recovery…” (What Works Clearinghouse [WWC], 2007); Allington
further states, “No research existed then, or exists now, to
suggest that maintaining fidelity to a core reading program will
provide effective reading lessons.” Core reading programs have 3
main shortfalls: they require minimal engaged reading, they don’t
promote high-success reading, and they don’t encourage self-
selected reading. (Allington, 2011)

11. General Best Practices
1. Increase the amount of meaningful texts and genres
struggling readers are exposed to.
When reading lessons are meaning focused, struggling readers
improve more than when lessons are skills focused. (Allington,
2013)
2. Use appropriately leveled texts.
Struggling readers are typically asked to read texts that are too difficult
for them. They should be developing reading skills using texts that they
can read with 98% accuracy. (Allington, 2013)
3. Explicitly teach decoding skills to those struggling
readers who would benefit from it.
There is substantial evidence that many children who fall behind in
beginning reading are not qualitatively different from other readers, but
rather require intense, systematic decoding instruction in order to learn
to read. (Pressley, 2006)

12. General Best Practices
4. Increase independent, engaged reading time.
Because good readers typically spend 500% more time reading
than struggling readers, “Educators should attempt to increase
engaged reading time [for struggling readers] by 200%-500%.”
(Morrow & Gambrell, 2011)
Independent engaged reading is very important. This is known
as self-teaching. In a study of the self-teaching hypothesis one
group of children from low-income families received 12 free,
self-selected books every summer while a second group of
children did not receive books. The children who received the
books gained reading achievement over the summer, while the
children who did not receive the books experienced summer
reading loss. (Allington, 2013)
Struggling readers need to read more every day than their peers
who are more skilled readers. However, most tasks required of
struggling readers require little reading. (Allington, 2013)

13. General Best Practices
5. Use small teacher/student ratios, including expert teachers and
peer tutoring.
Small-group (e.g., 1:3) instruction…may provide [struggling readers] with
opportunities to learn the models of [literacy strategies] that enhances
understanding from their peers. (Vaughn et al., 2003)
It is critical that expert teachers are working with struggling readers in
interventions. Many schools assign paraprofessionals to this role. (Allington,
2013)
6. Encourage inventive spelling.
Giving children plenty of opportunities to use inventive spelling
simultaneously develops phonemic awareness and understanding of
the alphabetic principle. It provides a natural purpose for children to
learn letter-sound relationships. (Allington, 2013)

14. General Best Practices
7. Differentiate instruction for struggling readers.
Effective teachers are able to teach several decoding
approaches effectively. They are able to adapt their teaching
until they locate the best method for an individual child.
(Allington, 2013)
8. Use frequent assessments to determine the effectiveness
of interventions.
Frequent assessments are necessary to determine the
effectiveness of the intervention for a child. (Cihon, 2008)

15. General Best Practices
9. Teachers should show their passion and excitement for
literature, and pass that onto their struggling readers.
Most of all, the teacher must have a passion for reading himself/herself.
I do not think you can instill the importance of reading within your
children if you do not exude it yourself. (Archer, 2004)
10. School-wide targeted Professional Development with
teacher coaching.
Targeted professional development and classroom coaching for
teachers can have a powerful effect on reading instruction. (Allington,
2013)

16. An In-Depth Focus on 3
Different Interventions
1. Visual Phonics
2. Peer Assisted Learning Strategies
3. Targeted Reading Intervention

17. Visual Phonics
 Research supports the effectiveness of using visual
phonics with students who are deaf and/or hard-of-
hearing.
 These studies offer results for using visual phonics
with hearing children at risk of reading failure.
 At risk Kindergarteners were provided instruction in
Visual Phonics for 10-12 minutes per day, 3 times per
week
 Progress in developing knowledge of letter-sound relationships was
compared to a similar at-risk peer group that did not receive the
intervention

18. Visual Phonics Methods
 One distinct hand movement for each phoneme
 Hand gestures are tied to articulation and letters,
making sound concrete
 Hand signs mimic some aspect of sound production,
and sometimes provide visual or kinesthetic links to
letter shapes
 Written symbols can be used to clarify sounds in
printed context

19. Visual Phonics Results
 Post-intervention gains on DIBELS and the CBM
 All students improved letter-sound correspondence
skills
 Most students had a decrease in their reading risk
level

20. Advantages of Visual Phonics
 Easy to learn (6 hours)
 Inexpensive: initial investment of $50 - 100 for
training, no consumable materials
 Generic lesson plan
(Cihon, 2008 and Gardner, et al., 2013)

21. Peer Assisted Learning
Strategies (PALS)
"The PALS activities were very easy to implement. They
provided intensive times of actual reading by every student, as
well as interaction with other students. It provided a valuable
addition to my regular reading instruction. I believe the PALS
program was of benefit to low, average, and high performing
students." (Mrs. King, Dodson Elementary School, Nashville)
“PALS was a good experience for me. It helped me cooperate
with other students. For example one of my partners read a four
paragraph page very slowly. I helped him. The next day he read
much better. That made me feel really good. Later, another
PALS partner I had didn't like to answer the PALS question.
When I showed her how, she was spectacular. I loved PALS. I
hope to do it again." (Student Response, Myers)
http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals

22. PALS Method
 PALS consists of two parts:
1. Teacher-Led Reading Instruction
 Readers learn specific strategies for reading fluency,
phonemic awareness and phoneme knowledge,
vocabulary and comprehension
2. Student-Led Reading Instruction
 The teacher organizes pairs of readers together, making
sure they are at different reading levels
 Pairs take turns reading orally together

23. PALS Results
 At the primary grades, students achieved better with
the standard PALS, without the addition of elaborated
help-giving strategies. (Fuchs et al, 1999)
 Results show that students participating in the PALS
program make significant gains in their reading
fluency, confirming the usefulness of the PALS
program to reduce the gap between adequate and
inadequate first grade readers. All schools with a first
grade program should have PALS available for
intervention of reading fluency. (Ary et al, 2006)

24. PALS Strengths
 The students lead the paired reading
instruction, thus teaching each other.
 The social aspect is key when students can
hear and see what their peers can do.
 Pair groups are assigned based on ability.
 The PALS website has excellent training
opportunities for teachers.
http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/index.html

25. Targeted Reading
Intervention (TRI)
 One-on-one instruction
 Diagnostic thinking and “instructional
match”
 Rapid acceleration of decoding abilities
and text comprehension
 Escalating opportunities to read
 Literacy coaches

26. TRI Main Points
 Based out of the University of North
Carolina
 Designed for struggling readers in
Kindergarten and 1st
grade in rural low-
SES communities

27. TRI Method
 Apply strategies using classroom teachers in one-
to-one and small group instruction in 15-minute
daily diagnostic teaching sessions comprised of:
 Re-reading for Fluency
 Decoding skills:
 Integrates multiple reading skills in each
 Instruction takes place within the context of words and
texts
 Multi-sensory methods
 Teacher provides continual feedback
 Guided Oral Reading
 TRI Extensions

28. TRI Method
 Ongoing, collaborative professional
development model designed to help
teachers:
 Acquire essential knowledge of early reading
development that is especially critical for
struggling readers
 Learn a set of assessment-based reading
strategies to match the skill level of each child
 Literacy coach works with teacher on a
weekly basis, in person or via webcam

29. TRI Results & Strengths
 TRI has the potential to greatly improve the
reading skills of struggling readers in
Kindergarten.
 Evidence of Kindergarteners “catching up”
 Didn’t prove to be as effective for the 1st
grade students in
the study - concluded to be related to low levels of
implementation fidelity
 A cost-effective way to provide intensive support
to struggling readers.
(Vernon-Feagans, et al., 2010)

30. Professional Development
Together, we can make a difference in our schools!

31. Approaches for Engaging
Colleagues
1. Build a learning
community for
students and staff.
2. Provide direct
instruction in reading
strategies of proficient
readers.
3. Design ways that
students can
independently use
comprehension skills.
4. Teach teachers how to
collect and analyze
data in order to
monitor and modify
instruction.
5. Celebrate and share
successes.
(Grimes, 2004)

32. Professional Development
Resources
 What Works Clearinghouse
www.whatworks.ed.gov/
Reviews of research on programs,
products, practices, & policies in
education
 Intervention Central
www.interventioncentral.org
Great source for interventions and
progress monitoring tools
 Read Write Think
www.readwritethink.org/professional-developm
Contains strategy guides to share
with school colleagues on various
literacy topics

33. Suggestions for Finding Funds
 Eliminate workbooks
 Eliminate test prep
 Eliminate paraprofessionals
from instructional roles
 Eliminate expenditures for
computer-based reading
programs
(Allington, 2013)

34. Research Sources
Allington, R.L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers.
The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520-530.
Allington, R.L. (2011). What at-risk readers need. Educational Leadership, 68(6),
40-45.
Archer, J. (2004). Characteristics of an effective teacher of reading in an
elementary school setting. Dissertation.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to
research in education. Thomson Wadsworth. Belmont, CA.
Cihon, T.M. (2008). Using visual phonics as a strategic intervention to increase
literacy behaviors for kindergarten participants at-risk for reading failure. Journal
of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 5(3), 138-155.
Dunn,
Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based
practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1),
51-60.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., & Allen, S. (l999). Effects of peer-assisted
learning strategies in reading with and without training in elaborated help giving.
Elementary School Journal, 99, 201-219.

35. Research Sources
Gardner, R., Cihon, T. M., Morrison, D., & Paul, P. (2013). Implementing visual
phonics with hearing kindergarteners at risk for reading failure. Preventing
School Failure, 57(1), 30-42.
Grimes, S. (2004). The Search for Meaning. School Library Journal, 50(5).
Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy
Research, 36(1), 1-30.
Morrow, L. M., Gambrell, L. B. (2011). Best Practices in Literacy Instruction,
Fourth Edition. The Guilford Press. New York, NY.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading Instruction That Works: The Case for Balanced
Teaching, Third Edition. The Guilford Press. New York, NY.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., &
Blozis, S. A. (2003). Reading Instruction Grouping for Students with Reading
Difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 301-315.
Vernon-Feagans, L., Gallagher, K., Ginsberg, M. C., Amendum, S., Kainz, K.,
Rose, J., & Burchinal, M. (2010). A diagnostic teaching intervention for
classroom teachers: Helping struggling readers in early elementary school.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 183-193.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). Find what works: Summarize and compare
the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions that address your school or
district ﾕ s needs. Retrieved June 16, 2013, from
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/findwhatworks.aspx#General%20literacy%20achievement