This article reviews published experimental studies from 2000 to 2012 that evaluated the effects of providing reading interventions to English learners who were at risk for experiencing academic difficulties, including students with learning disabilities. Criteria included: (a) the study was published in a peer-referred journal, (b) the study was an intervention for English learners at risk or with a learning disability in Grades K-12, (c) data were disaggregated by English learner status if all participants were not English learners, and (d) information about fidelity of implementation was reported. Twelve studies met these criteria. Results of seven studies conducted in kindergarten and first grade indicated significant moderate-to-large effect sizes (ES range, 0.58-0.91) for interventions targeting beginning reading skills. Findings in five of the 12 studies suggested significant moderate-to-large effects in reading or listening comprehension (ES range, 0.47-2.34). The interventions in these studies included explicit instruction, and 10 used published intervention programs. Moderator variables, such as group size, minutes of intervention, and type of personnel delivering the intervention, were not significant predictors of outcomes.by guest on April 6, 2016 ecx.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Schools implement Response to Intervention (Rtl) for two major purposes. The first is to provide a coordinated system of high-quality instruction and intervention for all students in the school (Burns & Vanderheyden, 2006; Haager, Klinger, & Vaughn, 2007; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2006). This system can be envisioned as a framework of effective instruction to prevent academic problems from occurring and effective interventions to address problems that do occur in a timely and appropriate manner. The system is integrated and coordinated to support all students to reach primary learning objectives (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008). The second purpose of Rtl is to diagnose specific learning disabilities (SLD) in students who do not respond adequately to instruction and intervention (O'Conner, 2007; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009; Torgesen, 1997, 2004). Strong empirical evidence supports the prevention and intervention purpose of Rtl (Baker et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 2009; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2006), but evidence for using Rtl for SLD determination is lacking (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

The purposes of this study were to (a) examine the developmental patterns in pseudoword reading and oral reading fluency in Spanish and English for Spanish-speaking English learners (ELs) in grades 1-3, and (b) investigate whether initial status and growth rates in reading fluency in Spanish and English, significantly predicted reading comprehension within languages and across languages. Participants were 173 Spanish-speaking ELs in first grade, 156 ELs in second grade, and 142 ELs in third grade across four schools providing a paired bilingual reading program. Results of hierarchical linear modeling indicated different patterns of reading growth in Spanish and English across measures and across grades. ELs at the beginning of first grade had higher scores on pseudoword reading in Spanish than in English and had a higher rate of growth on Spanish pseudoword reading. In second and third grades, initial scores on oral reading fluency were comparable in both languages, but oral reading fluency growth rates were higher in English than in Spanish. Results from regression and path analysis indicated that student initial scores and growth on reading fluency were strong and direct predictors of their reading comprehension within the same language, but not across different languages.

No abstract

We investigated whether individual differences in overall receptive vocabulary knowledge measured at the beginning of the year moderated the effects of a kindergarten vocabulary intervention that supplemented classroom vocabulary instruction. We also examined whether moderation would offset the benefits of providing Tier-2 vocabulary intervention within a multitiered-system-of-support (MTSS) or response-to-intervention framework. Participants included students from two previous studies identified as at risk for language and learning difficulties who were randomly assigned in clusters to receive small-group vocabulary intervention in addition to classroom vocabulary instruction ( n = 825) or to receive classroom vocabulary instruction only ( n = 781). A group of not-at-risk students ( n = 741) who received classroom vocabulary instruction served as a reference group. Initial vocabulary knowledge measured at pretest moderated the impact of intervention on experimenter-developed measures of expressive vocabulary learning and listening comprehension favoring students with higher initial vocabulary knowledge. Tier-2 intervention substantially counteracted the Matthew effect for target word learning. Intervention effects on listening comprehension depended on students’ initial vocabulary knowledge. Implications present benefits and challenges of supporting vocabulary learning within an MTSS framework.