Effectiveness of a Collaborative Intervention for

1
Effectiveness of a Collaborative Intervention for
Adolescent Students with Reading Disabilities
Robyn A. Ziolkowski, The Ohio State
UniversityKimberly McDowell, Wichita State
University
Methods
Results
Results
Introduction
Independent t-test revealed significant
differences between the experimental and control
group at Time 1 on all measures. Due to this
difference, standard score gain was utilized as
the unit of comparison between groups. Figure 1
illustrates group standard scores on the TOWRE
over the 3 assessment sessions. No significant
differences in point gain was observed between
groups. Figure 2 illustrates group subtest
standard scores on the GORT-4 Reading Fluency and
Reading Comprehension measures (M of 10 and SD of
3) over the 3 assessment sessions. Independent
t-test revealed significant differences between
the participants in the intervention group and
participants in the control group in the amount
of points gained in their subtest standard scores
on both reading fluency and reading
comprehension. Figure 3 illustrates group
scores on the GORT 4 Oral Reading Quotient
(combined reading fluency and reading
comprehension score, M of 100 and SD of 15).
Independent t-test revealed significant
differences between the participants in the
intervention group and participants in the
control group in the amount of points gained.

• . Older disabled readers struggle with more than
  one component of reading (Torgesen et al., 2007).
• Researchers (Anderson, Wilson, Fielding, 1988)
  assessed independent reading of older struggling
  readers.
• Results indicated
• Readers in the 98 ile spent 65 minutes per
  day independently reading books vs readers in the
  10 ile who spent 0.1 minute per day
  independently reading.
• Readers in the 98 ile read about 4,358,000
  words per year vs those in the 10 ile that read
  about 8,000 words.
• Matthew Effect
• The rich get richer (i.e., good readers
  continue to increase skill level) and the poor
  get poorer (i.e., less-skilled readers fall
  further behind as skill level requirements
  increase) (Stanovich, 1986, 1993).
• The Literacy and Language Learning Interactive
  Model (IRA/NCTE, 1996) indicates that learning
  should be
• Learner-centered (i.e., students participate
  in their own learning)
• Active rather than passive process of learning
  a process where student engagement is
  primary
• Research drives BIG ideas about interventions for
  older struggling and disabled readers (Torgesen,
  2000)
• Instruction needs to be explicit and
  systematic.
• The intensity of instruction and practice must
  be increased and be available in a range
  of intensity.
• Focus on Evidence Based Instruction in 5
  areas (Roberts et al., 2008)

• . Participants
• Sample Size 30
• Experimental Classroom 13
• Control Classroom 17
• Mean Age 16.28 Years
• Gender
• Male 18
• Female 12
• Ethnic Demographics
• Caucasian 70
• Hispanic 27
• African American 3
• All participants were receiving special
  education
• services for a documented reading disability.

Discussion
t-test 2.50
t-test 3.27 p lt.05
p lt.01 d .92
d 1.20
Results indicate that a scientifically-based
intervention program focusing on the 5 components
of reading in a learner-centered, small group
(i.e., center) instructional environment had a
statistically significant impact on oral reading
fluency and comprehension Findings offer support
to the literature suggesting that the
collaborative approach can be useful in targeting
specific areas of need for older disabled
readers. Clearly needed is more longitudinal
research on the use of such intervention and its
impact on reading comprehension. Future research
is also needed to refine the intervention itself,
making it more systematic.
Specific Aims

• To examine the effects of a comprehensive reading
  program on the reading skill acquisition of
  high-school students with reading disabilities.
• To determine if a collaborative model of
  delivering special education support is
  successful.

t -test 2.97 p
lt.01 d 1.09