This study examined the first-grade reading progress of children who participated in an intensive beginning reading intervention in kindergarten. Specifically, the study investigated whether kindergarten intervention could prevent first-grade reading difficulties, or produce an “inoculation” effect, for some children under certain instructional conditions. Participants included children at risk for developing reading difficulties who received a 7-month beginning reading intervention in kindergarten. In October of first grade, 59 children who had achieved criterion levels on measures of phonological awareness and alphabetic knowledge were randomly assigned to one of two types of first-grade reading instruction: (a) code-based classroom instruction and a supplemental maintenance intervention, or (b) only code-based classroom instruction. February posttest measures assessed oral reading fluency, word reading, nonword reading, and comprehension. Between-group analyses indicated that instructional groups did not differ on any posttest measure. The students' absolute levels of achievement were compared to national and local normative samples. These results indicated that between 75% and 100% of students in both conditions attained posttest levels and demonstrated growth comparable to their average-achieving peers. These results support the hypothesis that strong responders to kindergarten intervention can experience an inoculation effect through the middle of first grade with research-validated classroom reading instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Building on the best, learning from what works: Seven promising reading and English language arts programs. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Vermeulen, K., Ogier, S., Brooksher, R., Zook, D., et al. (2002). Comparison of faster and slower responders to early intervention in reading: Differentiating features of their language profiles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 59—76.
4.
Bus, A.G., & IJzendoorn, M.H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403—414.
5.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 104—111.
6.
Coyne, M.D. (2001). Kindergarten reading intervention: Inoculation or insulin? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
7.
Coyne, M.D., Kame'enui, E.J., & Simmons, D.C. (2001). Prevention and intervention in beginning reading: Two complex systems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 62—72.
8.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1—2), 8—15.
9.
Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1— 17). New York: Guilford Press.
10.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37—55.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239— 256.
12.
Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J.W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special education: Group experimental design. The Journal of Special Education , 34, 2—18.
13.
Good, R.H., III, Simmons, D.C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2001). The importance of decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257—288.
14.
Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D.L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M.E., & Bocian, K.M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 198—205.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H., III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215—227.
17.
Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259—287). Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
18.
Lyon, G.R., & Moats, L.C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 578— 588.
19.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction . Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Institutes of Health.
20.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
O'Connor, R.E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15, 43—54.
22.
O'Connor, R.E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. (1998). First-grade effects of teacher-led phonological activities in kindergarten for children with mild disabilities: A follow-up study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 43—52.
23.
Olson, R.K., Wise, B., Johnson, M.C., & Ring, J. (1997). The etiology and remediation of phonologically based word recognition and spelling disabilities: Are phonological deficits the “hole” story? In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia (pp. 305—326). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum .
24.
Oregon Department of Education. (2000). School district data book profiles. Retrieved June, 2001, from http://www.ode.stat.or.us/stats/
25.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155—168.
27.
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958—995.
28.
Share, D.L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151—218.
29.
Share, D.L., & Stanovich, K.E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education, 1, 97—100.
30.
Simeonsson, R.J. (1994). Risk, resilience, and prevention: Promoting the well-being of all children. Baltimore: Brookes.
31.
Simmons, D.C., Kame'enui, E.J., Good, R.H., Harn, B.A., Cole, C., & Braun, D. (2000). Building, implementing, and sustaining a beginning reading model: School by school and lessons learned. OSSC Bulletin, 43(3), 3—30.
32.
Simmons, D.C., Kame'enui, E.J., Harn, B.A., Edwards, L.A., Coyne, M.D., Thomas-Beck, C., et al. (2001). The effects of instructional emphasis and specificity on early reading and vocabulary development of kindergarten children . Manuscript submitted for publication.
33.
Simmons, D.C., Kame'enui, E.J., Stool-miller, M., Coyne, M.D., & Harn, B.A. (2003). Accelerating growth and maintaining proficiency: A two-year intervention study of kindergarten and first-grade children at risk for reading difficulties. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 197—228). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360— 406.
36.
Stanovich, K.E. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350—361. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell , L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
37.
Torgesen, J.K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55—64.
38.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33—58, 78.
39.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Con-way, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579—593.
40.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Sipay, E.R. (1997). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: The importance of early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. In B. Blachman (ed.) Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia (pp. 347—380). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
41.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-toremediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601—638.
42.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P.G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415—438.
43.
Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
