Addressing the reading needs of adolescent learners living in rural areas may create challenges for teachers and administrators in the age of accountability. This study addressed this issue by implementing two explicit instructional approaches with struggling adolescent readers (n = 49) in a rural middle school in the southeastern United States. Both programs were commercially available Direct Instruction (DI) programs. The sixth, seventh, and eighth grade participants were 2 or more years behind in reading achievement as measured by an individualized test of achievement. Placement tests for commercially available DI programs were used as decision points for placing participants in 1 of 2 groups. A 2 × 4 multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) revealed significant differences between the two instructional groups in that those with more skills demonstrated more gains on reading measures used in this study. These results indicate that systematic, explicit reading instruction can be delivered successfully in general education settings for middle school students who are struggling readers; however, attention must be given to the initial capabilities of students when evaluating the effectiveness of educational programming.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
ArcherA. L., GleasonM. M., & VachonV. (2008). REWARDS: Reading excellence: Word attack and rate development strategies.Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
3.
AtkinsonT. S., WilhiteK. L., FreyL. M., & WilliamsS. C. (2002). Reading instruction for the struggling reader: Implications for teachers of students with learning disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders.Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 158–162.
4.
BradfordS., ShippenM. E., AlbertoP. A., HouchinsD. E., & FloresM. (2006). Using systematic instruction to teach decoding skills to middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities.Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(4), 333–343.
5.
CarnineD.W., SilbertJ., Kame'enuiE. J., & TarverS. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
ChallJ. S., JacobsV. A., & BaldwinL. E. (1991). The reading crisis: Why poor students fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
EngelmannS., & CarnineD. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications.New York: Irvington.
Fagella-LubyM. N., & DeshlerD. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; What we need to learn.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78.
10.
FlynnL. J., ZhengX., & SwansonH. L. (2012). Instructing struggling older readers: A selective meta-analysis of intervention research.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(1), 21–32.
11.
GrahamL., BellertA., ThomasJ., & PeggJ. (2007). Quick Smart: A basic academic skills intervention for middle school students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4 (5), 410–419.
12.
GuilmetteT.J., KennedyM.L., & QueallyP.T. (2001). A comparison of the WISC-III and the Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test with students referred for learning disabilities.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 239–244.
13.
HouchinsD.E., JolivetteK., KrezmienM.P., & BaltodanoH. (2008). A multi-state study examining the impact of explicit reading instruction with incarcerated students.Journal of Correctional Education, 59(1), 65–85.
14.
Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA [2004] - PL 108-146), formally known as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142, 20 U.S.C Section 1400 [d]).
15.
LingoA. S., SlatonD. B., & JolivetteK. (2006). Effects of Corrective Reading on the reading abilities and classroom behaviors of middle school students with reading deficits and challenging behavior.Behavioral Disorders, 31(3), 265–283.
16.
Manset-WilliamsonG., & NelsonJ.M., (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches.Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 59–74.
17.
MillerC. A., DarchC.B., FloresM. M., ShippenM. E., & HintonV. (2010). Main idea identification with students with high incidence disabilities: A comparison of explicit and basal instructional approaches.Journal of Direct In-struction. 12(2), 20–35.
18.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
20.
OlsonJ.L., & PlattJ.C. (2004). Teaching children and adolescence with special needs (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: McGraw-Hill.
21.
OtisA. S., & LennonR. T. (2009). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test 8th Edition. Pearson: San Antonio, TX.
22.
PerieM., GriggW., & DonahueP. (2005). The nation's report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451).U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
23.
RobertsG., TorgesenJ. K., BoardmanA., & ScammaccaN. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 63–69.
ShippenM.E., HouchinsD.E., SteventonC., & SartorD. (2005). A Comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle school students.Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 175–182.
26.
ShippenM. E., HouchinsD. E., CalhoonM. B., FurlowC. F., & SartorD. L. (2006). The effects of comprehensive school reform models in reading for urban middle school students with disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 322–328.
27.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of learning to read.Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
28.
SwansonH., HoskynM., & LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes.New York: Guilford Press.
29.
VaughnS., & FletcherJ. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary students with reading difficulties.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 244–256.
30.
WestwoodP., & GrahamL. (2000). How many children with special needs in regular classes: Official predictions vs. teachers' perceptions in South Australia and New South Wales.Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(3), 24–35.
31.
WilkinsonG.S. & RobertsonG.J. (2006). The Wide Range Achievement Test-4.Hogrefe Publishing: Cambridge.
