Affiliation:
1. University of Wyoming, Laramie
2. STRIDE Learning Center, Cheyenne, WY
Abstract
Purpose
This study investigated the narrative language performance of 3 types of readers who had been identified as being at risk through code-based response-to-intervention (RTI) procedures.
Method
In a retrospective group comparison, 32 at-risk 1st-grade readers were identified: children who resolved without intervention (early resolvers,
n
= 11), children who met criterion following 4 weeks of intervention (good responders,
n
= 8), and children who failed to meet criterion following 4 weeks of intervention (poor responders,
n
= 13). A narrative retell and a norm-referenced language test were obtained before intervention.
Results
There were no significant differences between the 3 learner types on the language test. However, the narratives of the good responders were significantly higher than the narratives of the other 2 groups on total number of words, number of different words, and number of communication units. The narratives of early resolvers and good responders differed significantly on the productivity index, number of coordinating conjunctions, and number of episodic elements. There were no other significant differences.
Conclusion
Types of learners distinguished by a code-based RTI model showed differences in their narrative language. First graders who responded well to code-based reading intervention retold stories that contained more language and better story grammar than first graders who did not respond well to intervention. These results indicate the need to evaluate narrative language performance within RTI, especially for early resolvers.
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Subject
Speech and Hearing,Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference84 articles.
1. Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study;Al Otaiba S.;Journal of Learning Disabilities,2006
2. Allen M. M. Nippold M. A. & Simmons D. C. (2011). A comparison of assessment tools and methodologies for identifying children’s responsiveness to early reading intervention. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3. Allen M. M. Ukrainetz T. A. & Petersen D. B. (2010 November). An examination of the differences between C-units and T-units. Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Philadelphia PA.
4. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents. Rockville MD: Author.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献