The process of implementing intensive reading interventions using data-based decision-making (DBDM) becomes increasingly challenging as students move into the secondary grades and reading tasks correspondingly become more complex. This article provides teachers with guidelines to support effective implementation of DBDM for students with or at risk for reading disabilities in the secondary grades. Specifically, this article presents four steps for secondary teachers to follow within the context of a reading intervention to decide when instructional changes are needed based on progress-monitoring data. Diagnostic assessment is explained to determine students’ strengths and weaknesses in order to target instruction accordingly. A case study is included throughout to demonstrate application of the steps as well as supplemental materials to help teachers implement this practice in their classrooms.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J.MorenaL. S.CormierD. C.KlingbeilD. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18.
ChristT. J.ZopluogluC.LongJ. D.MonaghenB. D. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Quality of progress monitoring outcomes. Exceptional Children, 78, 356–373.
4.
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
5.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.CableA.TackettK.SchnakenbergJ. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300.
6.
EspinC.WallaceT.LembkeE.CampbellH.LongJ. D. (2010). Creating a progress-monitoring system in reading for middle-school students: Tracking progress toward meeting high-stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 60–75.
7.
FildermanM. J.TosteJ. R. (2017). Decisions decisions decisions: Using data to make instructional decisions for struggling readers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50, 130–140.
8.
FildermanM. J.TosteJ. R.DidionL. A.PengP.ClemensN. (2018). Interventions using data-based decision making in reading: A synthesis of the effects for struggling readers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). Using curriculum based measurement for progress monitoring in reading. Ideas that work: US Office of Special Education Programs.
10.
FuchsD.FuchsL. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105–111.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39, 22–28.
12.
FuchsL.FuchsD.HamlettC.FergusonC. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement, using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436–450.
13.
HospM.HospJ. L. (2003). Curriculum based measurement for reading, spelling, and math: How to do it and why. Preventing School Failure, 48, 10–17.
14.
JenkinsJ.TerjesonK. (2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 28–35.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
22.
National Reading Panel, 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: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: Authors.
23.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390.
24.
SchrankF. A.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
25.
ShapiroE. S.GebhardtS. N. (2012). Comparing computer-adaptive and curriculum-based measurement methods of assessment. School Psychology Review, 41, 295–305.
26.
SteckerP. M.LembkeE. S. (2011). Advanced applications of CBM in reading (K-6): Instructional decision-making strategies manual. Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.
27.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. San Antonio, TX: PRO-ED.
28.
VaughnS.WexlerJ.LerouxA.RobertsG.DentonC.BarthA.FletcherJ. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 515–525.
29.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. (2010). The Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
30.
WendlingB.SchrankF.SchmittA. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson III assessment service bulletin number 8: Educational interventions related to the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
31.
WendtJ. (2013). Combating the crisis in adolescent literacy: Exploring literacy in the secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 41, 38–48.
32.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised/Normative Update. Bloomington, MN: Pearson. (Original work published 1987)
33.
ZimmermanB. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70.
34.
ZimmermanB. J.DibenedettoM. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 206–216.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
