The current study evaluated the implementation of evidence-based reading interventions using a multifaceted implementation measurement approach. Multilevel modeling was used to examine how three direct measures of implementation related to each other and to student academic outcomes and to examine patterns of implementation across time. Eight instructional groups were video taped weekly for nine weeks, and pre- and post-test assessments were given to 31 at-risk kindergartners from two schools using established evidence-based practices. Each implementation measure represented a different measurement approach (i.e., discrete behavioral measurement, global ratings) and focused on different aspects of implementation (e.g., structural, process, or multicomponent elements). Overall, results of this analysis indicated that (a) the implementation tools were highly correlated with each other, (b) only the multicomponent tool independently accounted for group differences, (c) together the multicomponent and process-oriented measures appear to account for additional variance in group differences, and (d) there were no significant trends in implementation across time as measured by any of the tools, however there were significant differences in trends over time between groups when using the structural measure. Implications for research and practice are discussed, including the importance of taking a multifaceted approach to measuring implementation and aligning implementation measures with program theory.

abstract: How hard should the books be in elementary small-group reading? This study explored text difficulty for bilingual students reading below grade level in third grade. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, I used qualitative methods to analyze students’ engagement and discussion during small groups and single case design to evaluate students’ fluency and reading comprehension after reading and discussing texts in small groups. Six Spanish-English bilingual students, split into two groups of three, participated in twelve, 30-minute, small-group reading sessions. Students in Group 1 read approximately one year below grade level, and students in Group 2 read approximately a year and a half below grade level. In six of the twelve sessions, students read and discussed texts matched to their reading levels, and in the other six they read and discussed texts one year ahead of their reading levels. I assigned matched and difficult texts across the twelve days by blocked randomization. I analyzed video transcripts of each session to understand students’ engagement (focus of engagement, strategies, and interaction) and discussion (inferential vs. literal responses, instances of verbal participation). At the end of each session, students reread and retold the book the group had read and discussed that day to produce a fluency (words correct per minute) and comprehension (ideas correctly retold) score. Findings were complex and revealed that different levels of texts have both advantages and drawbacks. Key findings included: For fluency, half of the students benefited from matched texts. The other half read difficult texts with similar fluency to matched texts. For comprehension, text difficulty did not matter for anyone except one student, and for him it only had an effect on 3 of 12 days. Group 2 engaged much more with texts and ideas in difficult books and with pictures in matched books. Group 1 had more inferential/interpretive responses with matched texts, and Group 2 had more inferential and interpretive responses with difficult texts. Most students participated evenly regardless of the difficulty of the text under discussion. However, two students talked more when discussing matched texts. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Learning, Literacies and Technologies 2018

This essay aims to examine how reading interventions are used  in Swedish elementary schools. The two initial questions examine how many schools that implement reading interventions individually and in small groups with students with reading difficulties and which teaching methods and reading programs that are being used for these interventions. The third question considers which reasons the special needs teachers and special education needs teachers states for choosing  methods and programs for students with reading difficulties.  To answer these questions a survey with special needs teachers and special education needs teachers was completed. The results indicate that 52,1% of the elementary schools in this survey use intensive reading interventions based on phonics. The result also indicates that decoding is the most frequent content in reading interventions and that many different methods and programs are used in reading interventions, both digital and analogue. Finally, there are different reasons for why a program or method has been chosen in the different schools.  The most common cause stated, is that the chosen method has shown good results in the past for students with reading difficulties. Some respondents stated research as a cause for their chosen method, but the majority did not.