Moeller Board Memo … · more complex literacy skill of reading connected text (Cavellini &...

VI-A

State College Area School District Michael S. Hardy, Assistant Superintendent

To: Dr. Robert O’Donnell From: Mr. Michael Hardy Date: October 23, 2014 Subject: Research Proposal “Increasing Students Oral Reading Fluency and

Comprehension Using Precision Teaching Within a Tier 2 Response to Intervention Framework”

Enclosed please find a research proposal submitted by Jeremy Moeller, doctoral student in the Special Education Department, Penn State University. The proposed research study would “incorporate Precision Teaching into the districts existing Tier 2 reading RTI model for second grade students.“ Patrick Moore, Director of Special Education, is in support of this study. We recommend approval of this research proposal. Attachment c: Patrick Moore

ID00000027

Vice President for Research Office for Research Protections

The Pennsylvania State University The 330 Building, Suite 205 University Park, PA 16802

Phone : (814) 865-‐1775 Fax: (814) 863-‐8699 Email : [email protected] Web : www.research.psu.edu/orp

EXEMPTION DETERMINATION

Date: October 15, 2014

From: Jodi Mathieu, IRB Analyst

To: Jeremy Moeller

Type of Submission: Initial Study

Title of Study: Increasing Students Oral Reading Fluency and Comprehension using Precision Teaching within a Tier 2 Response to Intervention Framework.

Principal Investigator: Jeremy Moeller

Study ID: STUDY00000878

Submission ID: STUDY00000878

Funding: Not Applicable

Documents Approved: • Blending words saying fast.pdf (0.01), Category: Data Collection Instrument • RTI & PT Protocol (0.01), Category: IRB Protocol • 2nd Grade ORF Probes.pdf (0.01), Category: Data Collection Instrument • WRMT-III.pdf (0.01), Category: Data Collection Instrument

The Office for Research Protections determined that the proposed activity, as described in the above-referenced submission, does not require formal IRB review because the research met the criteria for exempt research according to the policies of this institution and the provisions of applicable federal regulations. Continuing Progress Reports are not required for exempt research. Record of this research determined to be exempt will be maintained for five years from the date of this notification. If your research will continue beyond five years, please contact the Office for Research Protections closer to the determination end date. Changes to exempt research only need to be submitted to the Office for Research Protections in limited circumstances described in the below-referenced Investigator Manual. If changes are being considered and there are questions about whether IRB review is needed, please contact the Office for Research Protections. Penn State researchers are required to follow the requirements listed in the Investigator Manual (HRP-103), which can be found by navigating to the IRB Library within CATS IRB (http://irb.psu.edu). This correspondence should be maintained with your records.

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

HRP-591 - Protocol for Human Subject Research

Protocol Title: Increasing Students Oral Reading Fluency and Comprehension Using Precision Teaching Within a Tier 2 Response to Intervention Framework. Principal Investigator: Jeremy D Moeller Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education 814-232-0927 [email protected]

Version Date: 8/25/2014

Clinicaltrials.gov Registration #: Not Applicable

If you need help… University Park and other campuses:

Office for Research Protections Human Research Protection Program The 330 Building, Suite 205 University Park, PA 16802-7014 Phone: 814-865-1775 Fax: 814-863-8699 Email: [email protected]

College of Medicine and Hershey Medical Center:

Human Subjects Protection Office 90 Hope Drive, Mail Code A115, P.O. Box 855 Hershey, PA 17033 (Physical Office Location: Academic Support Building Room 1140) Phone: 717-531-5687 Fax number: 717-531-3937 Email: [email protected]

Instructions for using this protocol template: 1. Add this completed protocol template to your study in CATS IRB (http://irb.psu.edu) in the “Basic

Information” section. Links to Penn State’s protocol templates are available in the same location where they are uploaded and their use is required.

2. This template is provided to help investigators prepare a protocol that includes the necessary information needed by the IRB determine whether a study meets all criteria for approval.

3. There may be sections in this template that do not apply. If a section or question does not apply to the research study in question, provide the response “Not Applicable”.

4. DO NOT TYPE IN THE GRAY BOXES. All guidance language appears in gray boxes and these boxes MUST be deleted from the final version of the protocol prior to upload to CATS IRB.

http://www.research.psu.edu/offices/orp/hrpp

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.pennstatehershey.org/web/irb


http://irb.psu.edu/

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

Table of Contents

1.0 Objectives

2.0 Background

3.0 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

4.0 Recruitment Methods

5.0 Consent Process and Documentation

6.0 HIPAA Research Authorization and/or Waiver or Alteration of Authorization

7.0 Study Design and Procedures

8.0 Data and Specimen Banking For Future Undetermined Research

9.0 Statistical Plan

10.0 Confidentiality, Privacy and Data Management

11.0 Data and Safety Monitoring Plan

12.0 Risks

13.0 Potential Benefits to Subjects and Others

14.0 Sharing Results with Subjects

15.0 Economic Burden to Subjects

16.0 Number of Subjects

17.0 Resources Available

18.0 Other Approvals

19.0 Subject Stipend (Compensation) and/or Travel Reimbursements

20.0 Multi-Site Research

21.0 Adverse Event Reporting

22.0 Study Monitoring, Auditing and Inspecting

23.0 References

24.0 Appendix

1.0 Objectives 1.1 Study Objectives

The objectives of this study are to (1) examine the use of a daily structured practice (Frequency Building to a Performance Criteria; FBPC) with basic literacy skills to improve 2nd grade students’ oral reading fluency and reading comprehension and (2) incorporate the reading intervention into an existing Response to Intervention (RtI) tier 2 model. The overall hypothesis is students who receive daily structured practice (FBPC) with element behavior literacy skills within a tier 2 RTI model will increase their overall oral reading fluency and reading comprehension as measured by the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Edition III (WRMT-III) when compared to a matched control group. In addition a direct measure of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension for their grade level will be tracked and graphed weekly using DIBELS.

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

1.2 Primary Study Endpoints The primary study endpoints are (1) oral reading fluency measured by words correctly read per minute and (2) reading achievement measured by the WRMT-III

1.3 Secondary Study Endpoints

The secondary study endpoint is sounding out words and then saying them fast, measured by words correctly read per minute.

2.0 Background

2.1 Scientific Background and Gaps Overall, results from literature indicate using FBPC with element behavior literacy skills improves fluency with compound behavior literacy skills (Cavallini & Perini, 2009; Cavallini, Berardo, & Perini, 2010; Hughes, Beverley, & Whitehead, 2007; Kubina, Young, & Kilwein, 2004; Kubina, Commons, & Hechard, 2009; McDowell & Keenan, 2002; Smyth & Keenan, 2002). Students who reach high frequencies of reading sight-words are able to effectively apply the sight-word reading skill to the more complex literacy skill of reading connected text (Cavellini & Perini, 2009; Cavellini et al., 2010; Hughes et al., 2007). Moreover, students receiving the intervention are able to demonstrate fewer errors while reading connected text compared to students who do not receive the intervention (Hughes et al., 2007). The increase accuracy is especially significant because no practice or feedback is given to students with the complex skill of reading connected text. While using FBPC increases students overall reading skills by using highly structured practice and feedback with basic literacy skills, no studies to date have incorporated using this technique within a Response to Intervention framework. In addition the secondary outcome of increasing reading comprehension from the increase of oral reading fluency is well documented (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Roehrig, Petscher, Mettles, Hudson, & Torgesen, 2008); however, no studies have examined reading comprehension from using FBPC within a RtI framework.

2.2 Previous Data

Not Applicable

2.3 Study Rationale Fluently reading and comprehending connected text is the gateway to a bright future in an increasingly technological society. As students advance through school they experience increased task demands across academic instruction. Students who lack reading skills by the end of elementary school are at a greater risk of dropping out of high school (Chambers et al., 2011). Struggling readers have a greater likelihood to face difficulty in other areas of education (e.g., history, science, and math) where they need to access information from expository text (Carnine & Carnine, 2004; Rasinski et al., 2005; Slavin, Lake, Davis, & Madden, 2011). In order to access information from text (i.e., comprehension) students need to become fluent readers because reading fluency and comprehension are correlated (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Roehrig, Petscher, Mettles, Hudson, & Torgesen, 2008). To become fluent in the complex skill of reading, students need to develop fluency early and frequently in academics (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). The current study aims to increase early literacy skills that may be lacking in students at-risk for reading problems in order to increase their overall reading fluency and reading comprehension. Research that could help elucidate the ease and effectiveness of using FBPC within existing models such as Response to Intervention (RtI) is an important area of exploration given the current widespread use of tiered-models for implementation. Using FBPC within RTI may produce better outcomes and increase the likelihood that students move back into the regular education curriculum.

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

3.0 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

3.1 Inclusion Criteria

1. Individuals under the age of 18 who receive parent informed consent. 2. Individuals who are elementary students currently enrolled in the second grade. 3. Individuals that have been identified by their school as needing tier 2 intervention in reading.

3.2 Exclusion Criteria

1. Individuals who do not meet the above criteria 2. Individuals that have not received parental consent to participate in the study.

3.3 Early Withdrawal of Subjects

3.3.1 Criteria for removal from study

Subjects whose parents voluntarily choose to withdraw their child or who do not agree to the informed consent.

3.3.2 Follow-up for withdrawn subjects Subjects will only be withdrawn if their parents choose for them to not participate. There will be no data collected on participants once are withdrawn. Subjects will not be replaced if they withdraw. If a participant withdraws, there will be no follow-up procedure, but they will be given contact information in the case that the withdrawn participants’ parents have any questions.

4.0 Recruitment Methods

4.1 Identification of subjects Participants will be identified by the school through the State College Area School Districts procedures on identifying second grade students in need of teir 2 intervention for reading.

4.2 Recruitment process Potential participants will be given an informed consent form to take home for their parent’s to read and sign.

4.3 Recruitment materials Besides the informed consent form for parents no other recruitment materials will be used.

4.4 Eligibility/screening of subjects

Not Applicable

5.0 Consent Process and Documentation

5.1 Consent Process

.

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

5.1.1 Obtaining Informed Consent 5.1.1.1 Timing and Location of Consent

Parental informed consent forms will be given to all students in the teir 2 reading group to take home for their parents to read and sign. The students will have one week to bring back the informed consent form to the RtI instructor.

5.1.1.2 Coercion or Undue Influence during Consent

Participant parents’ will read within the informed consent form their rights as parents of the child participating in research and the rights of their child as a research participant including their right to withdraw their child and discontinue participation in the research at any time.

5.1.2 Waiver or alteration of the informed consent requirement Not Applicable

5.2 Consent Documentation

5.2.1 Written Documentation of Consent

All participants’ parents/legal guardians will sign an informed consent form prior to participating in the research study. All participants’ parents/legal guardians will receive a copy of the informed consent for their records. Attached is the informed consent for participation in research.

5.2.2 Waiver of Documentation of Consent Not Applicable

5.3 Consent – Other Considerations

5.3.1 Non-English Speaking Subjects All participants will be English speaking.

5.3.2 Cognitively Impaired Adults

5.3.2.1 Capability of Providing Consent N/A 5.3.2.2 Adults Unable To Consent

N/A

5.3.2.3 Assent N/A

5.3.3 Subjects who are not yet adults (infants, children, teenagers)

5.3.3.1 Parental Permission

Informed written consent will be obtained by all participants’ parents or legal guardians prior to conducting research.

5.3.3.2 Assent Assent will not be required by any research participant.

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

6.0 HIPAA Research Authorization and/or Waiver or Alteration of Authorization Not Applicable

6.1 Authorization and/or Waiver or Alteration of Authorization for the Uses and Disclosures

of PHI Check all that apply:

Authorization will be obtained and documented as part of the consent process.

Partial waiver is requested for recruitment purposes only (Check this box if patients’

medical records will be accessed to determine eligibility before consent/authorization has been obtained)

Full waiver is requested for entire research study (e.g., medical record review studies)

Alteration is requested to waive requirement for written documentation of authorization

6.2 Waiver or Alteration of Authorization for the Uses and Disclosures of PHI

6.2.1 Access, use or disclosure of PHI representing no more than a minimal risk to the privacy of the individual

6.2.1.1 Plan to protect PHI from improper use or disclosure Not Applicable

6.2.1.2 Plan to destroy identifiers or a justification for retaining identifiers Not Applicable

6.2.2 Explanation for why the research could not be practicably be conducted without

access to and use of PHI Not Applicable

6.2.3 Explanation for why the research could not practicably be conducted without the waiver or alteration of authorization Not Applicable

6.3 Waiver or alteration of authorization statements of agreement Not Applicable

7.0 Study Design and Procedures

7.1 Study Design Quasi-experimental pre/post design with a matched control group

7.2 Study Procedures After informed consent is received on all participants 1. Students in both the intervention school and the control school will receive the pre-test Frequency Building to a Performance Criterion (Intervention school only)

2. Students will be given three timed probes on blending letter-sounds into words and then saying the word fast daily. Number correct and incorrect will be recorded after each timing. 3. Students will be given feedback on letter-sounds or words said incorrectly after each timing using a model, prompt, check procedure

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

3. Students will be given three timed probes on a second grade reading passage. Number of words read correctly and incorrectly after each timing will be recorded. 4. Students will be given feedback after each timing on any words missed or said incorrectly. 5. Students will be given a second grade reading passage weekly and will be timed for 1 minute. Number of words correct and incorrect will be reocorded.

7.2.1 Pre-test

All participants will be given the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Third Edition (WRMT-III) subtests of oral reading fluency, word attack, word identification, and passage comprehension. Participants will also be given a reading passage that is timed for one minute for words read correctly.

7.2.2 Intervention

Frequency Building to a Performance Criterion: The following procedures will be conducted with each student at the intervention school individually. 1. Student will be handed a list of second grade words. 2. Interventionist will have a their own copy. 3. Interventionist will read the provided script. 4. Student will begin to sound out words and then say the word fast. 5. Student will read as many words as possible for 1 minute. 6. Interventionist will tell the student to stop and then record the number of words read correctly and incorrectly. 7. Interventionist will give feedback to student on words said incorrectly using a model, prompt, check procedure. 8. Steps 3 – 7 will be repeated two more times. 9. Student will be handed a second grade reading passage. 10. Interventionist will have their own copy. 11. Interventionist will read the provided script. 12. Student will begin to orally read the graded passage as fast as they can. 13. Student will read as many words as possible for 1 minute. 14. Interventionist will tell the student to stop and then record the number of words read correctly and incorrectly. 15. Interventionist will give feedback to student on words said incorrectly using a model, prompt, check procedure. 16. Steps 11 - 15 will be repeated two more times.

7.2.3 Post-test

All participants will be given the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Third Edition (WRMT-III) subtests of oral reading fluency, word attack, word identification, and passage comprehension. Participants will also be given a reading passage that is timed for one minute for words read correctly.

7.3 Duration of Participation The study will take 8 weeks Pretest (All students): 20-30 minutes Intervention (Intervention students only): 10 minutes each day Mon-Thurs for 8 weeks Post-test (All students): 20-30 minutes

8.0 Data and Specimen Banking For Future Undetermined Research

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

8.1 Data and/or specimens being stored

Not Applicable 8.2 Location of storage

Not Applicable 8.3 Duration of storage

Not Applicable

8.4 Access to data and/or specimens Not Applicable

8.5 Procedures to release data or specimens Data will not be released

8.6 Process for returning results

Not Applicable

9.0 Statistical Plan

9.1 Sample size determination The sample size will be determined by how many students are in a Tier 2 RtI reading program within second grade at the two schools.

9.2 Statistical methods

The statistical methods used for the study will be an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). When using a pre-test/post-test design with a control group using analysis of covariance is recommended (Glass & Hopkins, 2008; Mok & Wendell, 1995). Using the pre-test scores of participants as a covariate will neutralize any initial differences arising from prior knowledge (Glass & Hopkins, 2008). Using an ANCOVA will assist in detecting variance that is due to intervention effects between the intervention and control groups.

10.0 Confidentiality, Privacy and Data Management

10.1 Confidentiality

10.1.1 Identifiers associated with data and/or specimens Names of participants will be linked to an identification number during data collection

10.1.1.1 Use of Codes, Master List

A master list of participant’s names linking them to their identification number will be stored on a secure university computer. Only the PI and academic advisor will have access to the master list. The list will be destroyed once all data is collected and entered into the statistical software.

10.1.2 Storage of Data and/or Specimens

All hardcopies from the data collection will be stored in a locked cabinet in a locked office in 409 Marion Building, State College, PA 16802. All electronic data will be stored on a Penn State laptop computer that is password protected.

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

10.1.3 Access to Data and/or Specimens The research team will have access to the data.

10.1.4 Transferring Data and/or Specimens

Data will not be transferred to outside collaborators. 10.2 Privacy

Only the PI and his Academic advisor will have access to the mater list of participant’s names that are linked to their identification numbers. The others on the research team will not be permitted to access personal information on participants. Electronic data will only have participant’s identification numbers as an identifier. Participants and their parents will be made aware that there will be no identifiable information used when reporting results. Only demographic information (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity) will be used when reporting results.

11.0 Data and Safety Monitoring Plan No known risks of participation 11.1 Periodic evaluation of data

Not Applicable

11.2 Data that are reviewed Not Applicable

11.3 Method of collection of safety information

Not Applicable 11.4 Frequency of data collection

Not Applicable 11.5 Individual’s reviewing the data

Not Applicable

11.6 Frequency of review of cumulative data Not Applicable

11.7 Statistical tests

Not Applicable 11.8 Suspension of research

Not Applicable

12.0 Risks No known risk to participants

13.0 Potential Benefits to Subjects and Others

13.1 Potential Benefits to Subjects Potential benefits to participants are an increase in oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. In addition, participants may no longer need tier 2 RtI and hence be moved back into the regular education curriculum.

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

13.2 Potential Benefits to Others Potential benefits to others are the scientific validation of using FBPC within a RtI framework. Schools would benefit by incorporating these procedures within their RtI models and students would benefit by increasing their overall reading fluency and reading comprehension, making it less likely for needed reading interventions in the future.

14.0 Sharing Results with Subjects

Results from students daily and weekly reading probes will be continually shared throughout the study with the participants. Participant’s results from the pre/post-tests will not be shared with participants.

15.0 Economic Burden to Subjects

15.1 Costs Not Applicable

15.2 Compensation for research-related injury It is the policy of the institution to provide neither financial compensation nor free medical treatment for research-related injury. In the event of injury resulting from this research, medical treatment is available but will be provided at the usual charge. Costs for the treatment of research-related injuries will be charged to subjects or their insurance carriers.

16.0 Number of Subjects The total number of subjects to be accrued is 24.

17.0 Resources Available

17.1 Facilities and locations The study will take place in two local elementary schools in the State College Area School District. The students will participate in their regularly scheduled classroom for their teir 2 RtI reading program.

17.2 Feasibility of recruiting the required number of subjects The research team will have access to all second grade students who are designated by the school as needing teir 2 RtI for reading. All of these students will participate in the research upon parental/legal guardian informed consent.

17.3 PI Time devoted to conducting the research

This research is being conducted as a requirement for a Doctorate of Philosophy in Special Education. The PI is given enough time to conduct the research by the Faculty in the Special Education department.

17.4 Availability of medical or psychological resources Not Applicable

17.5 Process for informing Study Team

The research team collecting data within the schools are School Psychology graduate students who have taken courses and demonstrated proficiency with giving the WRMT-III and timed probes with blending letter-sounds together to say words and passage reading. All research members collecting data will be

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

18.0 Other Approvals Approval from the State College Area School District School Board will be obtained before implementation of the study.

19.0 Subject Stipend (Compensation) and/or Travel Reimbursements

Not Applicable

20.0 Multi-Site Research

20.1 Communication Plans

Not Applicable

20.2 Data Submission and Security Plan

Not Applicable

20.3 Subject Enrollment

Not Applicable

20.4 Reporting of Adverse Events and New Information

Not Applicable

20.5 Audit and Monitoring Plans

Not Applicable

21.0 Adverse Event Reporting

21.1 Reporting Adverse Reactions and Unanticipated Problems to the Responsible IRB In accordance with applicable policies of The Pennsylvania State University Institutional Review Board (IRB), the investigator will report, to the IRB, any observed or reported harm (adverse event) experienced by a subject or other individual, which in the opinion of the investigator is determined to be (1) unexpected; and (2) probably related to the research procedures. Harms (adverse events) will be submitted to the IRB in accordance with the IRB policies and procedures.

21.2 Auditing and Inspecting The investigator will permit study-related monitoring, audits, and inspections by the Penn State quality assurance program office(s), IRB, the sponsor, and government regulatory bodies, of all study related documents (e.g., source documents, regulatory documents, data collection instruments, study data etc.). The investigator will ensure the capability for inspections of applicable study-related facilities (e.g., pharmacy, diagnostic laboratory, etc.).

22.0 Study Monitoring, Auditing and Inspecting 22.1 Auditing and Inspecting

The investigator will permit study-related monitoring, audits, and inspections by the Penn State quality assurance program office(s), IRB, the sponsor, and government regulatory bodies, of all study related documents (e.g., source documents, regulatory documents, data collection

of 12 (V.06/19/2014)

instruments, study data etc.). The investigator will ensure the capability for inspections of applicable study-related facilities (e.g., pharmacy, diagnostic laboratory, etc.).

23.0 References

Carnine, L., & Carnine, D. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when

teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 203-218.

Cavallini, F., & Perini, S. (2009). Comparison of teaching syllables or words on reading rate. European Journal

of Behavior Analysis, 10, 225-263.

Cavallini, F., Berardo, F., & Perini, S. (2010). Mental retardation and reading rate: Effects of precision teaching.

Life Span and Disability, 13, 87-101.

Chambers, B., Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Abrami, P., Logan, M.K., & Gifford, R. (2011). Small-group

computer-assisted tutoring to improve reading outcomes for struggling first and second graders. The

Elementary School Journal, 111, 625-640.

Chard, D.J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B.J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building

reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35,

386-406.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading

competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.

Hughes, J.C., Beverley, M., & Whitehead, J. (2007). Using precision teaching to increase the fluency of word

reading with problem readers. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8, 221-238.

Kubina, R.M., Commons, M.L., & Heckard, B. (2009). Using precision teaching with direct instruction in a

summer school program. Journal of Direct Instruction, 9, 1-12.

Kubina, R.M., Young, A., & Kilwein, M. (2004). Examining an effect of fluency: Application of letter sound

writing and oral word segmentation to spelling words. Learning Disabilities, 13, 17-23.

Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.

McDowell, C., & Keenan, M. (2002). Comparison of two teaching structures examining the effects of

component fluency on the performance of related skills. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration,

18, 16-29.

Rasinski, T.V., Padak, N.D., McKeon, C.A., Wilfong, L.G., Friedauer, J.A., & Heim, P. (2005). Is reading

fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 22-27.

Roehrig, A.D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S.M., Hudson, R.F., & Torgesen, J.K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS

oral reading fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of

School Psychology, 46, 343-366.

Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N.A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-

evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6, 1-26.

Smyth, P., & Keenan, M. (2002). Compound performance: The role of free and controlled operant conditions.

Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration, 18, 3-15.

24.0 Appendix

Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and

Special Education

The Pennsylvania State University 125 CEDAR Building

University Park, PA 16802-3108

Fax: (814) 865-7066

Web site: http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/epcse

September 11, 2014 Jeremy D. Moeller, M.Ed. Doctoral Candidate in Special Education Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education Pennsylvania State University 125 CEDAR Building University Park, PA 16802 [email protected] Dear Jeremy, This letter is to inform you of my support of your proposed research entitled “Increasing Students’ Oral Reading Fluency and Comprehension Using Precision Teaching within a Tier 2 Response to Intervention Framework”. As the director of Clinical and Field Training in the School Psychology program at Penn State, I regularly work with the State College Area School District (SCASD) by providing school psychology doctoral students as RtI interventionists. The program is always enthusiastic about finding ways to increase our students’ opportunities for contributing to both delivery of empirically-supported interventions and research projects. Pending approval by the SCASD School Board, I will support the school psychology graduate students already embedded within SCASD schools to volunteer to be trained in your intervention protocols to assist you with consenting children for participation, delivering the intervention, and collecting data for this study. I understand that they will be spending approximately 5-10 minutes with each participant implementing the Precision Teaching techniques with basic phonics skills. In addition, I support their use of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test – 3

rd Edition (WRMT-III) for your pre- and post-intervention data collection.

I am excited to be able to assist you with your doctoral studies and research goals. I believe that the research you are conducting is in line with the overall goals of the university, college, and department. Your research will benefit the students and will contribute to the continued excellence in reading intervention within the SCASD. Best wishes for a successful approval process for this project. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you need further assistance. Sincerely,

Shirley A. Woika, Ph.D. Director of Clinical and Field Training, School Psychology Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education The Pennsylvania State University [email protected]


Moeller Board Memo … · more complex literacy skill of reading connected text (Cavellini &...

Documents

Transcript of Moeller Board Memo … · more complex literacy skill of reading connected text (Cavellini &...