UNION UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

We hereby recommend that the Dissertation by

Tenesha Hardin

Entitled

An Investigation of the Effects of READ 180 on Student Achievement

in One Middle Tennessee High School

Be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education
In Educational Leadership

Dissertation Committee: Stephanie Steele, Ph.D., Chairperson

Emily Mofield, Ed.D.

Carolyn Kennedy, Ed.D.

Program Director: Eric Marvin, Ed.D.

Dean of the College: Michele. W. Atkins, Ph.D.

An Investigation of the Effects of READ 180 on Student Achievement

in One Middle Tennessee High School

A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Doctor of Education Degree

Union University

Tenesha Hardin

May 2018




ProQuest Number: 10792511




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10792511

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 DEDICATION

It is with genuine gratefulness and warmest regard that I dedicate this work to my family.

Difficult tasks are very hard to accomplish without family support. My family provided me with

continuous encouragement and support and gave up many hours of their free time for me to

work.

To my loving husband, Marlin, words cannot express how thankful I am for your support,

companionship, and patience over the last three years of this journey. You have loved me

unconditionally, supported my academic pursuits, and picked up my slack in the daily duties

during this journey. You have served as my coach, counselor, and trainer throughout this

process, and without you I would have simply been another “all but dissertation” statistic.

My children, Marlin James (MJ), Cameron, and Ivy, sacrificed countless hours with

mom. You were understanding when you had to forego extracurricular activities for a year, and I

thank you for your patience. I have completed this degree for the three of you. From the

beginning, this was a personal goal. It was important for me to set an example and model that

hard work pays off. Education is a gift that no one can take away.

My sister, Tamara, traveled two consecutive summers to care for her niece and nephews

so I could attend class. You understood the importance of this journey and made a special trip

summer 2016 to care for your newborn niece, so I could maintain my perfect attendance record.

ii
Though we have been separated by miles, you showed no hesitation to help me complete this

goal.

My parents, James and Sandra, instilled in me a desire to be a lifelong learner and always

supported my educational endeavors. Thank you for being my weekly caregivers as well as my

personal cheerleaders. Like so many times before, you believed in me, and now this dream is a

reality.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This Doctorate of Education would not have been possible without the guidance and the

help of several individuals who in one way or another contributed and extended their valuable

assistance in the preparation and completion of this study.

I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to the professors who served on my

committee at Union University. Dr. Steele, I thank you for all of the statistical knowledge and

insight that you provided to me during this process. You challenged me to think in so many

complex ways. I have been stretched personally and professionally during this process and

appreciate the input you have given throughout the program.

As committee members, Dr. Kennedy and Dr. Mofield, your various educational

perspectives helped me to expand research and grow as an educator, but most importantly, your

words of encouragement, wisdom, and patience were footprints on my heart and soul. Each of

these individuals gave constructive criticism that elevated my analytical skills while improving

my writing ability.

I will never forget my cohort, who were not just my classmates but became my friends

during the last 3 years. I am forever grateful to Marie, Maria, Emily, Felicia, Justin, Patrick, and

Chris, whose professional knowledge and expertise helped guide me through various parts of the

study.

iv
 To my colleagues in the participating school district, thank you for the time and effort it

took to compile the necessary data and answer all of my questions. Michelle was also beneficial

in numerous ways, from offering unlimited access to her READ 180 classroom to

accommodating all my requests and questions throughout the research process.

v
 ABSTRACT

Reading is a critical skill to the future of all students. At-risk students need to be identified early

and intervention applied as soon as possible. Schools must have a plan to help at-risk students

who are not reading on grade level. Students need specific reading skills such as decoding

words, making predictions, reviewing text, and finding meaning within context. Adequate

instruction of these skills is necessary for effective reading. The purpose of this causal

comparative study was to analyze and compare the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading

Inventory pretest and posttest scores of ninth-grade students in a Middle Tennessee school who

participated in READ 180 during the 2016-2017 school year. The researcher compared

participants’ scores by gender and ethnicity. As stated in its Performance Pledge, the READ 180

program provides students with the basic reading skills needed to improve reading achievement.

The two research questions that guided this study were: (a) Is there a significant difference in

ninth-grade students’ 2016-2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory

pretest and posttest scores among different ethnic groups? and (b) Is there a significant difference

in READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores in 2016-

2017 between male and female ninth-grade students? Participants were ninth-grade students

who attended the same high school and were enrolled in READ 180. Participants lived in a rural

county in Middle Tennessee; it was the 20th most populated county in the state of Tennessee.

The methodology used was between-within repeated measures ANOVA. When reviewing the

vi
results of the study, the research indicated no statistically significant difference among Black-

American, Caucasian, and Hispanic students’ Reading Inventory Lexile Scores. Additionally,

the findings revealed no statistically significant difference between males’ and females’ Reading

Inventory Lexile Scores.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................3

Purpose of the Study .........................................................................................................4
Research Questions ...........................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms...........................................................................................................6

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................8

Disparities in Reading Achievement ..............................................................................10

Components of Reading ..................................................................................................11
Guided Reading ..............................................................................................................27
Literacy Strategies ..........................................................................................................28
Response to Intervention.................................................................................................29
READ 180.......................................................................................................................30
Summary .........................................................................................................................60

3. RESEARCH METHODS .....................................................................................................62

Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................63

Research Questions .........................................................................................................64
Description of Variables .................................................................................................64
Instrumentation ...............................................................................................................65
Description of Participants ..............................................................................................66
Research Procedures and Data Collection ......................................................................67
Statistical Methods ..........................................................................................................67
Limitations ......................................................................................................................68
Summary .........................................................................................................................69

4. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................71

Participants ......................................................................................................................71

viii
 Research Procedures .......................................................................................................72
Results by Research Question .........................................................................................73
Summary .........................................................................................................................80

5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................81

Conclusions .....................................................................................................................82
Recommendations for Future Studies .............................................................................83
Implications.....................................................................................................................85
Discussion .......................................................................................................................87
Limitations ......................................................................................................................89
Summary .........................................................................................................................90

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................92

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Participants’ Ethnicity and Gender ....................................................................................72

2. Participants’ Mean Scores for the READ 180 Reading Inventory Pretest and
Posttest by Ethnic Groups ..................................................................................................75

3. Participants’ Difference Scores by Ethnicity .....................................................................76

4. Male and Female Participants’ Pretest and Posttest Mean Score for the READ 180
Reading Inventory Pretest ..................................................................................................76

5. Male and Female Participants’ Mean and Standard Deviation Scores for the READ
180 Reading Inventory Posttest .........................................................................................78

6. Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Percentile Ranks ........................................................................79

7. Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Mean and Standard Deviation………………………………...79

x
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

On December 10, 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Every Student

Succeeds Act replacing the No Child Left Behind Act, of 2001. The Every Student Succeeds Act

of 2015 gives teachers a chance to think through how to guarantee that all students achieve at

high levels, especially students from low-income families and children of color. The new law

continues with four principles that had been in earlier versions, all of which have significant

implications for students from low-income homes and children of color: (a) the obligation of

states to articulate what they expect students to learn; (b) the expectation that schools have an

obligation to help all their students meet or exceed standards; (c) the requirement that states

assess regularly to measure whether schools are teaching the standards; and (d) the requirement

that information about schools, including assessment results, be made available to educators,

students, parents, and communities (Chenoweth, 2016).

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 is more flexible about student testing and

school accountability, and it makes the states responsible for fixing underperforming schools.

The Act reduces much of the federal government's big footprint in education policy, testing,

teacher quality, and low-performing schools. This is a change from the No Child Left Behind

Act (Chenoweth, 2016).

1
 In 2001, President George W. Bush introduced the No Child Left Behind Act; it

restructured the way education was implemented throughout America. The urgency for reform

stemmed from continual literacy declines amongst students. To protect all learners, educational

lawmakers restructured the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 to reflect the needs and

demands of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Together, reformers of both the No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Act originated the Response to

Intervention (RTI) model as a way to target and implement research-based instruction for

struggling readers and students.

To meet the challenges of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools adopted the

research-based and best practices model, RTI, and integrated technology literacy programs to

increase literacy achievement. The RTI process allows educators to identify at-risk students in

reading or math failures at early stages, so the students can be identified as low achievers and

receive early interventions.

Response to Intervention and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s (HMH’s) READ 180 both

allow the educator to collect and manage data, so students’ instruction can be individualized.

READ 180 gives the reader a short anchor video and provides background knowledge needed to

make sense of the text. It is important to closely examine how these approaches to instruction

relate to the specific needs of students such as English Language Learners (ELL’s), Black

Americans, and males, because different students may struggle with different levels of reading,

requiring different areas of focus during interventions (Hudson, Isakson, Richman, Lane, &

Arriaza-Allen, 2011).

2
Statement of the Problem

The reading ability of U.S. adolescents has been an enduring concern among researchers

and policy makers. Multiple factors such as comprehension, decoding, word recognition, and

limited vocabulary can account for adolescent reading difficulties (Kim, Capotosto, Hartry, &

Fitzgerald, 2011). Gender and racial differences exist in reading achievement. Male deficits may

occur in early reading skills such as decoding (Below, Skinner, Fearrington, & Sorrell, 2010).

For the purposes of this study, the researcher is interested in potential racial and gender gaps in

the READ 180 program. Does one gender or ethnicity outperform the other? Is the READ 180

program accessible to all students?

New policies, particularly the Common Core State Standards and the focus on college

and career readiness, will make increasing demands on students’ abilities to read more difficult

informational and expository text in addition to narrative text. The 2013 National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) results revealed that more than 30% of fourth graders attending

public schools were unable to make simple inferences, locate information in text, identify

supporting detail, describe characters’ motivations and mood, and describe the problem in

narrative text on their basic reading level (Conner et al., 2014). In informational text, students

were unable to find the topic sentence or main idea, supply supporting details, identify the

author’s purpose, and make simple inferences (Conner et al., 2014). Two groups of students

emerged as particularly vulnerable to low reading levels: English Language Learners (ELLs) and

students with disabilities. Specifically, 70% of ELLs performed Below Basic on the 2013 NAEP

(2013) assessment, with 27% of students performing at the Basic level, and only 3% Proficient.

3
Similar results accrued to students with disabilities (60% Below Basic, 31% Basic, 8%

Proficient, and 1% Advanced).

Early intervention for reading problems is generally considered critical for later student

success. There is strong evidence that improving children’s phonemic awareness, knowledge of

letter–sound correspondences, and decoding skills will improve their reading (NRP & NICHD,

2000).

According to Hasselbring and Goin (2004) one of the greatest problems poor readers face

is a deficit in background knowledge in many subject areas. Poor readers do not have the

background needed to comprehend the text even though they can read the words. Therefore, it is

imperative school districts know if their reading intervention programs are effective for all

students including varying ethnicities, ELLs, and males.

Purpose of the Study

Reading is a critical skill to the future of all students. At-risk students need to be

identified early and intervention applied as soon as possible. Schools must have a plan for how to

help those at risk of failing to read on grade level. Students need specific reading skills such as

decoding words, making predictions, reviewing text, and finding meaning within context.

Adequate instruction of these skills is necessary for effective reading.

The purpose of this causal comparative study was to analyze and compare the Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores of ninth-grade students in a

Middle Tennessee school who participated in READ 180 during the 2016-2017 school year. The

researcher compared participants’ scores by gender and ethnicity.

4
Research Questions

Research Question 1. Is there a significant difference in ninth-grade students’ 2016-

2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores

among different ethnic groups?

Research Question 2. Is there a significant difference in READ 180 Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores in 2016-2017 between male and female

ninth-grade students?

Significance of the Study

This study details at-risk student progress in READ 180. Despite the growing popularity

of the READ 180 program, there is still a need for third-party research focusing on the Reading

Inventory pretest and posttest. The results of this study may indicate a need for additional

research. According to the 2011 NAEP reading scores, a significant percentage (68%) of fourth-

grade students are reading at the basic level or below (i.e., basic level indicating only partial

mastery of fundamental skills required for proficient work on grade level content), which creates

an increasing demand for efficient interventions with positive outcomes (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2011).

Students reading significantly below grade level have trouble keeping up with academic

requirements expected of seventh- and eighth-grade students. Students who struggle

academically are more likely to develop problem behaviors designed to escape and avoid

academic demands (McIntosh, Flannery, Sugai, Braun, & Cochrane, 2008).

READ 180 is used in Grades 6-9 in the school district where the study was conducted.

The results of this study may assist school districts in making informed decisions on the efficacy

5
of READ 180 so they may address potential weaknesses with appropriate corrective strategies.

Many public schools utilize intervention programs such as READ 180 to reach their lowest

performing students in an effort to improve literacy skills and to meet the required academic

yearly progress (AYP) scores necessary to avoid federal and state sanctions. Therefore, READ

180 and other intervention programs become critical to the success of both struggling students

and the schools in which they reside.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were used:

Fluency. The ability to recognize words easily, read with greater speed, accuracy, and

expression, and to better understand what is being read. Children gain fluency by practicing

reading until the process becomes automatic; guided oral repeated reading is one approach to

helping children become fluent readers (NRP & NICHD, 2000).

Guided oral reading. Reading out loud while getting guidance and feedback from

skilled readers. The combination of practice and feedback promotes reading fluency (NRP &

NICHD, 2000).

Phonemic awareness. The knowledge that spoken words can be broken apart into

smaller segments of sound known as phonemes. Children who are read to at home—especially

material that rhymes—often develop the basis of phonemic awareness. Children who are not read

to will probably need to be taught that words can be broken apart into smaller sounds (NRP &

NICHD, 2000).

Phonics. The knowledge that letters of the alphabet represent phonemes, and that these

sounds are blended together to form written words. Readers who are skilled in phonics can sound

6
out words they have not seen before, without first having to memorize them (NRP & NICHD,

2000).

READ 180. An intensive reading intervention program designed to meet the needs of

students whose reading achievement is below the proficient level. The program addresses

individual needs through software, high interest literature, and direct reading instruction

(Davidson & Miller, 2002).

Reading comprehension strategies. Techniques for helping individuals to understand

what they read. Such techniques involve having students summarize what they have read to gain

a better understanding of the material (NRP & NICHD, 2000).

Reading Inventory. A reading assessment test for Grades 4-12 that assesses students’

reading levels, assists teachers in adjusting instruction according to the students’ individual

needs, tracks student reading growth over time, and matches readers to appropriate reading

material (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt READ 180, 2018).

Teaching vocabulary words. Teaching new words, either as they appear in text, or by

introducing new words separately. This type of instruction also aids reading ability (NRP &

NICHD, 2000).

7
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Approximately 7,000 students quit school every day because they are unable to read

assignments and assessments (Allington, 2015). In 2015, Allington noted that 25% of all

freshmen quit school before they enter 12th grade. Many of these students entered high school

reading below a sixth-grade level (Allington, 2015). Emphasis is on student college readiness or

entrance into the workforce, and the ability to read is a critical component of future success.

The NRP and NICHD (2000) suggested that reading practice improves oral reading

fluency, and common instructional practices such as guided repeated oral reading and

independent silent reading may be instructional approaches that enhance oral reading fluency.

The National Reading Panel also emphasized that instructional methods such as guided repeated

oral reading may have a positive impact on word recognition, reading fluency, and

comprehension for elementary and secondary students. Reading instruction for middle and high

school students occurs exclusively in content area classrooms (Lai, Wilson, McNaughton, &

Hsiao, 2014).

More than 5,000,000 high school learners do not read well enough to understand

textbooks or other required written material (Hock & Deshler, 2003). NAEP reported that 26%

of high school students cannot read material deemed essential for daily living, such as

8
newspapers, bus schedules, and road signs (Grigg, Daane, Jin, & Campbell, 2003). The demands

of college and career ready students achieving proficiency in both basic and higher order literacy

skills are essential. As a result, the need for effective reading strategies, literacy instruction, and

interventions is critical for student success. An abundance of research addressing early

elementary reading instruction exists. However, literacy supports for high school students

present greater instructional challenges and demand a range of strategies that will allow students

to make gains in reading while assisting students in accessing the more rigorous curriculum and

standards of a comprehensive high school. School leaders look to research to point the way to

implement effective secondary literary initiatives (Meltzer & Okashige, 2001).

At-risk students have reading deficits that prevent them from mastering grade level

curriculum. Davidson and Miller (2002) studied how technology could be used to help struggling

readers. They investigated how educational technologies were helpful to students with learning

disabilities and those who were lacking basic skills mastery. They identified four deficits

exhibited by struggling readers: (a) a lack of decoding skills and reading fluency, (b) poor

comprehension due to a lack of vocabulary, (c) inability to process grade-level content, and (d)

lack of connection and motivation to school. Without mastery of these skills, students will

continue to struggle with grade level curriculum. This chapter focuses on disparities in reading

achievement, the five components of reading, literacy interventions, Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt’s READ 180, and relevant research studies. The research studies focus on traditional

reading programs, gender, and ethnicity. The research studies encompass positive and negative

outcomes from READ 180 usage. First, an overview of the building blocks of reading provides

background knowledge and understanding of literacy components.

9
Disparities in Reading Achievement

Reading and reading instruction are essential components of a typical school day, yet

many students are not reading on grade level. Reading below grade level applies in particular for

students with learning disabilities, where the reading gaps and demand of the curriculum are

often unattainable (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010). Studies have been conducted addressing learning

disabled students and their reading progress. Traditionally, females score higher on standardized

reading achievement test than males (Wei, Liu, & Barnard-Brak, 2015).

Wagner, Newman, Cameto, and Levine (2005) conducted a longitudinal study on

approximately 12,000 secondary-school-age students who were receiving special education

services in the 2000-2001 school year. Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2

(NLTS2) found (a) 21% of students with learning disabled (LD) were five or more grade levels

below in reading, (b) 31% of students with LD dropped out of school compared to 9.4% of their

nondisabled peers, and (c) only 11% of students with LD attended postsecondary institutions

(Wagner et al., 2005). Results of this study concurred with fellow researcher Macid Melekoglu’s

(2011) assertion that many students with LD who possess problems with receptive and

expressive oral language are further behind their non-LD peers in vocabulary, knowledge of

explicit academic contents, recall of meanings words, construction of simple and advanced

sentences, and reading comprehension. In both studies, students benefitted the most from direct

instruction. Students with learning disabilities are also at risk and are included in the 7,000

students who drop out daily. Analyzing data for these students makes the research more

inclusive.

10
Components of Reading

High-quality reading instruction incorporates the five components of reading delivered

through a coherent instructional design. To be most effective, the five critical components need

to be taught explicitly within classrooms incorporating writing activities and authentic text. The

NPR and NICHD (2000) analyzed five areas of reading instruction: fluency, phonemic

awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and text comprehension. According to the findings in this

report, if a student is struggling in one or more of those essential components, reading becomes

laborious.

Phonemic awareness is the capacity to hear and segment individual sounds within words.

The sounds within words are called phonemes. The awareness of these sounds is phonemic

awareness. Therefore, spoken words are composed of sounds. The word cat has three sounds or

phonemes: /c/ /a/ /t/ (conventional phonetic notation separates individual sounds or phonemes

with slash marks).

The process of teaching how letters and sounds relate to each other and how these sound-

letter correspondences can be used to say words in a text is referred to as phonics. Decoding is

the analysis of letters in a word to determine its pronunciation. Phonemic awareness should be

taught before phonics—or at least early in the phonics sequence—so children receive maximum

benefit from their phonics instruction. This makes phonics much easier to learn.

Oral reading fluency is the ability to read text aloud with accuracy, speed, and proper

expression. It is important for students to learn to read an author’s words with few deviations

(accuracy), to process text with speed sufficient to permit comprehension to occur, and with

appropriate pausing and emphasis so that the text sounds meaningful expressive. Although it is

11
often assumed that fluency is only the product of high-speed word recognition, studies show that

fluency entails more than solely decoding and that it is possible to teach fluency directly through

various forms of oral reading practice.

Vocabulary here refers to word meanings, and vocabulary instruction is about the

teaching of word meanings. Unfortunately, because much of reading instruction is focused on

words—word recognition, sight words, word attack, word structure, word sorts, and so on—

vocabulary is often used to refer to both word recognition and word meaning.

Reading comprehension is the act of interpreting the information within a text.

Comprehension is the construction of meaning. It is a form of active thinking and includes

interpreting and inferring what the author does not tell explicitly. Successful comprehension

requires the thoughtful interaction of a reader with a text.

Phonemic awareness. For students to be successful readers, they must possess phonemic

awareness, decoding and word attack skills, and an understanding of language structure.

Accomplished readers recognize and pronounce letters and words correctly. They understand

their meaning and how the words work together in phrases and sentences (Honig, 2001).

Phonetic instruction proceeds through a developmental sequence that explicitly teaches

each of the components of phonemic awareness and decoding. Honig (2001) suggested the

following structure: (a) word segmentation; (b) rhyme recognition and production; (c) syllable

blending, segmentation, and deletion; (d) onset and rime blending; (e) phoneme matching and

isolation; (f) phoneme blending and segmentation; and (g) phoneme deletion and substitution.

12
 Phonetic instruction also includes mastering high frequency and sight words. According

to the NRP and NICHD (2000), improving students’ phonemic awareness and decoding skills

will improve their reading.

Phonics. Letter recognition is a central component of learning to read. Novice readers

progress much more quickly if they have previously learned the alphabet. First, children who

recognize letters learn letter sounds and word spellings more rapidly than children who cannot

discern between letters. Second, children who can identify letters can concentrate on

recognizing patterns of letters—a key component of skilled reading.

According to the International Literacy Association (ILA, 1997), the teaching of phonics

is an important aspect of beginning reading instruction. The organization found classroom

teachers in the primary grades do value and teach phonics as part of their reading programs.

Phonics instruction must be embedded in the framework of reading-language arts programs to be

effective in promoting reading independence.

Phonics research enables educators to choose best practices and strategies. Hudson et al.

(2011) conducted a comparative study involving two interventions to improve reading fluency

and decoding skills of 58 second-grade poor readers. Participants were selected if they were

reading below grade level. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two practice

conditions within a repeated reading intervention. Both intervention groups were small, 20-28

minutes long, and occurred to 2–4 days per week. The groups also consisted of phonemic

awareness training, letter sound practice, and practice in word families.

The first intervention was an accuracy condition with repeated reading of a page of letter

sounds and a page of words until students met a 98% accuracy criterion. The second

13
intervention was accuracy plus automaticity condition with repeated reading of the same

materials until students achieved a rate and accuracy criterion at 30-90 correct words per minute.

The first intervention included 27 participants and 29 participants in the second intervention

group. Students in both intervention groups learned the same words in the phonemic awareness

warm-up practice and used the same materials for isolated letter sounds and word families.

The researchers found that the first and second intervention groups benefitted from

practicing isolated words and letter sounds and that this helped with passage reading fluency.

There was no significant effect on reading comprehension. The accuracy plus automaticity

group had higher mean scores in phonemic decoding efficiency and nonsense word decoding

than the accuracy group. Significant differences favoring the accuracy plus automaticity group

were found in measures of decoding automaticity.

Vocabulary. Explicit instruction in vocabulary includes teaching students the meanings

of words, techniques to determine word meanings from context, and the meanings of word roots

and affixes. These kinds of instruction have been found to provide students with clear and

consistent gains in reading. Benefits exist from fewer directive approaches such as reading to

children or encouraging them to read, which presents vocabulary more implicitly (NRP &

NICHD, 2000).

The vocabulary studies reviewed by the panel focused on students in Grades 3–8, Grades

PK–2, and Grades 9–11; all had the same results. Explicit and implicit approaches to vocabulary

teaching were found to be effective across the grades, so the panel concluded, “Vocabulary

should both be taught directly and indirectly” (NRP & NICHD, 2000, p. 4). Explicit instruction

in vocabulary consists of teaching students the meanings of words, the meanings of word roots

14
and affixes, and techniques to determine word meanings from context. This kind of instruction

provides students with clear and consistent gains in reading.

Most of the specific instructional practices for teaching vocabulary that was examined by

the panel conferred an advantage in learning to read. Often, these studies compared an enriched

form of vocabulary teaching with a more traditional form, usually copying definitions and

sentences from the dictionary. The experimental procedures repeatedly led to the best

performance, making it easy to conclude that traditional dictionary work is not particularly

helpful in increasing student vocabulary.

On the other hand, multiple or enriched definition procedures, semantic mapping and

categorization, computerized approaches, keyword methods, and mixed-method procedures all

provided some learning advantage. Many instructional procedures can be used to teach

vocabulary successfully (NRP & NICHD, 2000). It is important that the texts used for supporting

vocabulary growth in reading and listening include plenty of repetition or extended use of the

new words throughout the text. A single contact with a word will rarely lead students to know a

word’s meaning (Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987). This is true with explicit vocabulary

instruction as well; review has been found to be an important factor in stimulating long-term

vocabulary learning (McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983). Many programs fail to

provide sufficient review, which may be why students perform well on a weekly vocabulary quiz

but do not know the words later. Using texts with systematic repetition of words in many

contexts and maintaining ongoing lists of taught words are good ideas, as they permit regular

review. The panel found that research showed superior learning in programs that continually

recycled words throughout the school year (McKeown et al., 1983).

15
 The goal of vocabulary instruction is to develop an understanding of the words.

Successful instructional approaches lead students to engage in thinking about the word

meanings. Activities like copying definitions from a dictionary are not useful because they can

be done superficially, without thinking about what the word means (NRP & NICHD, 2000).

READ 180 incorporates vocabulary instruction. Students learn new words best when they

actively process new meanings. Vocabulary instruction is the teaching of word meanings.

Studies have shown that teaching students the meanings of words and word parts such as

prefixes and suffixes can have a powerful impact on reading comprehension. Vocabulary

instruction should be both indirect and direct. Indirect activities such as reading to students or

encouraging them to read independently allow opportunities for students to gain knowledge

about words (NRP & NICHD, 2000).

Direct instruction of vocabulary can foster a comprehensive knowledge of word

meanings and improve reading comprehension. During direct vocabulary instruction, the

educator provides students with explanations and a thorough analysis of word meanings. The

most effective direct instruction in vocabulary helps children gain an in-depth understanding of

word meanings (more than simple dictionary definitions). It requires plenty of reading, writing,

talking, and listening. Direct instruction in vocabulary also emphasizes the connections of words

to children’s experiences and provides ongoing review and repetition (NRP & NICHD, 2000).

Word selection is important when teaching students with low vocabularies (Kelley,

Lesaux, Kieffer, & Faller, 2010). Kelley et al. (2010) designed a study that introduced 476

students in sixth grade to targeted academic vocabulary instruction. The participating schools

served an ethnically diverse and predominantly low-income student population, averaging 67%

16
students of color, with some schools as high as 96%, and 58% students receiving free or reduced-

price lunch, with some schools at 100%.

Teachers were trained in instructional methods that included discussion and modeling of

cognition as contextual analysis strategies. The researchers administered pretest and posttest

standardized Gates-MacGinitie reading comprehension assessments to determine knowledge

gained in both reading and vocabulary comprehension. Students in treatment classrooms had

significantly better results on a multiple-choice test of academic words, a curriculum-based

measure of deep knowledge of the words taught, and a test of students’ ability to segment words

into parts. Additionally, participating teachers completed instructional logs, and their classroom

instruction was observed. Approximately 80% of the curriculum was implemented as designed.

Kelley et al. (2010) developed an 18-week academic vocabulary program for sixth graders,

featuring eight 2-week units and two review weeks. Each unit consisted of an 8-day lesson cycle

with 45-minute lessons, 4 days per week. Every unit focused on informational text from Time for

Kids magazine and eight or nine high-utility academic words. Throughout the program, students

received repeated exposure to 11 selected words. At the completion of the study, students

demonstrated improved abilities at segmenting unknown words into sections and an increase in

reading and vocabulary standardized assessment scores.

This study included 70% Black Americans, which relates to the current research on Black

Americans’ performance in READ 180. McKeown et al. (1983) conducted a similar vocabulary

study involving repetition. The researchers replicated, refined, and extended their previous

(Beck, Perfetti & McKeown, 1982) correlational study that explored the relationship between

vocabulary instruction and reading comprehension. The study included 70% Black-American

17
fourth graders from two lower income schools. The researchers designated three fourth-grade

classes as control and the remaining fourth-grade class as experimental. Researchers

administered Form 7 of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and the Reading and Vocabulary subtests

as pretests and then matched pairwise within 3 points of their combined pretest score. Forty-one

pairs were made and upheld throughout the study. The combined standard deviation on the

Vocabulary and Reading subtests was 12.94, and the mean was 27.78 for the experimental group.

The control group had a standard deviation of 12.73 and a mean of 26.78.

Researchers designed two frequency conditions to produce differential learning outcomes

using target words. Participants in the first frequency condition (some words) were taught eight

to 10 new words for 5 days. In the second frequency condition (many words), the same 43 words

were taught repeatedly over subsequent weeks, appearing an additional 26 to 40 times. The first

frequency condition had 10 to 18 instructional exposures. In both frequency groups, students

compared and contrasted words to discover relationships, matched words and definitions, and

created contexts for words. Participants were assessed on accuracy, fluency, and text

comprehension.

The researchers noticed the results of this replication study supported their previous

conclusion regarding the original study, The Effects of Long-Term Vocabulary Instruction on

Lexical Access and Reading Comprehension (Beck, Perfetti & McKeown, 1982). Intensive

vocabulary instruction promoted fluent word knowledge and increased text comprehension. The

gains obtained by both frequency groups held for both the many and some word conditions—

even though the many words had twice as many encounters than the some words. When students

were presented stories containing the instructed words, participants exhibited an increase in

18
recall, correct responses to multiple-choice questions, and a more coherent summary of stories.

The results reaffirm the original study results. However, the many words did show an advantage

in the vocabulary knowledge test, in the rate of speed of lexical access, and on the

comprehension questions.

Fluency. According to Honig (2001), fluency is a crucial component of reading. The

National Reading Panel (2000) defined fluency as the ability to read a text correctly and rapidly.

Reading fluency allows students to comprehend what they read. Phrasing (intonation, stress, and

pauses), syntax, and expressiveness (sense of feeling, anticipation, or characterization) are all

fundamental aspects of fluency (Pinnell et al., 1995). Fluency bridges recognition of words and

comprehension. Reading fluency can be expanded through modeling fluent reading and repeated

oral reading. Reading fluency monitoring assists teachers in evaluating reading fluency

instruction and setting instructional goals. Tracking their reading fluency can also be motivating

for students as they see their connections between ideas in a text and ideas from their background

knowledge (NRP & NICHD, 2000).

Fluency has three components: accuracy, automaticity, and prosody (NRP & NICHD,

2000). Accuracy is identifying a word correctly. Automaticity is recognizing a word without

using decoding skills. Finally, prosody is reading with appropriate expression implied by the

text (e.g., intonation, stress, and timing).

The NPR and NICHD (2000) defined text reading fluency as “the ability to read a text

quickly, accurately, and with proper expression” (p. 3). Oral reading fluency is an effective

assessment tool for identifying at-risk readers, providing diagnostic information about students,

and monitoring progress, as well as measuring end-of-year outcomes. It is an indicator of

19
strength or weakness. If weakness is indicated, further tests can be used to identify the source of

the problem and provide treatment (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006).

To calculate reading fluency, students read a passage aloud for one minute and the

teacher counts and records the number of words read accurately (Hartman & Fuller, 1997). The

NAEP fluency scale identifies students at three and four as being fluent and students at one and

two as nonfluent. Accuracy and rate are two additional facets NAEP assesses for oral reading.

Accuracy means correctly read words, and rate indicates words read per minute (Pinnell et al.,

1995).

According to the NRP and NICHD Report (2000), it is essential that all students read

one-on-one with an adult who models fluent reading. The adult provides assistance and

encouragement as the student rereads the passage until becoming fluent, which typically takes

three to four rereads. Choral reading requires students to read with a group and a fluent adult

reader. Then the adult rereads the book and invites students to join in as they recognize the

words the adult is reading. The student continues rereading the book after a read aloud until

students have read the book three to five times total during the same day. Tape-assisted reading

allows students to read along with a fluent reader, who is reading the passage on an audiotape.

During the initial reading, students should follow along with the tape and point to each word the

student hears on the tape. Students should then read along with the tape until the students can

independently read the text without assistance from the tape. Partner reading encourages student

pairs to read aloud to each other. The more fluent reader begins reading the first passage to

provide a fluent model. The dysfluent reader repeats the same text. The fluent reader provides

20
pointers and support for the less fluent partner. However, partner reading can also work with

children who read at the same level to practice rereading the passage (NRP & NICHD, 2000).

Oral reading fluency is a commonly used reading assessment and is used as a diagnostic

tool in addressing learning needs with reading. Their study is significant to the current study due

to the focus on gender and ethnicity. Meisinger, Bloom, and Hynd (2010) conducted a

correlation study that investigated oral reading fluency as a diagnostic tool in the identification of

50 students, aged 8 and 12, who had suspected reading disabilities such as dyslexia with the

reading skills of rapid naming speed and reading comprehension. Participants exhibited specific

deficits in reading fluency skills, deficits in rapid naming speed, and reading comprehension.

The demographic makeup of the 50 participants in this sample was as follows: 64% were male,

94% were Caucasian American, and 6% were Black American. Meisinger et al. (2010)

concluded that oral reading fluency measures are more sensitive in diagnosing reading problems

than reading measures (formal normed reading tests and state standards tests) and failure to

assess oral reading fluency may result in underidentification of students with reading disabilities.

Repeated oral reading, followed by feedback and effective instruction, promotes

improvements in reading for students at all levels (NRP & NICHD, 2000). Researchers Rashotte

and Torgesen (1985) conducted an experimental design study and examined if fluency and

comprehension improved from varied stories with repeated reading, if fluency depended upon

word overlap among texts, and if repeated reading was more effective than an equivalent amount

of nonrepetitive reading. Nonfluent, learning disabled students read passages presented and

timed by a computer under three different conditions: repeated reading with low word overlap,

repeated reading with high word overlap, and no repeated reading.

21
 The researchers used 12 second- through fifth-grade students with a learning disability,

and an IQ mean of 100. Researchers used random selection and matched participants reading

scores to assign participants to Groups 1 through 6. Students read approximately 15 minutes a

day, 5 days a week for each 7-day period. Every 15-minute session included four passage

presentations with four comprehension questions given directly after the first reading and one

comprehension question given after each remaining reading.

Results revealed that over short periods of time, increases in reading speed with the

repeated reading method depended on some shared words among texts and that if texts had only

a few shared words, repeated reading was not more effective for improving fluency than an

equivalent amount of nonrepetitive reading. The repeated reading conditions with high and low

word overlap had the most gains (35.3 to 33 words per minute, respectively), indicating that

repeated reading is an effective way to increase reading fluency.

Oral reading is an essential factor to learning how to read. Educators recognize reading

gaps from listening to students read. Hunley, Davies, and Miller (2013) developed a correlational

design study tailored around oral reading. The study investigated the relationship between

performance on the Ohio Grade 7 Reading Achievement Test and scores on curriculum-based

measures (CBM) of oral reading fluency. A month before the assessment, students read three

probes from their basal reader to determine their reading fluency rate.

The study consisted of 75 seventh-grade students. The students attended a rural, primarily

Caucasian (95.8%) middle school in southwestern Ohio. Twenty percent of the students were

identified economically disadvantaged, and 16.9% of the student population were identified with

disabilities.

22
 Oral reading fluency scores were determined by having students read aloud three

unfamiliar passages accurately for one minute each. Skipped words, substituted words, or

hesitations of more than 3 seconds were scored as errors. Self-corrections within 3 seconds were

scored as correct. The median of the three scores was used as the fluency rate.

The 75 participants’ oral reading fluency ranged from 47 to 191 wpm. Their mean score

was 131 wpm. Results support the use of oral reading fluency as a valid tool for identifying at-

risk students unable to pass the statewide reading achievement test. The correlation between the

two measures was strong. Therefore, the researchers determined that repeating reading is

beneficial. Oral reading fluency is a quick evaluation that provides information about current

levels of performance, provides error analysis through miscues or omissions, and can be used as

an ongoing progress-monitoring tool. Similar to READ 180, educators recognize reading gap

skills and plan instruction according to students’ individual needs.

Text comprehension. Informational literacy is a key component to reading success, and

even survival, in advanced schooling, the workplace, and communities. A primary objective of

the U.S. education system is to develop citizens who can read, write, and critique informational

discourse, who can locate and communicate the information they seek (Duke, 2000).

With the implementation of Common Core State Standards, there was an increased

emphasis on nonfiction/informational text. Initially, 46 states and four U.S. territories

implemented Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts. The standards balance

literary and informational text instruction with a gradual shift from 50% informational text in

fourth grade to 70% informational text in 12th grade (Common Core State Standards Initiative,

2010). Good readers are better able to understand the different types of structures and what

23
strategies to employ to enhance comprehension (Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownwell, & Menon,

2010).

Considerable research was conducted on students’ ability to master comprehension skills.

The purpose of Duke’s (2000) planned comparison study was to address the depth of knowledge

about students' experiences with nonfiction texts in the early grades. The study observed the

nature and degree of nonfiction text experiences accessible to children in 20 first-grade

classrooms in Boston, Massachusetts. Duke conducted a descriptive, observational study of 20

first-grade classrooms in 10 school districts. One of the targets of the research was a comparison

of print environments and experiences offered to students in low and high socioeconomic status

school districts.

Ten first-grade classrooms attended one of the six highest socioeconomic status (SES)

school districts in the area, and the remaining 10 classrooms attended the lowest SES districts in

the area. Educators characterized observation days as typical. On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being

most typical), educators' mean rating for observation days was 4.40. They had an average of 18.2

years of teaching experience and 10.4 years of experience teaching first grade. All of the teachers

in the study were female. The racial and ethnic composition of participating classrooms varied.

High-SES classrooms were mostly Caucasian, with a few minority students in some cases; low-

SES classrooms each included some Caucasian, some Black-American, and some Latino

students, although in widely varying proportions.

The researcher visited each classroom for 4 full days. Observation days were spread

throughout the school year and across days of the week to decrease the likelihood that a

particular unit of study or weekday routine would affect the overall findings for that classroom.

24
The researcher visited classrooms and recorded information about the following: (a) print on

classroom walls, (b) print materials in the classroom library, and (c) activities that involved print.

Results of this study revealed an overall lack of informational text in the first-grade

classrooms. The lack of informational text was noticeable in the low-SES classrooms. There was

little informational text on classroom walls. There were many more informational books and

magazines overall in the high-SES classroom libraries as compared with the low-SES classroom

libraries. Reading nonfiction text is relevant to this study because READ 180 participants read

both fiction and nonfiction.

Researchers Nagy et al.’s (1987) study focused on the effects of word meanings and

comprehension. The study investigated incidental learning of word meanings from context

during normal reading. The effects of word and text properties on learning from context were

examined. Word properties included parts of speech, word length, and complexity. Text

properties included the density of words, readability, and the strength of contextual support for

each word.

Researchers randomly assigned 418 participants to read either expository or narrative

texts. Participants read two of the four texts at his or her grade level and tested on the target

words from all four texts. The researchers compared the scores of the participants who read the

passages to the scores of those who did not to determine the gain that can be attributed to

learning from context. Participants’ scores on words from the passages he or she did not read

also served as a control for that subject.

All grades and abilities demonstrated small, but reliable gains in knowledge of words

from the text read. Multiple-choice test scores were higher for narratives than expositions. There

25
was a very high correlation between participants' prior knowledge of the target words as

measured on their performance on the multiple-choice test and checklist task. The four measures

of readability were highly correlated. In summary, incidental learning from context accounts for

extensive vocabulary growth that occurs during the school years. Students scored higher on

fiction text and vocabulary acquisition effects student comprehension. Students who scored high

in comprehension also scored high in vocabulary.

The previous study focused on learning vocabulary during reading and the subsequent

study focused on comprehending narrative and informational text. McCown and Thomason

(2014) examined the effects of Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) on informational text

comprehension and metacognitive awareness of fifth-grade students. A quasi-experimental

pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group design was used to examine the effects of CSR on

nonfiction text comprehension using Georgia’s Criterion-Referenced Competency Test and

Qualitative Reading Inventory-5 (QRI-5).

Participating students included a heterogeneous mix of regular education students, gifted

education students, students with disabilities, and English learners (ELs) fifth graders. Two

elementary schools in this district with similar demographics were chosen for this study,

allowing the experimental group to be located in one school and the control group in another

school.

Results from the MANOVA showed a significant difference between the combined

dependent variables. Data were probed using (MANOVA) and multivariate analysis of

covariance (MANCOVA). The MANCOVA analysis found a statistically significant difference

in informational text comprehension on the QRI- 5 between the experimental and control groups

26
with the experimental group outperforming the control group. In summary, participants

benefitted from the use of CSR strategies.

The connection between McCown and Thomason’s (2014) study and the researcher’s

current study are the intact classes and measuring informational text reading comprehension.

The text comprehension studies all focused on nonfiction text. In READ 180, the majority of

informational text concentrates on science and social studies topics. The program also builds

academic vocabulary thus enhancing student comprehension.

Guided Reading

Most comprehensive reading programs consist of guided reading. Guided reading

instruction is aligned around the notion that small groups are formed based on student needs and

abilities. Guided reading is a time for students to learn reading strategies through the use of

instructional texts (Ford & Optiz, 2011).

Researcher Higgins (2009) conducted a guided reading study. The study served two

purposes: to compare Fountas and Pinnell’s guided reading levels to the reading comprehension

and Lexile scores on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test and to determine whether

guided reading levels, gender, and ethnicity had a correlated with reading comprehension and

Lexile scores on the CRCT. The third-grade participants were instructed in guided reading for 8

months during the 2007-2008 school year. Conclusions from the study showed a positive linear

relationship between guided reading levels, reading comprehension, and Lexile scores on the

CRCT. The findings also indicated that there was a positive linear relationship between gender,

guided reading levels, and reading comprehension and Lexile scores. Additionally, the findings

27
revealed a positive linear relationship between ethnicity, guided reading levels, and reading

comprehension and Lexile scores. Essentially, guided reading worked for the study participants.

Teaching informational text structures (TEXTS) will improve understanding and

facilitate comprehension for students in grades kindergarten through second grade whose

listening or reading comprehension is below grade level. Students can benefit from direct and

explicit instruction. Explicit instruction is comprised of modeling, guided, and individual

practice (Connor et al., 2014). Novice readers might understand sequencing better when they

can read or be read to using text that explicitly uses temporal language or receives direct

instruction on sequencing, and when they use a graphic organizer to retell the text (Klingner et

al., 2010). Collectively, the researchers’ studies revealed that vocabulary study and exposure to

nonfiction text were statistically significant.

Literacy Strategies

Since technology is a major component of children’s live, and educators are faced with

technology integration. Technology-based programs for struggling students can provide practice

in basic skills. Most basic skills technology-based software programs can be used independently,

decreasing the need for teacher-based instruction (S. J. Smith & Okolo, 2010). Fortunately,

technology is efficient and motivates students. For students struggling in reading, writing, and

math, -based solutions are viewed as equalizers (S. J. Smith & Okolo, 2010). Technology usage

can be increased by studying what we know about effective instructional practices and bridging

the essential features of these practices with technology-based solutions (S. J. Smith & Okolo,

2010). Other common instructional interventions supported through technology are graphic

28
organizers, strategic procedural support for writing, and explicit instruction (S. J. Smith &

Okolo, 2010).

Graphic organizers are evidenced based and can be utilized in various grade levels and

subject areas and across the tiers. There are various types of graphic organizers to choose from,

depending on the particular type of information being summarized. Students with learning

disabilities often struggle to organize information, and the use of graphic organizers minimizes

the struggling (S. J. Smith & Okolo, 2010).

Many students struggle with writing proficiently. According to S. J. Smith and Okolo

(2010) at-risk writers (a) lack text structure organization skills; (b) have fewer strategies for

completing writing tasks; (c) lack background knowledge on writing topics; (d) possess

impoverished linguistic knowledge such as vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and sentence

structure; and (e) are unaware of the needs of their audience. These struggling writers also have

skill deficits. They often (a) have difficulty producing grade-appropriate spelling, (b) engage in

ineffective planning or revising, and (c) are unable to self-regulate their thoughts, feelings, and

actions during the writing process. Additionally, poor writers exhibit mechanical errors such as

misspelled words and incorrect punctuation. Teachers can improve students’ writing with

effective interventions such as (a) explicitly teaching students how to plan, revise, and edit their

text; (b) assigning clear and attainable goals for each assignment; and (c) allowing students to

type assignments (S. J. Smith & Okolo, 2010).

Response to Intervention

Response to Intervention (RTI) is (a) evidence-based classroom teaching, (b) student

assessments with a concentration on classroom focus, (c) behavior and academic screenings, and

29
(d) continuous progress monitoring of students’ progress. RTI addresses gaps in student

learning. It influences how educators address assessment, instruction, and behavioral needs of

students. RTI is an effective practice that improves the instruction for all students (S. J. Smith &

Okolo, 2010).

The purpose of Rector’s (2016) basic interpretative qualitative study was to explore six

Grade 9 English teachers’ perceptions of their instruction using RTI methodology as a means to

increase incoming ninth-grade students’ reading proficiency. This basic interpretative qualitative

project study focused on RTI teachers’ self-reported assessments of the best practices to be used

during RTI reading intervention.

During the research, Rector (2016) found common themes such as (a) teachers need more

professional development to implement focused teaching strategies, (b) teachers benefit from

collaborating with colleagues to plan and to share ideas, (c) the school leaders need to provide

resource personnel to guide teachers and model lessons, and (d) all teachers (English and content

teachers) must provide consistent practices for students. This study showed the importance of

providing students with differentiated instruction and scaffolded learning. With appropriate

interventions, students’ literacy and writing skills improved.

READ 180

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990) presented The READ 180

program as one of the best ideas for literacy development. The focus of the READ 180 program

is generating real-world experiences to assist students in connecting experiences in the classroom

and community. The READ 180 program is based on research conducted by Hasselbring of

Vanderbilt University in 1985 (Hasselbring, 1999). Hasselbring (1999) and a team of

30
researchers, with support from the Cognitive and Technology Group, probed the efficiency of

learning through technology for students with mild disabilities.

READ 180 is a reading program geared for students in elementary through high school

whose reading achievement is below grade level. READ 180 was designed to address the gaps in

students’ skills. The program is comprised of computer software, literature, and direct reading

instruction. The software component of the program tracks and adapts to each student’s

individual learning progress (READ 180, 2010). READ 180 is a comprehensive system of

curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development that assists schools in raising

reading achievement for struggling students in Grades 4-12. The first indicator, performing

below the 25th percentile, is one of several critical data points that must be considered. Students’

ability to work independently and their ability to work in groups should also be considered

before making a placement decision. READ 180 is an instructional model consisting of 90

minutes of classroom instruction during which teachers and students engage in a variety of

activities and instructional modes. The class is broken into three sections with whole-group

instruction for 20 minutes, then into small-group instruction that involves 20-minute stations

including computers, reading, writing, and finally, a 10-minute whole-group wrap-up. The

technology component tracks student progress in real time, therefore, delivering personalized

learning to the student and data to the instructor that makes differentiation easy (Davidson &

Miller, 2002).

The modeled and independent reading groups allow students to build reading

comprehension skills through modeled and independent reading. Instructional quality books

present students with age appropriate, relevant texts. Students read books on their appropriate

31
Lexile level, allowing for successful independent reading. The Lexile framework for reading

makes use of reading measurement to match readers’ current level of reading ability to

appropriate text. The Lexile scale extends from 200L to 1700L for the advanced reader.

Students also listen to audio books to strengthen reading fluency and habits with grade level

material (READ 180, 2010).

During the individual computer-based instruction time, students begin with a video

passage and then summarize the video. The student then reads this concise passage that is based

on his or her reading level. The passage includes word supports, phonics, patterns, model

spelling examples, high-frequency words, and content words that correspond to the student’s

reading level. The student may reread the passage as many times as needed. Students are

assigned to their appropriate reading level through diagnostic assessment (Davidson & Miller,

2002). Therefore, they are practicing at their level, avoiding frustration. READ 180 provides

assessment tools that allow teachers to evaluate students and employ data to differentiate

instruction for struggling readers and ELL’s (Scholastic, Inc., 2005a).

After the video and summary passage, students participate in vocabulary and fluency-

building activities repeatedly working on the words from the passage. The text-reader software

allows the student to decode, say, spell, and define words as well as segment them and translate

into one of five different languages. Power words are pronounced and spelled, definitions are

provided, words are broken down into parts, and decoding tips are given. These activities are

designed to allow better comprehension through rapid word recognition, orthographic

knowledge, and phonological processing skills (READ 180, 2010).

32
 The software also allows teachers to listen to passages read by the students and provide

immediate corrective feedback on student errors. After the vocabulary work, the computer

presents the student with comprehension questions about the text. Finally, a recap yields how

many words he or she has read correctly. This process is repeated until the student can do it with

speed and accuracy. The final component is the Spelling Zone. It assesses the knowledge of

words from the prior passages and presents a word study activity that focuses on blends,

inflected endings, digraphs, spelling, and fluency practice. A report of the number of words

mastered can assist the teacher with future planning and individualize instruction. Next, a new

video segment is introduced (HMH READ 180, 2018).

The teaching kit also includes a teacher’s guide, a resource book, strategy books, a

reports guide, a collection of black-line masters, and classroom management forms (Scholastic,

Inc., 2005a). These supplemental resources present teaching plans, graphic organizers, activities,

and suggestions for teaching diverse students in a READ 180 classroom. Hearing and vision

impairment is compensated for through closed captioning of videotext and increased text font

size. Student materials consist of paperback books, audiobooks, and nine Topic CDs that contain

four prereading video segments. Each of the topics supports a focal point or theme of People and

Cultures, Science, Math, History, and Geography.

READ 180 offers an instructional setting to sustain students’ individual variation in

linguistic and conceptual development (DeVivo & Aguhob, 2004). DeVivo and Aguhob (2004)

declared that READ 180 classrooms “are effective because they engage students in authentic

tasks that place the students in the position to create interesting and important multimedia

products that teach their peers, parents, and others about important life topics” (p. 41). The

33
systematic program provides for improved literacy, cognitive, and technology skills, which are

all indispensable for future educational endeavors (DeVivo & Aguhob, 2004). In 2015,

Scholastic’s educational technology division was purchased by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

changing the name of the product to The Reading Inventory (HMH, 2015).

The NAEP is administered every 2 years. The NAEP assessment is considered the most

reliable reading and math exam. The 2011 NAEP assessment assessed 209,000 fourth graders

and 175,000 eighth graders, including both private and public school students selected to be

nationally representative in math. In reading, 213,000 public and private school fourth graders

and 169,200 eighth graders took the exam (Resmovits, 2011).

The 2011 NAEP results were divided into three levels of achievement: basic, which,

according to National Center for Education Statistics, signifies partial mastery of the skills and

knowledge needed for proficiency; proficient symbolizes solid academic performance; and

advanced exemplifies superior work. According to the National Assessment of Education,

students performed marginally better over the last 2 years on the nation’s most reliable reading

exams; however, scores were still below average, and achievement gaps existed between

students of differing race and socioeconomic status remain wide (Resmovits, 2011). In 2009,

fourth-grade reading scores remained stagnant, thus staying the same since 2007, while eighth-

grade reading scores only increased by 1 point (Resmovits, 2011).

The exam revealed achievement gaps of Caucasian, Black American and Hispanic

students, even though it narrows over time. In fourth-grade math, only 9% of Caucasian students,

2% of Hispanic students, and 1% of Black-American students performed at or above the highest

level. In 2009, a larger number of students qualified for free-or-reduced lunch. Free-or-reduced

34
lunch is a common indicator of poverty in education. This need continues to fuel the use of the

READ 180 program (Resmovits, 2011).

Another component of READ 180 is the Reading Inventory assessment. It is used as a

pretest and posttest to determine the students’ reading levels. Reading Inventory is a research-

based, computer-adaptive reading assessment for Grades K-12 that measures students’ reading

comprehension and reports the data using the Lexile framework for reading. Since the Reading

Inventory is a computer-adaptive program, it recognizes when a student responds to a question

incorrectly, and it adapts by giving a slightly easier question (Scholastic, Inc., 2005b).

Scholastic started the READ 180 in 1999. Since the inception, more than 10,000

classrooms in all 50 states have used the program (READ 180, 2010). Several studies have been

conducted on READ 180 and it was found to have potentially positive effects on comprehension

and general literacy achievement.

English language learner studies. The instructional strategies in the READ 180

program are specifically tailored to the needs of ELL students, based on research documenting

effective literacy techniques. Recent research results indicate that the READ 180 program is

particularly effective with ELL students. Scholastic, READ 180’s publisher, piloted and

published studies to reveal the program’s success. In 2005-2006 Lawrence Public Schools

started using READ 180 with nine schools. By the 2008-2009 school year, 15 schools (nine

elementary and middle schools, and six high schools), 38 classes, 34 teachers, and 513 students

were using READ 180. However, only 426 students enrolled in READ 180 had both pretest and

posttest data during the 2008-2009 school year. More than half (53%) were regular education

students, 32% were students with learning disabilities, 12% were ELLs, and 4% were both ELL

35
and had a learning disability. Eighty-three percent of READ 180 students were in fourth through

eighth grade. Thirteen of the schools implemented the 90-minute model, and one school

implemented the 60-minute model (Scholastic, Inc., 2014). The present study evaluates Hispanic

students’ performance on the publisher’s Reading Inventory assessment.

Special features are included in READ 180 to support ELLs, including second language

support in Spanish. These structures are ideal for students with limited English. During the

2008-2009 school year, Lawrence Public Schools data from the Massachusetts Comprehensive

Assessment System English Language Arts and Northwest Evaluation Measures of Academic

Progress were collected from READ 180 students. Reports revealed READ 180 students

demonstrated measurable gains on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System

English Language Arts from 2008 to 2009. Fifty percent of READ 180 students increased their

Performance Level on Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System English Language

Arts by more than one category. Students in the fifth and seventh grades made the largest gains,

with 58% of fifth graders and 63% of seventh graders increasing their scores by at least one

performance level (Scholastic, 2014). ELL students in elementary, middle, and high school

showed achievement gains on two state assessments. ELL students in Lawrence Public Schools

experienced gains using READ 180.

READ 180 provides differentiated instruction that meets assessed needs of students (with

and without disabilities). Independent researchers Proctor, Daley, Louick, Leider, and

Gardner’s (2014) quantitative study took place in an instructional setting that allowed them to

focus on students with disabilities, approximately half of whom were English Language

Learners. All students in the study were special education students who received their reading

36
instruction in self-contained classes. Participants were 76 sixth graders and eight teachers who

attended three different middle schools. The sample was 58% male, 51% of students were

labeled as ELLs, and Hispanic students constituted the majority group in the sample (59%) and

across all schools.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that, for both Reading Inventory and

embedded comprehension performance, non-ELL students significantly outperformed their ELL

peers. One should be cautious in interpreting these results because not all schools or teachers

were able to accommodate a 90-minute schedule, resulting in variability of rotations.

Traditional reading program and READ 180 studies. Traditional reading programs

are common in public schools. However, with the implementation of rigorous standards, reading

remediation programs are necessary. READ 180 is an individualized, teacher-led, instructional,

data-driven program that focuses on remediation and reducing academic gaps. Independent

researcher Kratofil (2006) compared the effect of READ 180 to the effect of traditional reading

interventions on the reading achievement of sixth and seventh graders who had been diagnosed

as reading at least two levels below grade level. Kratofil piloted a quantitative, experimental

study using repeated measures ANOVA.

The study was comprised of 90 sixth and seventh graders who were reading at least two

levels below grade level. The treatment group had 57 participants, and the control group had 33

participants. Students in the control group had been denied admission to the READ 180 program

because the classes were full.

The study found that there was a significant difference between the treatment and the

control group by comparing the participants’ Reading Inventory score. Comparing the

37
differences in means for the treatment and control groups confirmed that the control group

showed greater improvement over the course of the year. For this study, READ 180 was not as

effective as the traditional reading program.

Another study piloted by the publisher occurred in New York City and included middle

school children for whom receiving READ 180 instruction revealed improvement in reading

comprehension. Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) is a system of free, open-enrollment,

college and career ready charter schools with a proven record of preparing students in low-

income communities for collegiate and life success.

During the 2012–2013 school year, 137 fifth- through eighth-grade students attending

Academy, Infinity, and Washington Heights Middle Schools were selected to participate in a

READ 180’s effectiveness study. Of the students in the sample, 30% were Black-American, 67%

were Hispanic, 3% were Multiracial, 27% LD, and 17% were ELL.

Results showed that the KIPP NYC READ 180 students improved in reading

comprehension, as measured by Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic

Progress (NWEA MAP). All participants showed gains in their Reading scores from pretest to

posttest including LD and ELL students. Overall, 82% of students exceeded their individual

yearly growth expectations (Scholastic, Inc., 2014).

Like special education students English Language Learners often struggle with reading

comprehension. Multiple studies have been conducted on English Language Learners and the

effects of READ 180 and their achievement. Scholastic Inc. (2014) conducted research at the

Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District in Texas during the 2008-2009 school year. The

district was 43% Hispanic and 16% ELLs and included students who were in fourth through 12th

38
grades (Scholastic, 2014). The students reading below grade level were enrolled in the READ

180 program (Scholastic, Inc., 2014). The study analyzed the Texas Assessment of Knowledge

and Skills (TAKS) Reading assessment and the Reading Inventory data (Scholastic, Inc., 2014).

Scholastic Inc. (2014) reported the middle school students yielded the highest return, with

a four-fold gain in proficiency on the TAKS, and “overall 76% of elementary students and 69%

of middle and high school students demonstrated 1.0 or more years of reading growth on

Reading Inventory” (p. 11). Data were not disaggregated for the ELL students.

During the 2010-2011 school year, Scholastic (2014) conducted another study at the Deer

Valley Unified School District in Arizona. In this particular study, 26% of the READ 180

participants were ELLs (Scholastic, 2014). The Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards

(AIMS) assessment and the Reading Inventory were used to measure reading comprehension

growth of 1,036 students in Grades 4-8 (Scholastic, 2014). Scholastic (2014) reported the

percentage of ELLs who met or exceeded the AIMS reading standard increased from 6% in 2010

to 37% in 2011. Additionally, the READ 180 students gained an average of 243 Lexile points on

the Reading Inventory (Scholastic, 2014). Overall, this shows the benefits of READ 180.

During the 2011-2012 school year, The Whiteboard Advisors conducted an independent

study of ELL students enrolled in READ 180 in the Napa Valley School District in California

(Scholastic, 2014). The study analyzed a language proficiency test, the California English

Language Development Test (CELDT), designed for ELLs as one of the measurements in

addition to the general state assessment. ELLs enrolled in READ 180, who scored Early

Advanced and Above, improved from 17% to 48% on the CELDT (Scholastic, 2014).

READ 180 was used throughout the United States. Participants in the aforementioned

39
studies revealed gains through READ 180 usage. According to the research published by

Scholastic Inc., elementary, middle, and high school students have benefitted from READ 180

instruction. READ 180 is accessible for ELL and special education students.

Gober (2014) conducted a quasi-experimental study with conflicting results. The purpose

was to determine if READ 180 is an effective reading intervention program for ELLs. One of the

purposes of quasi-experimental research is to observe if a treatment, such as READ180, has an

impact on the treatment group. Since the participants were not randomly assigned, a quasi-

experimental study was employed. A nonequivalent control group design with a pretest and

posttest was used. The pretest was the Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English

State-to-State (ACCESS) test administered to the student the year before the student’s enrollment

in READ 180, and the posttest was the ACCESS test administered during the year the student

was enrolled in READ 180.

This study examined the results of ELL students on the 2011-2013 ACCESS, an English

Language Proficiency. Participants were seventh- and eighth-grade ELLs who were enrolled in

READ 180 programs. The control group were seventh- and eighth-grade ELLs who were not

enrolled in READ 180. The study analyzed the annual results of the ACCESS assessment to

determine if ELLs enrolled in READ 180 demonstrated significant gains in scale scores

compared to ELLs not enrolled in READ 180. The ACCESS test was specifically designed to

measure the English Language Proficiency of ELLs. The results of the ACCESS test were used

to determine if the participating school districts met AYP.

The purpose of the research was to examine if ELL students performed better on the

ACCESS reading, writing, literacy, and overall scale with the use of READ 180 or whether those

40
not enrolled in the program score higher. The results varied. In nine of the 12 subtests, there was

no significant difference in the mean gain in the ACCESS scale scores. ELL students who had

two consecutive years of READ 180 instruction displayed the most significant differences in

mean gain scores.

While Gober’s (2014) research focused on the middle school ELL population, Zhu,

Loadman, Lomax, and Moore (2010) study included Black-America, Caucasian, and Hispanic

students ranging in age from 14-22. Zhu, Loadman, Lomax, and Moore’s (2010) longitudinal

study investigating the impact of READ 180 on the reading proficiency of low-achieving,

incarcerated youth. Eleven hundred forty-nine participants between the ages of 14 and 22

participated in this study. Of these, 609 were randomly assigned to classrooms utilizing READ

180, while 540 were assigned to a traditional English class. Sixty-nine percent of the participants

were Black American, 24% Caucasian, 4% Multiracial, and 2% Hispanic. Participants were

eligible for the study if they were assigned to the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more

than six months, below proficient, and a non-high school graduate. Each participant took the

Reading Inventory, a computer adaptive assessment that measured student-reading levels, at the

beginning of the study, and repeatedly at the end of each 45-day instructional term.

The study yielded a positive result for the students receiving READ 180 instruction.

READ 180 students outperformed students in traditional English classes on the Reading

Inventory by approximately 70-80 points in one academic year. Even though gains were

achieved, students who received READ 180 instruction were still not reading at grade level. The

researchers acknowledged that READ 180 program’s requirement for 90 minutes of instructional

41
time per day was not met, which may have served as a possible explanation for students’ below

grade level performance.

Miller (2014) assessed the pretest and posttest data for sixth-grade students enrolled in

READ 180. The purpose of the study was to determine if the READ 180 reading program had

an effect on student reading achievement at the sixth-grade level. The study used a

nonexperimental research design using archival data. Student achievement was measured by the

communication portion of the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) assessment.

MAP assessment scores from the fifth-grade year served as the pretest score; scores from

the sixth-grade year served as the posttest score. This assessment was selected because it

measured student progress toward mastery of the Missouri Grade-Level Expectations. Scaled

scores and achievement levels were analyzed for students enrolled in the READ 180 program.

Sixth-grade students in the Platte County R-3 school district during 2008-2009, 2009-2010,

2010-2011, and 2011-2012 academic school years were the population for this study. Those

students were selected if their Lexile range was between 400-800. The four sixth-grade classes

consisted of 894 students. Of these students, 744 were not eligible for free-or-reduced lunch; one

hundred fifty were eligible. Of the 894 students, 148 students were selected for READ 180 due

to reading comprehension deficiencies identified by the Reading Inventory assessment as well as

teacher recommendation.

When implementing READ 180, the Platte County literacy committee adhered to the

implementation recommendations of READ 180—90 minutes block, 5 days per week with 20

minutes of whole-group instruction, and 10 minutes of whole-group instruction at the end of the

class period. A one-way ANOVA assessed the differences in the mean changes in reading

42
achievement scores, as measured by the MAP assessment, after one year of READ 180. The

results of the analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between the means. Students

enrolled in READ 180 had a greater change in MAP scores from fifth to sixth grade than those

students not enrolled in READ 180. Students in the study experienced gains.

According to Scholastic, Inc., students in Seminole County Florida averaged at least one

year of reading growth in one year of READ 180. The What Works Clearinghouse (U.S.

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse, 2009)

reported that READ 180 was found to have positive effects on reading comprehension and

overall literacy achievement. However, READ 180 data from the publisher should be interpreted

with caution.

READ 180 studies that focus on ethnicity. Numerous independent studies have been

conducted since the inception of READ 180, many concentrating on gender, ethnicity and

reading achievement. Cox (2016) conducted a quantitative study to determine if there was a

correlation between reading achievement. Additionally, student data were analyzed to determine

if correlations existed within gender, ethnicity, and time served in the program.

Participants in this study were seventh-grade students from three middle schools in a

district in upstate South Carolina. The schools being sampled were a combination of urban,

suburban, and rural populations. There were three seventh-grade READ 180 teachers throughout

the district, each representing different schools. Of the 109 seventh-grade students participating

in the READ 180 classes, 82 students completed all of the data points for the 2015-2016 school

year in READ 180. Each school varied in ethnic population. School 1 (S-1) had the largest

Black-American population participating in the seventh-grade READ 180 program. School 2 (S-

43
2) had the greatest number of Caucasian participants in its READ 180 population. School 3 (S-3)

had the greatest number of Hispanic participants in its READ 180 population. S-1 spent 90

minutes per day instructing students in the READ 180 program, while S-2 and S-3 spent 65

minutes per day on instruction.

The results revealed no significant difference in time and gender. However, there was a

significant difference in ethnicity on the STAR test. Students of color outperformed their

classmates.

Like Cox, Woods’ (2007) research also focused on ethnicity. Woods investigated the

effect of READ 180 on the reading achievement of 384 struggling readers in Grades 6-8 in a

southeastern Virginia middle school from 2003-2006. The nonequivalent control group study

examined the relationship between participation in READ 180 and dropout rates. Three years of

literacy achievement and dropout data were analyzed. Independent samples t-test and chi-square

statistics were used to analyze extant data to determine the annual literacy achievement mean

gains, differences between the effects of the two reading interventions, and later dropout

frequencies. The ethnic makeup of the school was approximately 50% Caucasian, 44% Black-

American, 3% Latino, and 2% Asian or Pacific Islander. Thirty-nine percent of the students were

on free and reduced-price lunch, and 14% were identified as receiving special education services.

Students who needed additional reading support participated in two settings: (a) READ 180

program or (b) a traditional reading remediation program.

The school district in this study had a 64% graduation rate compared to the

Commonwealth of Virginia which was 74%. The graduation rate for Caucasian students in the

school district was 69%, whereas the graduation rates for Black-American students and Hispanic

44
students were 62% and 31%, respectively. Ethnicity, gender, attendance, discipline, age, free or

reduced-price meals, special education or 504 statuses, and achievement data for both the

comparison and experimental groups for four academic years (2003-2007) were collected and

analyzed. Dropout data were collected to analyze the relationship between participation in

READ 180 and the cohort dropout rate. No significant difference was observed between the

comparison and treatment groups in reading scores during the first year of READ 180

implementation. The second- and third- year findings revealed a statistically significant

difference between the effects on reading achievement scores for READ 180 participants when

implemented with moderate fidelity compared to students in a traditional reading remediation.

Findings revealed that an intensive reading intervention, READ 180, can significantly improve

reading achievement for struggling adolescent learners when implemented with fidelity.

Analyses of the data revealed no significant difference between the 2004-2006 cohort dropout

rates when compared to the school division rates.

The 2003-2004 mean gain for Caucasian participants was 14.66 and the mean gain for

Black-American participants in the treatment group was 8.63. The mean gain for Caucasian

participants in the comparison group was 12.5 and the mean gain for Black-American

participants was 9.59. The ns for the Caucasian and Black-American comparison participants

were 16 and 37, respectively. In 2004-2005 Mean gains for Caucasian participants were higher

than Black-American participants in the treatment group, at 8.17 and 4.95, respectively. There

were 27 Caucasian and 43 Black-American READ 180 participants. There were 21 Caucasian

and 53 Black-American comparison participants. The 2005-2006 pretest and posttest mean gains

for Caucasian participants enrolled in the READ 180 treatment group was 18.25 and the score

45
gains for Black-American participants enrolled in READ 180 was 13.92. Mean NCE score gains

for Caucasian participants in the comparison group was 2.24 and the score gains for Black-

American participants was 1.3. There were mean declines in reading achievement for both

Caucasian participants (-3.12) and Black-American participants (-4.13) in the comparison group.

Black-American participants did not perform as well as Caucasian participants. According to the

researcher, when the program is followed as prescribed, students will improve. The results of the

studies have mixed results. Minority students may not have outperformed their classmates in

one study, but in another there was no significant difference. The relevance of Woods’ study

compared to the present study is the analysis of students’ scores by ethnicity.

Gender studies. Researchers have studied gender gaps in literacy. Nave’s (2007)

research was a comparative quantitative method that explored cause and effect relationships and

gender effects. This study compared the achievement of at-risk learners in Sevier County Public

Schools who participated in the READ 180 program with the achievement of their academically

at-risk peers not enrolled in the intervention program to assess the reading intervention program.

Participants in the study were in Grades 5 and 7.

One hundred sixty students participated in the pilot study. One hundred ten students

were enrolled in the READ 180 program, and 50 at-risk learners were not enrolled in READ 180.

Selection for the study was contingent upon their 2004-2005 composite reading TCAP score

being in the lowest quartile, thus deeming the student to be at risk.

Analysis indicated there was a significant difference from the beginning to the ending

fifth graders’ reading-language arts (RLA) scores between the control group and the READ180

group. The fifth-grade RLA scores of male and female learners showed no significant difference.

46
A significant difference was observed in seventh graders’ RLA scores between the control group

and the READ 180 group. The seventh-grade RLA scores of male and female learners showed

no significant difference. Results from the study revealed that success for many of the at-risk

learners (gender, socioeconomic status, or overall student numbers) was significantly associated

compared to their at-risk counterparts who were not enrolled in the READ 180 program.

Two researchers, Yurchak (2013) and Gentry (2006), conducted studies using high

school participants and examining the effects of gender. The purpose of Yurchak’s study was to

examine the effect of READ 180 on struggling readers in a large, public, urban high school. This

action research study was an expost facto design. A matched-pair design was used to create the

treatment and control groups for this study. The treatment group included students exposed to

READ 180 in the ninth grade for one full school year. The control group, which had similar

attributes regarding reading achievement, gender, race or ethnicity, and SES entering the ninth

grade, followed the school district’s traditional English 9 curriculum.

One hundred thirty-four students were eligible for this study, with 67 students in the

treatment group and 67 students in the control group. Participants in the treatment group received

80 minutes of READ 180 instruction and students in the control group received 40 minutes of

traditional reading instruction.

An ANOVA was conducted to determine whether a significant difference according to

gender existed between the scores of READ 180 nonparticipants and participants. The second

ANOVA was conducted to determine whether a significant difference according to race or

ethnicity existed. Caucasians had the highest mean Grade 8 Scores. A third ANOVA was

performed to determine whether a significant difference according to SES existed. The results

47
from the ANOVA show indicated no initial significant difference. In summary, significant

results occurred during the school year for students who participated in READ 180. The

researcher observed no statistically significant differences in the reading achievement among the

groups.

Gentry (2006) conducted a mixed design, quantitative study evaluating the effectiveness

of READ180 in an urban secondary school. This study used a pretest, posttest control group

design. A total of 113 ninth-grade students participated in the study. The intervention group

(READ 180) was composed of 60 students and the Control group (students not in READ 180)

was composed of 53 students. With the exception of one Hispanic student, the remaining sample

was comprised of Black-American students. Students were given the Reading Inventory at the

beginning of the school year and the middle of the 2004-2005 school year. Sample students who

had a Lexile score between 500 and 850 were given the READ 180 intervention. Students in

both the control and sample (treatment) groups were administered the Reading Inventory in the

fall and winter of the 2004-2005 school year. Sample students were given the READ 180

intervention while the control group received a traditional reading approach.

Gentry's (2006) results were mixed. There were some positive statistically significant

differences found with moderate to strong effect sizes, between students enrolled in READ 180

and a comparison group relative to standardized reading achievement measures. An ANOVA

was conducted on pretest scores (the dependent variable) using both gender and class as the

independent variables. The ANOVA revealed a statistically significant interaction. There was a

main effect of gender. Female scores were statistically higher than males. Post hoc analyses

displayed that the comparison group had statistically higher scores than the intervention group,

48
and in the intervention group, females had higher scores than males. Males in the comparison

group had statistically higher reading achievement scores than males in the treatment group.

Many studies have been conducted using the READ 180 program and produced positive results.

READ 180 mixed results. Not all studies conducted on READ 180 have yielded

positive effects. Kim et al., (2011) conducted a randomized controlled study of approximately

312 fourth thru sixth graders in an after-school program, who scored below proficiency on the

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) English Language Arts (ELA) test.

Students were recruited from four K-6 elementary schools. Thirty-six percent of the participants

were fourth graders, 44% were fifth graders, and 20% were sixth graders. Twenty-eight percent

of the participants were Caucasian, 54% were Black American, 12% were Latino, and 6% were

other.

The students received a modified READ 180 Enterprise program consisting of 60-

minutes and only three of the components (Kim et al., 2011). Unlike READ 180, the district

after-school program did not provide independent and modeled reading practice with leveled

text, whole-group instruction, or individualized technology instruction. Conversely, it did include

some small-group teacher-directed lessons. Teachers could develop activities or choose from 16

activities.

The results from the implementation of READ 180 demonstrated positive effects on

reading vocabulary and comprehension but did not yield positive effects on spelling and oral

reading fluency (Kim et al., 2011). The researchers further asserted that READ 180 might be

more effective with students who were in the 40th-45th percentile, instead of the lower 25th as

Scholastic Inc. (2005a) suggested (Kim et al., 2011). They also encouraged the use of the whole

49
group and three-group rotation model and multiple measures of intended outcomes (Kim et al.,

2011).

Many studies focused on pretest and posttest scores. In Plony’s study (2013) used

quantitative data analysis of pre- and posttest Reading Inventory scores to determine if the

READ 180 Program is an effective intervention for struggling readers in middle schools from

one urban district. Participants in Grades 6 through 8 were selected using archival data from the

2011-2012 academic school year. The groups included those students enrolled in the READ 180

Program and a comparison group of similar students who participated in a traditional literacy

class. Other factors examined in the current study as possible contributions to the effects of the

intervention on reading achievement included grade level, gender, and ethnicity.

There were no statistically significant differences in Grades 6 and 8. However, a

significant difference was observed for students in Grade 7. Results for Grades 6, 7, and 8

participants revealed a significant difference in mean Reading Inventory posttest scores did not

exist between genders after controlling for pretest scores. However, there was a strong

relationship for Grade 6, 7, and 8 participants’ pretest and posttest scores. Although a significant

difference was not found in regards to ethnicity, sixth-grade Hispanic students had the largest

increase in scores, and Caucasian students had the smallest change. Seventh-grade Hispanic

students had the largest increase in Reading Inventory scores and multiracial students had the

smallest change. Lastly, eighth-grade Caucasian students had the largest increase in Reading

Inventory scores and Hispanic students’ scores decreased.

The Memphis, Tennessee, School District implemented the READ 180 program as part

of its Striving Readers Grant intervention (Schenck, Feighan, Coffey, & Rui, 2011). This 2011

50
study was the result of partnerships forged between staff members at Memphis City Schools

(MCS), the University of Memphis, and Research for Better Schools (RBS) and its associates,

RMC Corporation and Edvantia. The quantitative study was conducted in eight middle schools.

Participants were enrolled in a language arts class in addition to a READ 180 class (Schenck et

al., 2011).

Grant implementation was divided into four distinct phases. Phase 1 consisted of

implementation of READ 180 for 4 years in the Memphis Striving Readers Project schools. The

90-minute daily model included instructional materials to be implemented as four 20-minute

rotations in which students used the software program to build skills, engage in teacher-directed

whole- and small-group instruction, read independently, and end with a 10-minute wrap-up.

Students in Grades 6 through 8 who performed in the bottom quartile on the reading/language

arts portion of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) test were randomly

selected to participate in the supplemental program or to serve as control group students. During

the fourth year of the study, there were 809 students in the treatment (400) and control (409)

groups.

Phase 2 included professional development. Teachers were given professional

development classes. Memphis Content Literacy Academy included a course for school leaders,

on-site coaching to support implementation, and an investment of $40,000 per school in

supplemental instructional materials to be included in a Curriculum Resource Center.

The analysis of Schenck et al.’s (2011) data showed “no significant one-year impacts of

participation in READ 180 were detected in the first, second, or fourth years;” moreover, “there

were no significant two-year impacts of READ 180 in the second, third, or fourth years” (p. 2).

51
During the third year, there was one small, 1-year impact observed in the sixth-grade scores of

students on the TCAP Reading/Language Arts test (Schenck et al., 2011). The report did not

disaggregate the data for ELLs but did state the number of ELLs had doubled during the grant

(Schenck et al., 2011).

K. J. Smith (2012) conducted a regression study in Florida to examine the impact of

READ 180 on the reading aptitude of at-risk readers. Students who earned a Level 1 or 2 on

either the reading or math portion on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in

eighth grade were identified as at risk.

Archival data were used for the analysis of students who earned a Level 2 in 2009 on the

ninth-grade FCAT and the 2010 10th-grade FCAT. Tenth-grade Level 2 students were grouped

by their reading fluency and FCAT level. In 2009 and 2010, 2,251 Level 2 students were

assessed both years on the FCAT reading test. There were 1,471 minority students, 910 who

qualified in the low SES category, and 172 were labeled as special education students. All 10th-

grade participants of the READ 180 course were used for this study in addition to all Level 2

10th-grade students who were fluent readers. They were assigned to the content-area reading

development course. In Florida, students who were ranked at Level 1 on the FCAT were

assigned to an intervention reading program. Disfluent Level 2 students were assigned to an

intervention reading program, while fluent readers received reading strategies in the content-area

reading development course.

The results from the 2010 FCAT results revealed six schools earned a grade of A, two

schools earned a B, one school earned a C, 10 schools earned a D, and only one school was rated

with an F. The results also indicated that Caucasian, middle class, nondisabled students had more

52
academic success. Regular classroom with reading strategies instruction was just as effective for

promoting reading achievement as the separate classroom with specific reading instruction. For

10th-grade students, the minimum developmental scale scores (DSS) expected yearly growth in

reading was 78 points. Therefore, if READ 180 is beneficial for at-risk readers, these students

should be gaining at least the minimum DSS yearly growth. Students were identified as either

gaining a full year’s growth or not, according to their DSS.

With illiteracy in the United States at an alarming rate, school districts are spending more

and more instructional dollars and resources searching for intervention programs to address

students' reading deficits (Parker, Holland, & Jones, 2013). READ 180 maintains a student's

language and conceptual development through authentic task development (DeVivo & Aguhob,

2004).

Parker et al.’s (2013) quantitative study of two reading intervention programs, Voyager

Journeys III and READ 180, in a south Texas urban school calculated the effectiveness of each

reading intervention program. Both programs explored in this study were computer-assisted

learning programs with individual and small group instruction. Both programs promised that

students would become proficient in reading if they were exposed to this methodology. Test

results from the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills and pretest and posttest performance

on the Reading Inventory were analyzed.

Group 1 included 172 ninth graders enrolled in READ 180, and Group 2 was composed

of 114 ninth graders enrolled in Voyagers Journeys III. The results of the study showed students

using the Voyager Journeys III program had a lower pretest and a higher posttest scores than the

READ 180 students, thus giving them greater gains. The descriptive data revealed students

53
participating in the Voyager Journeys III program were more successful over the course of a year

than students participating in the READ 180 program. Group 1 students had statistically

significant higher test results on the 2011 Reading TAKS when compared to the Group 2

students. Due to the mixed results, there is no conclusive evidence to support either reading

intervention program.

During the 2010-2011 academic school year, Rakestraw (2013) conducted an analysis of

the READ 180 intervention program. The purpose of this nonequivalent control group design

study was to determine if READ 180 had an impact on seventh- and eighth-grade reading

achievement based using the reading section of the Georgia Criterion Reference Competency

Test in reading.

The study investigated the relationship between reading achievement and the READ 180

program. The 2010 Georgia Criterion Reference Competency Test reading scores for both the

experimental and control groups serve as the study’s pretest, while students’ 2011 Georgia

Criterion Reference Competency Test reading scores functioned as the experiment’s posttest.

The assignment of participants to both the experimental and control groups was based upon a

nonrandom selection for the experimental group and a random selection to the control group.

The experimental group for this study was based upon assigned scale cut-scores issued by the

school of study. The nonequivalent control group meant that assignment to groups was not

random and acknowledged existing differences amongst groups.

The participants in this study included 102 READ 180 seventh- and eighth-grade

students. Participant ages ranged from 12 to 14 years. The READ 180 participants in this study

were enrolled in the quarterly READ 180 program at Templeton Middle School for the 2010-

54
2011 school year. The participants in this study had been identified as Tier 2 students based on

their sixth- and seventh-grade Georgia Criterion Reference Competency Test reading scores.

These participants had also been identified as at risk for failing 2010-2011 Georgia Criterion

Reference Competency Test results based upon a score of 815 and below. This was the

designated cutoff score assigned by the school administration.

This study also included seventh- and eighth-grade students who did not participate in the

READ 180 program for the 2010-2011 school year. The control group for this study was also

comprised of 102 students who were only enrolled in Language Arts for the 2010-2011 school

year. The non-READ 180 students used in this study were randomly selected based upon a

Georgia Criterion Reference Competency Test reading scale cut-score of 816 or higher and those

who did not receive any form of READ 180 remediation for the 2010-2011 school year.

Participants were randomly chosen from inclusion or coteaching classes in which READ 180

participants were enrolled.

Data were analyzed using the standardized analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

Rakestraw concluded from the standardized ANCOVA model that the READ 180 program was

significant, and participation in the READ 180 program had an impact on students’ Georgia

Reference Competency Test reading scale scores.

Schools acknowledge reading deficits and provide intervention programs such as READ

180 to at-risk students. The intent is to close the gap between their current reading level and

grade level goals. Numerous READ 180 studies have been conducted that follow the guidelines

for instruction, but not all students have experienced the gains the publisher advertises.

Unfortunately, there are many unknown factors that can account for the mixed results. Though

55
some studies have not experienced the desired results, schools should continue to provide

interventions for their at-risk population.

Lang et al. (2009) conducted a study to examine the effectiveness of intense reading

interventions for at-risk high school readers. A 1-year randomized control study was conducted

to assess causal effects, as measured by the criterion-referenced state assessment test.

The sample included 1,265 ninth-grade students in 89 classes across seven high schools

in a large school district. Students in the high-risk group and the moderate risk group were

randomly assigned to one of four intensive reading interventions (three intervention classes and a

traditional control condition). Intervention 1 (READ 180) was whole group instruction of prior

knowledge, vocabulary, word study, writing, reading comprehension, and grammar followed by

small group instruction, independent reading, and individual decoding, fluency, vocabulary,

comprehension, and spelling. Intervention 2 consisted of instruction in three programs:

corrective reading, reasoning and writing, and spelling through morphographs providing

phonemic awareness, decoding/word analysis, fluency, oral language, comprehension, writing,

and spelling. Intervention 3 required differentiated instruction delivered in text theme units

created by the teacher. This approach included independent reading, whole-group discussion and

modeling of reading skills/strategies, and small group–targeted instruction. Lastly, the fourth

intervention was Scholastic’s SOAR to Success, which is a typical school reading intervention

program.

The year-long randomized experiment found differential effects of READ 180 by prior

student reading ability. Lang et al. (2009) found a negative, nonsignificant effect of READ 180

on high-risk ninth-grade students reading below the fourth-grade level on the Florida

56
Comprehensive Assessment Test and a significant positive effect of the program on moderate

risk ninth-grade students reading between the fourth- and sixth-grade levels. The corresponding

average score on the SAT 9 was the 44th percentile for moderate-risk students, whereas the

average for high-risk students was at the 25th percentile. This finding was especially noteworthy

given the publisher’s recommendation to focus specifically on this high-risk group.

Carter (2015) piloted an ex post facto study was collected at the end of school year

2013/2014 for this nonexperimental examination. This study compared the achievement of two

groups of students that differed in one variable using an independent t test. Group 1 received

computerized reading support called READ 180 inside an ELA classroom. Group 2 received

computerized READ 180 reading support in a setting separated from ELA instruction. Delaware

Comprehensive Assessment System (DCAS) scores and Lexile scores were analyzed for the

average performance of both groups.

There were 84 participants in the study who received 10 months of READ 180 instruction

during the 2013/2014 school year. The sample consisted of 45 males and 44 females in the 14-16

age range. Inclusive study participants remained: 41 females (two Asian, 23 Black-American,

and 16 Caucasian) and 43 males (two Asian, 24 Black-American, and 17 Caucasian).

A conclusion may be drawn that there was a statistically significant difference in the

reading achievement of READ 180 students in a classroom setting compared with a pullout

setting when measured by DCAS. A key finding of Fall 2013 scores showed no difference

between the two groups’ DCAS scores. By Spring 2014, Group 1 DCAS scores were

significantly higher. Study results of Lexile unit score analysis did not hold any significant

impact for READ180 students in a classroom setting compared with a pullout setting.

57
 Vogel (2013) conducted a qualitative case study on READ 180. The purpose was to

investigate the impact of the READ 180 reading intervention program on the affective and

cognitive reading skills of at-risk ninth graders. The 21 participants attended a Title I high school

in Southern California. The case study was conducted over a 16-week period in the summer and

fall of 2012. Data was obtained through interviews, observations, and student documents.

A case study approach provided real-life conditions and an abundance of details to give

contextual knowledge of the experiences of secondary level, at-risk readers as they attempted to

improve their reading skills and habits. This approach was also appropriate for this research

because it used multiple forms of data collection, allowed for the study of a program through

analysis of various data, and provided an in-depth understanding of the effectiveness of the

multilayered READ 180 reading intervention program.

Selection into the READ 180 program was based on many factors: (a) a current Reading

Inventory test, (b) their previous year’s California Star Test (CST) reading exam score, (c) a

current Gates MacGinite reading assessment test, and (d) a recommendation from their eighth-

grade English teacher. The group of students participating in the case study was 21 ninth-grade

students labeled as at risk for their academic deficiencies. The sample consisted of 14 males

(nine Hispanics, three Black Americans, and two Caucasians) and seven females (five Hispanics,

two Black Americans) with an age range from 14 to 15. The reading levels for the class varied

from Grades 3 to 8 with nine classified as second language learners, and two students designated

as special education learners. The attrition rate for the academic year was 78% for this READ

180 class. Twenty-seven students were recommended for placement into the class; however, two

students tested out of READ 180 at the beginning of the year based on their Lexile scores, which

58
were derived from the READ 180 based Reading Inventory test. Students could also test out of

READ 180 at the end of the first semester. The teacher who administered the READ 180

program had been trained by the publishers of the program and had taught the coursework for six

consecutive years before the study.

Weekly classroom activities were observed in two 56-minute cycles over the 16-week

investigation period. Through the use of observations, the researcher was able to identify precise

teaching strategies that impacted students’ reading comprehension, vocabulary, and study habits.

The credibility of the findings for this study was strengthened through the use of student

documents, which included the R book, L book, computer-based reports, reading logs, and

questionnaires.

The findings of this study revealed that READ 180 was a beneficial intervention program

for secondary at-risk students, but it did not meet the numerous affective and cognitive needs

required for grade level literacy development. The comprehensive reading skills of READ 180

participants improved students’ aptitude with the reading process as they understood and

regularly implemented a before, during, and after reading model. Secondary level students

advanced more when the program was modified based on individual student needs and interests.

Brown (2014) encountered mixed results with a comparative design and simple linear

regression model. This study showed a comparison between reading level at the beginning of the

program and academic achievement in language arts at the end of the semester after using the

READ 180 program. The sampling method was convenience sampling. The sample size was 160

middle school students enrolled in READ 180 who were reading below grade level and who

elected to participate in the study with the permission of their parents. One hundred five of the

59
sample were Caucasian and 55 were Black-American, Hispanic, and Asian. Medium effect size

was estimated for the size of the experimental effect in the study.

Pretests consisted of the Reading Inventory and initial READ 180 tests. The posttest was

the READ180 test at the end of 6 weeks. A critical finding in this study was that the READ 180

program appeared to be effective when comparing the pre/posttest language arts grades. The

independent variables of Reading Inventory placement test, previous READ 180 experience, and

ethnicity were not significant predictors in this study.

In 2011, Scholastic revealed READ 180 Next Generation, a new form of the reading

intervention program that includes fresh technology, teaching, and content to help make teachers

more effective and students more engaged, and state-of-the-art supports for the Common Core

Standards. However, the best technology program cannot compensate for a poorly designed and

executed lesson (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010). Increasing the reading motivation of students

should be a priority for teachers and researchers to improve the reading achievement of

struggling children (Melekoglu, 2011). Children with lower motivation usually display poor

performance in reading activities.

Summary

With so many students reading below grade level, appropriate reading interventions need

to be implemented to fill the reading gaps. The gaps vary from student to student. Therefore,

educators may have to go back to the five components of reading to identify which skills need

additional reteach. Those components consist of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,

vocabulary, and comprehension.

READ 180 is a software program geared for Grades 4-11 to provide remediation

60
instruction for students who are reading below grade level. READ 180 is an instructional model

consisting of 90 minutes of classroom instruction during which teachers and students engage in a

mixture of activities and instructional models. The class is divided into three sections with

whole-group instruction for 20 minutes, then into small group instruction that involves 20

minutes stations including computers, reading, writing, and finally, a 10-minute whole-group

wrap-up. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt conducted numerous research studies on READ 180 and

found favorable results with the program. However, some independent studies have been

conducted, and did not yield positive results; therefore, there is a need for more independent

READ 180 studies.

61
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS

The effect that low reading achievement has on students' college readiness, careers, and

overall life is substantial. The ability to read complex text independently and skillfully is a

requirement for high academic achievement in college, the workplace, and important in

numerous life tasks (Common Core State Standards, 2010). READ 180 is a comprehensive

reading intervention program for at-risk readers designed to improve both student motivation and

comprehension skills (Scholastic, Inc., 2005a). This quantitative study analyzed pretest and

posttest assessment data for ninth-grade students enrolled in READ 180. The publisher’s

Reading Inventory pretest and posttest data were evaluated. The program is designed to use the

same group of students for one school year.

READ 180 is a literacy intervention program for upper elementary, middle, and high

school students who are reading below grade level. Researchers Hasselbring and Goin (2004)

developed the literacy program at Vanderbilt University. Scholastic marketed the program until

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt purchased the program. The program is designed for at-risk students

in middle school and high school who are reading at levels between Grade 1.5 and 8. It provides

90 minutes of instruction for groups of 15 students. Daily reading instruction begins with a 20-

minute shared-reading and skills lesson. Students then rotate among three activities in groups of

five: (a) computer-assisted instructional reading, (b) independent or modeled reading, and (c)

62
small-group instruction with the teacher. The READ 180 software package includes videos

centered on social studies and science topics. Students read the video content and engage in

fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and word-study activities. The program provides educators

with resources, and teachers attend workshops to support instruction in reading strategies,

comprehension, word study, and vocabulary (Slavin, Cheung, Groff, & Lake, 2008).

This chapter offers the following components of a nonexperimental study: the purpose of

the study; research questions; description of variables, instrumentation, and description of

participants; research procedures; data collection; statistical methods; and limitations. This study

utilized archived student achievement data from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s Reading

Inventory. Student demographic information was provided by the school district. Ethical

research was conducted to ensure the study's integrity.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this causal comparative study was to analyze and compare Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt’s Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores of ninth-grade students in a

Middle Tennessee school enrolled in READ 180 during the 2016-2017 school year. The

researcher compared participants’ scores by gender and ethnicity. As stated in its Performance

Pledge, the READ 180 program provides each student with the basic reading skills needed to

improve reading achievement (Scholastic, Inc., 2005a). This study aimed to examine the claims

of program-wide success. The findings from this study could factor into the discussion towards

possible future expansion of the program to more students in the ninth grade or to other grade

levels or continued research within the district.

63
Research Questions

For the purpose of this study the following research questions were addressed:

Research Question 1. Is there a significant difference in ninth-grade students’ 2016-

2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores

among different ethnic groups?

Research Question 2. Is there a significant difference in READ 180 Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores in 2016-2017 between male and female

ninth-grade students?

Description of Variables

The researcher used the statistical method between-within repeated measures ANOVA to

answer the research questions. Between-within Repeated Measures ANOVA compares the mean

differences between groups that have been split on one within-subjects factor. The within-

subjects variable factor is time. Students were assessed Fall 2016 and Spring 2017. The

independent variable in research question 1 was ethnicity. The independent variable in research

question 2 was gender. The dependent variable was the inventory scores at two time points

(pretest and posttest).

Research Question 1. Is there a significant difference in ninth-grade students’ 2016-

2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores

among different ethnic groups? This research question was answered using a between-within

repeated measures ANOVA. The independent variable was ethnicity, and the dependent variable

were the inventory scores on the pretest and posttest. The school required READ 180

64
participants to take the Reading Inventory in the fall and again in the spring. The data from both

testing dates were analyzed for the between-within repeated measures ANOVA.

Research Question 2. Is there a significant difference in READ 180 Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores in 2016-2017 between male and female

ninth-grade students? This research question was answered using a between-within repeated

measures ANOVA. The independent variable was gender, and the dependent variable were the

inventory scores on the pretest and posttest. The school required READ 180 participants to take

the Reading Inventory in the fall and again in the spring. The data from both testing dates were

analyzed for the between-within repeated measures ANOVA.

Instrumentation

The research instrument chosen to collect data was Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s Reading

Inventory. The Reading Inventory is included as an assessment tool in the READ 180 package.

The Reading Inventory is a reading assessment that uses the Lexile Framework to measure

comprehension, monitor student growth, and guide instruction for kindergarten through 12th-

grade participants.

The Reading Inventory is a computer-adaptive assessment designed to measure how well

students read literature and expository texts of varying difficulties. The number of questions for

each student varies and can be administered to students in Grades K through 12. The assessment

is based on the Lexile Framework for Reading (Scholastic, Inc., 2005b). The Reading Inventory

is a valid, criterion-referenced instrument used as a diagnostic tool to measure and diagnose

reading comprehension and match students to text so they can read with confidence and control.

65
 Results from the Reading Inventory are reported as scale scores, also referred to as Lexile

measures. The scale range from less than 100L (Beginning Reader) to 1500L (Advanced

Reader). A Lexile measure is determined by the difficulty of the items to which a student

responds (MetaMetrics, 2014).

Description of Participants

Participants were 34 ninth-grade students from a rural county in Middle Tennessee. Out

of 95 counties, it was the 20th most populated county in the state of Tennessee with a population

of 68,570. The largest racial/ethnic groups were Caucasian (84.2%), followed by Black-

American (7.4%) and Hispanic (6.1%). In 2015, the median household income of residents was

$53,151. Residents with a bachelor's degree or higher was 17.8%. Lastly, the median age for

residents was 38.6 years young (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

During the 2016-2017 school year, the high school had 287 ninth-grade students with 145

of them being male and 142 were females. There were 44 Black-American students (20 males

and 24 females); 75 Hispanic students (43 males and 32 females); 5 Multiracial students, (2

males and 3 females); and 163 Caucasian students (80 males and 83 females).

Participants were ninth graders attending the same high school and were enrolled in

READ 180. This study was comprised of seven Black Americans students (six males and one

female), 15 Caucasian students (nine males and three females), and 15 Hispanic students (12

males and three females). Selection in the reading intervention program required students’

reading level to be in the in the lower 25th percentile. Students reading below grade level had a

Lexile score of 999 and below; students reading at grade level had a Lexile score between 1000-

1024; students reading above grade level had a Lexile score above 1025; and students with

66
college and career ready expectations had a Lexile level range score between 1080-1305

(Scholastic, 2005b).

Research Procedures and Data Collection

The researcher obtained written approval from the Institutional Review Board from

Union University, as well as permission to use preexisting data and a signed consent form from

the district’s director; the researcher contacted the READ 180 teacher of the participating school

district. Then the researcher contacted the Middle Tennessee school district to obtain the archival

READ 180 Reading Inventory pretest and posttest data. Student names were redacted and not

available for the researcher. However, the researcher requested students' ethnicity and gender.

Results were written from the analyzed data. After the dissertation defense, identifiable data will

be shredded. All sorting and calculations were completed using SPSS.

Statistical Methods

To answer the research questions, the researcher used between-within repeated measures

ANOVA. This statistical method for the research questions was appropriate due to the

researcher examining change over time. Between-within repeated measures ANOVA compares

the mean differences between groups that have been split on within-subjects factors (also known

as independent variables). Between-within repeated measures ANOVA is often used in studies

that measure a dependent variable over two or more time points, or when subjects have

undergone two or more conditions. The primary purpose of between-within repeated measures

ANOVA is to understand if there is an interaction between the two factors on the dependent

variable (Laerd Statistics, 2013). In research question one, the factors are ethnicity and reading

67
inventory scores (pretest and posttest). Research question two, the factors are gender and

reading inventory scores (pretest and posttest).

Due to the small sample size, the researcher performed a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test

after the between-within repeated measures ANOVA test to verify the results. The Wilcoxon

signed-rank test is a nonparametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test. The Wilcoxon signed-

rank test does not assume normality in the data. It is used to compare two sets of scores that

come from the same participants. This occurs from investigating changes in scores from one time

point to another, or when individuals are subjected to more than one condition.

Research Question 1. Is there a significant difference in ninth-grade students’ 2016-

2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores

among different ethnic groups?

Research Question 2. Is there a significant difference in READ 180 Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores in 2016-2017 between male and female

ninth-grade students?

Limitations

The following limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. The study

would need to be repeated in order for the results to be valid. Due to the absence of a control

group, drawing conclusions about students’ performance is impractical.

The sample size was a limitation in the study. The study was conducted in one Middle

Tennessee school district under the direction of one teacher. Study participants attended the same

high school, which represented a convenience sample for the researcher. Students were not

randomly assigned to the program; they were selected based on their below-level reading

68
performance. This limitation can be overcome by expanding the number of participants or

selecting a district that has more than one READ 180 instructor. The study was limited due to

data collection from the 2016-2017 school year. The focus was on only one grade level and one

year of data. Students may not have received consistent treatments of READ 180 due to

tardiness, absences, motivation, participation, or possibly even poverty. There was an

assumption that the teacher’s instruction followed the required script with fidelity. Again,

findings from this study may not be useful to other districts or states.

The researcher considered threats to internal validity such as attrition. Students may have

exited the program prior to the end of the school year. Selection should also be considered since

the participants were not selected by random sampling or random assignment. All students did

not have an equal chance of being in the treatment or comparison groups. Inferring causality

should be avoided when using nonrandomized designs. There were also unequal gender and

ethnic subgroups to analyze. The pretest may have sensitized participants and their performance

on the posttest due to the pretest, not to the treatment. With the current study, there was an

inability to manipulate the independent variable which would also be considered a limitation.

Additionally, the researcher was not able to access treatment fidelity, therefore, one cannot be

confident with the process.

Summary

Chapter 3 outlined the design and procedures utilized in conducting the study. Students

reading below grade level qualified for the READ 180 program. The researcher analyzed and

compared participants’ 2016-2017 Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores. Chapter 4

presents the results of students' performance on the following research questions: (a) Is there a

69
significant difference in ninth-grade students’ 2016-2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores among different ethnic groups? and (b) Is there a

significant difference in READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and

posttest scores in 2016-2017 between male and female ninth-grade students?

70
 CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

The purpose of this causal comparative study was to analyze and compare the Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores of ninth-grade students in a

Middle Tennessee school enrolled in READ 180 during the 2016-2017 school year. The

researcher compared participants’ scores by gender and ethnicity. Chapter 4 presents the results

of statistical analysis of the data and is organized to address the two research questions presented

in chapter 1. The chapter provides descriptive statistics including summary results. The research

questions that directed the study were as follows: (a) Is there a significant difference in ninth-

grade students’ 2016-2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and

posttest scores among different ethnic groups? and (b) Is there a significant difference in READ

180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores in 2016-2017

between male and female ninth-grade students?

The statistical analysis used was between-within repeated measures ANOVA and the

Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. The researcher used SPSS Desktop, Version 24.0, to run the

analysis for each research question.

Participants

Participants in the study were at-risk ninth-grade students enrolled in Houghton Mifflin

71
Harcourt’s READ 180 program. During the 2016-2017 school year, the school district in the

study employed one READ 180 teacher. The teacher taught two blocks of READ 180 to 42

students throughout the year; however, data sets were only available for 34 students. The

researcher used all 34 data sets to answer the research questions.

Table 1 presents READ 180 participants’ ethnicity and gender.

Table 1

Participants’ Ethnicity and Gender

________________________________________________________________________
Ethnicity Male Female N
________________________________________________________________________
Black American 6 1 7
Caucasian 9 3 12
Hispanic 12 3 15
________________________________________________________________________

Research Procedures

To answer the research questions, the researcher used between-within repeated measures

ANOVA. This statistical method for the research questions was appropriate due to the

researcher examining change over time, effects of gender for Research Question 2, ethnicity for

Research Question 1 and the interactions of time and the independent variables. Students

complete the Reading Inventory at the beginning of the year and again at the end of the school

year. The independent variables in the study were gender and ethnicity. The dependent variable

was the inventory scores on the pretest and posttest. Due to the small sample size, the researcher

72
also performed a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test after the between-within repeated measures

ANOVA test to verify the results. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test is a nonparametric test

equivalent to the dependent t-test. The test determines whether two dependent samples were

selected from populations having the same distribution. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test does

not assume normality in the data. The assumption for the multivariate approach is that the vector

of the dependent variables follow a multivariate normal distribution, and the variance-covariance

matrices are equal across the cells formed by the between-subjects effects. One of the

assumptions is that data are paired and come from the same population. The significance value

of the Wilcoxon Test is 0.984 which is greater than 0.01, suggesting that the assumption was

met. Research Question 1 focused on ethnicity. Participants’ pretest M = 488.97 compared to

their posttest M = 488.35. Research Question 2 focused on gender. Participants’ gender pretest M

= 503.42 compared to their posttest M = 512.68 showed little difference. The researcher

completed a Cohen’s d test to measure the effect size. The overall pretest M = 496.19 and the

posttest M = 500.5189. The researcher used the combined pretest and posttest data for both

groups and the Cohen’s d = .017 which is a small effect size. The effect size quantifies the size

of the difference between two groups. A quick analysis of the overall Cohen’s d does not display

a large difference between pretest and posttest scores.

Results by Research Question

Research Question 1. Is there a significant difference in ninth-grade students’ 2016-

2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores

among different ethnic groups? Black American students’ Reading Inventory pretest M = 620;

73
SD = 258, Caucasian students’ pretest M = 436; SD = 297, and Hispanic students’ pretest M =

471; SD = 236.

Black American students’ Reading Inventory posttest M = 572; SD = 168, Caucasian

students’ posttest M = 478; SD = 268, and Hispanic students’ posttest M = 458; SD = 199.

Overall, Caucasian students’ Reading Inventory posttest mean score increased, while the other

ethnic groups’ decreased. Wilks’ Lambda is a test statistic used in ANOVA’s to test whether

there are differences between the means of identified groups of subjects on a combination of

dependent variables. It tests how well each level of independent variable contributes to the

model.

There was not a significant main effect of time, F (1, 31) = .049, p = .826. There was not

a significant interaction between time and ethnicity, F (1, 31) = .868, p = .430. The tests of

between-subjects effects also revealed no significant difference, F (1, 31) = .956, p = .396.

Overall, Caucasian students’ posttest scores increased, but there was not a statistical

significant effect of the independent variable ethnicity, Wilks’ Lambda = .95, F(2, 31) = .87, p =

.430. Since the overall ANOVA was not significant, a pairwise comparison was not evaluated.

Sphericity was assumed since the p value was greater than 0.1. Sphericity is the condition where

the variances of the differences between all combinations of related groups (levels) are equal.

Violation of sphericity is when the variances of the differences between all combinations of

related groups are not equal. Sphericity can be likened to homogeneity of variances in a between-

subjects ANOVA. Partial eta squared and power were both small with a .053 and .186,

respectively. Partial eta squared refers to effect size and the effects of other independent

variables and interactions are partialled out. Power denotes Type II errors. Power is computed

74
using the alpha, effect, and sample size. As the power increases, there is a decreasing probability

of a Type II error (false negative). A Type II error occurs when one accepts a null hypothesis that

is actually false.

Table 2 presents the participants’ pretest and posttest mean scores from the READ 180

Reading Inventory by ethnic groups.

Table 2

Participants’ Mean Scores for the READ 180 Reading Inventory Pretest and Posttest by Ethnic
Groups
________________________________________________________________________
Ethnicity Pretest M SD Posttest M SD N
________________________________________________________________________
Black American 619.71 258.36 572.43 167.61 7

Caucasian 435.58 296.82 477.83 267.96 12

Hispanic 470.67 236.33 457.53 199.12 15

________________________________________________________________________

Table 3 presents participants’ reading inventory pretest and posttest difference scores by

ethnicity.

75
Table 3

Participants’ Difference Scores by Ethnicity

________________________________________________________________________
Ethnicity Difference Scores N
________________________________________________________________________
Black American -47.29 7

Caucasian 42.25 12

Hispanic -13.13 15
________________________________________________________________________

Research Question 2. Is there a significant difference in READ 180 Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores in 2016-2017 between male and female

ninth-grade students? Female pretest M = 422; SD = 185 and males’ M = 506 with a SD = 282.

Table 4 presents male and female participants’ pretest and posttest mean scores from the

READ 180 Reading Inventory.

Table 4

Male and Female Participants’ Pretest and Posttest Mean Score for the READ 180 Reading
Inventory Pretest
________________________________________________________________________
Gender Pretest Mean Posttest Mean N
________________________________________________________________________
Female 422.00 404.71 7
Male 506.33 510.04 27
________________________________________________________________________

76
 Females’ posttest M = 405; SD = 216 and males’ M = 510; SD = 218. Collectively,

females’ Reading Inventory posttest mean score increased, while males’ mean score decreased.

However, no statistical significant difference was observed of the independent variable gender,

Wilks’ Lambda = .99, F(1, 17) = .044, p = .748. The tests of within-subjects effects checked for

equal variances, p = .748. Sphericity was assumed since the p-value is greater than 1%.

Sphericity was the condition where the variances of the differences between all combinations of

related groups (levels) are equal. Violation of sphericity is when the variances of the differences

between all combinations of related groups are not equal. Sphericity can be likened to

homogeneity of variances in a between-subjects ANOVA. Partial eta squared and power were

both small with a .003 and .061, respectively. Partial eta squared refers to effect size and the

effects of other independent variables and interactions are partialled out. Power denotes Type II

errors. Power is computed using the alpha, effect, and sample size. As the power increases,

there is a decreasing probability of a Type II error (false negative). A Type II error occurs when

one accepts a null hypothesis that is actually false.

There was not a significant main effect of time, F (1, 17) = .0001, p = .996. There was

not a significant interaction between time and gender, F (1, 17) = .167, p = .688. The tests of

between-subjects effects also revealed no significant difference, F (1, 17) = .721, p = .407.

Table 5 presents the male participants’ mean and standard deviation scores from the

READ 180 Reading Inventory posttest.

77
Table 5

Male and Female Participants’ Mean and Standard Deviation Scores for the READ 180 Reading
Inventory Posttest
________________________________________________________________
Ethnicity Mean Standard Deviation N
________________________________________________________________
Females 404.71 215.94 7
Males 510.04 218.13 27
_________________________________________________________________

Several of the participants’ posttest scores decreased from the initial Fall 2016 screening.

Because the sample size was small, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was performed. The results

revealed Z = -.020, p = .984. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test is a hypothesis test that attempts

to make a claim about whether or not the two samples come with populations with the same

medians. More specifically, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test uses sample information to assess

how plausible it is for population medians to be equal. It does require the data to be measured at

least at the ordinal level, so the data can be organized in ascending order. Normality is not

required for the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test includes all

participants; there is no division by gender and ethnicity. Though 16 of the participants had an

increase in their posttest scores after receiving instruction in READ 180, there was no

statistically significant difference in the data. The 25% and 75% were the beginning and end of

the middle 50% of the pretest and posttest data, also referred to as the Interquartile Range (IQR).

The pretest raw score 298 fell within 25%, 480 aligns with 50%, and 722 was in the 75% range.

In reference to the posttest, the raw score 410 aligned with 25%, 526 represented 50% of the

78
scores, and 653 denoted 75% of the posttest scores. The data were more consistent in the posttest

with the middle 50% being much smaller than the pretest IQR.

Table 6 presents the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks mean and standard deviation.

Table 6

Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Percentile Ranks

________________________________________________________________________
Assessment 25th 50th 75th
________________________________________________________________________
Pretest 298 480 722
Posttest 410 526 653

________________________________________________________________________

Table 7 presents the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks mean and standard deviation.

Table 7

Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Mean and Standard Deviation

________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Mean Standard Deviation
________________________________________________________________________
Pretest 503.42 290.54
Posttest 512.68 235.46
________________________________________________________________________

79
 The results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test concurred with the between-within

repeated measures ANOVA and no significant difference in gender and ethnicity for all

participants was observed; p = .984.

Summary

Chapter 4 reported the findings of this study. The researcher analyzed archived data of

34 ninth graders from the same school. Participants in the study were enrolled in Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt’s READ 180 program. During the 2016-2017 school year, an analysis of

Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores yielded information that will allow educational

leaders to better understand the impact of READ 180. In addition to the pretest and posttest data,

the researcher explored gender and ethnicity gaps. Descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing

were reported for each research question. The results reported in Chapter 4 are the foundation

for the major findings in Chapter 5 of this study. The chapter also includes interpretations of the

results, details of the contributions of the study, limitations of the study, and recommendations

for future research based on findings from this study.

80
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The reading ability of adolescents in the United States has caused concern for schools and

policy makers. Factors such as comprehension, decoding, word recognition, and limited

vocabulary account for adolescent literacy deficiencies (Kim et al., 2011). Gender and racial

differences also exist in reading achievement. Male deficits may occur in early reading skills

such as decoding (Below et al., 2010).

READ 180 is a blended learning solution that accelerates learning for struggling readers

by merging the latest research in adaptive technology, professional development, and knowledge

for school and life. Effective literacy interventions at the secondary level require programs that

meet the differentiated needs of at-risk students and trained educators to meet the individual

needs of the students. Additionally, READ 180 emphasizes the improvement of reading

comprehension skills through structured curriculum, effective teaching strategies, and the use of

various course specific materials and resources.

The purpose of this causal comparative study was to analyze and compare the Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores of ninth-grade students in a

Middle Tennessee school who participated in READ 180 during the 2016-2017 school year. The

researcher compared participants’ scores by gender and ethnicity.

81
Conclusions

Research Question 1. Is there a significant difference in ninth-grade students’ 2016-

2017 READ 180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores

among different ethnic groups?

The study consisted of seven Black-American students, 12 Caucasian students, and 15

Hispanic students. Black-American students’ posttest M = 572, Caucasian students’ posttest M =

478, and Hispanic students’ posttest M = 458. Caucasian students experienced a gain of 42

Lexile levels. However, Black-American students’ mean score was almost 100 points higher

than Caucasian students, but their mean decreased 48 Lexile levels. Although it appeared that

Black American students outscored Caucasian students, the between-within repeated measures

ANOVA did not show a significant difference. Using the Wilks’ Lambda data and alpha level of

.01, there was not a statistical significant difference between Black-American, Caucasian, and

Hispanic students’ 2016-2017 Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores.

Research Question 2. Is there a significant difference in READ 180 Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores in 2016-2017 between male and female

ninth-grade students?

The study included 27 males and seven females. The beginning of the year Reading

Inventory data showed males had a higher mean score than females. The difference between

males and females was 84 Lexile levels. Males’ posttest mean scores increased while females’

posttest mean scores decreased.

Males’ posttest M = 510 and females’ posttest M = 405. Using the Wilks’ Lambda data

and alpha level of .01, there was not a statistical significant difference between males’ and

82
females’ 2016-2017 Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank

Test results also revealed no significant difference between the two genders.

The number of participants in the study were not closely matched. There were almost

four times as many males than females. With a larger sample size, the study may have yielded a

different result. Woods (2007) conducted a study focusing on READ 180 and ethnicity. In his

study one group outperformed another, but similar to the current study, there was no significant

difference in the data. Thirty-nine percent of the participants in this study socio economic status

was low. These students may not have had access to reading literature or parents who assist with

school work. The socio economic status of the current participants is unknown, so similar to

Wood’s participants, these students may not have had access to any supports outside of school.

Woods was adamant that if the program is followed with fidelity, students will improve.

Implications

Several implications were observed in the study. The majority of the participants’ posttest

scores decreased. The program recommends a daily 90-minute class to complete all the

components. Students at this school receive 45 minutes of READ 180 instruction and 45

minutes of English I. Though, there was not a significant difference in the 2016-2017 Reading

Inventory data, it is possible that scores could increase if the program is followed as prescribed.

Teacher quality or program fidelity may have affected student achievement or students’

prior knowledge, background, motivation, and many other unknown factors may have had an

effect on students’ performance. The 2016-2017 school year was the first year the teacher in the

study taught READ 180. Due to the limited amount of scheduled time, the teacher may have

83
struggled incorporating the recommended literacy rotations. Having only one READ 180

teacher made collaboration and building level support nonexistent.

The concept of an experiment is to identify two identical groups of people and then

manipulate something. Unfortunately, no control group was available for this study; all at-risk

students were enrolled in the READ 180 (intervention) program; therefore, there is no group to

compare. Regrettably, research without a control group has minimal scientific value as securing

scientific evidence to make a comparison, and recording differences or contrasts is nonexistent.

Future research should include comparing READ 180 students’ achievement scores to

students in a control group with similar literacy levels who are enrolled in a traditional English I

class. There was no significant difference in pretest and posttest scores based on ethnicity. There

was no significant difference in pretest and posttest scores based on gender. Recreating the study

using a larger sample size with students with similar ability levels, ethnicity, and gender may

provide information which could lead to more data driven recommendations.

Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making is essential.

Supervisors and administrators should seek input from the READ 180 teacher regarding

strengths and weaknesses of the program and evaluate students’ test results to ensure funding and

time is being directed towards a program that is effective. A program requires more than pretest

and posttest data to determine achievement gains. This school is not limited on achievement

data, so additional assessments such as End of Course exams or universal screeners are also used

to measure student achievement. If students are moving forward towards grade-level reading,

several assessments—including READ 180—should be included in the discussion.

84
Discussion

Each school is different and the conditions are never the same from one class to the next.

The researcher analyzed on the Reading Inventory scores. The READ 180 program enrolled

more at-risk males than at-risk females. The males’ Reading Inventory posttest mean increased

more than the females; yet, not enough to make a statistical significant difference. Like Black-

American males, both Black-American females’ and Caucasian females’ mean scores decreased.

The majority of the participants that took the pretest experienced a decrease in Lexile levels on

the posttest. This could be due to student motivation, attendance, teacher fidelity, or even not

following the recommended READ 180 schedule. The Reading Inventory test consists of brief

selections of authentic fiction and nonfiction literature. After reading each passage, students

answer a cloze question using one of the multiple-choice answers provided. The pretest and

posttest questions are different and are generated by the previous answer. With the fluctuation of

the scores, more achievement data is needed about the participants in this study in order to make

an informed recommendation. Cox (2016) performed a similar study concentrating on gender

and ethnicity. The results revealed no significant difference in time and gender. Similar to

Woods’ and the current study one ethnic group outpaced the other groups, but again no statistical

significant difference.

Due to students’ overall poor performance on the Reading Inventory, district and building

leaders may want to consider an additional evaluation of READ 180 data. District leaders may

consider data such as achievement tests, End of Course Examinations, or Universal Screeners to

assess students’ learning. Adjusting the school’s master schedule so READ 180 students have

the daily recommended 90-minute instruction could impact the data on future studies. If students

85
were allotted the recommended time in the program, scores may increase. With the current

schedule, students do not receive all of the instructional components. Many READ 180 studies

have shown student gains; however, READ 180 may not be the best reading remediation

program for this school due to the limited amount of time. Zhu, Loadman, Lomax, and Moore

(2010) study included Black-America, Caucasian, and Hispanic students. Students experienced

gains, but were still reading below grade level. Parallel to this study, the researchers

acknowledged that READ 180 program’s requirement for 90 minutes of instructional time per

day was not met, which may have served as a possible explanation for students’ below grade

level performance. The aforementioned researchers concluded that READ 180 is accessible to

all students. All students have the potential to increase their Lexile levels, and typically, no one

ethnic or gender group scores statistically significantly higher.

READ 180 is not offered to sophomores; therefore, the students will not have access to

the program a second year and achievement gaps may continue to increase without differentiated

literacy interventions. An appropriate interventions may be a second year of READ 180. It is

quite possible that READ 180 is not the best reading intervention for the students at the school.

However, the publisher has made research studies and results available on the website. In 2015,

Scholastic sold the READ 180 program to HMH because the company has a larger presence and

more resources to grow the program. Vogel’s (2013) findings revealed that READ 180 was a

beneficial intervention program for secondary at-risk students, but it did not meet the numerous

affective and cognitive needs required for grade level literacy development.

The results of the study would be beneficial for educators, because they want a program

that allows all students regardless of gender and ethnicity to achieve their fullest potential.

86
READ 180 meets each learner’s unique ability level, interests, and literacy needs (phonemic

awareness, phonics, fluency, text comprehension, vocabulary, spelling, and writing). The

program offers a personalized learning path, so I did not anticipate a difference between males

and females or ethnic groups.

Limitations

The following limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. To establish

validity of the results, the study needs to be replicated. Drawing conclusions about students’

performance is impractical, without the presence of a control group.

The sample size was a limitation in the study. The study was conducted in one Middle

Tennessee school district under the direction of one teacher. Study participants attended the same

high school, which represented a convenience sample for the researcher. Students were not

randomly assigned to the program; they were selected based on their below-level reading

performance. This limitation can be overcome by expanding the number of participants or

selecting a district that has more than one READ 180 instructor. The study was limited due to

data collection from the 2016-2017 school year. The focus was on only one grade level and one

year of data. Students may not have received consistent treatments of READ 180 due to

tardiness, absences, motivation, participation, or possibly even poverty. There was an

assumption that the teacher’s instruction followed the required script with fidelity. Again,

findings from this study may not be worthwhile to other districts or states.

The researcher considered threats to internal validity such as attrition. Students may have

exited the program prior to the end of the school year. Selection should also be considered since

the participants were not selected by random sampling or random assignment. All students did

87
not have an equal chance of being in the treatment or comparison groups. Inferring causality

should be avoided when using nonrandomized designs. There were also unequal gender and

ethnic subgroups to analyze. The pretest may have sensitized participants and their performance

on the posttest due to the pretest, not to the treatment. With the current study, there was an

inability to manipulate the independent variable which would also be considered a limitation.

Additionally, the researcher was not able to access treatment fidelity, therefore, one cannot be

confident with the process.

Recommendations for Future Studies

With such a small sample of 34 participants, a replication of the study is recommended

with a larger and a more racially and gender balanced sample. This study included only one

Black American female. Many of the Hispanic participants enrolled in READ 180 program were

also English Language Learner (ELL) students. A more comprehensive evaluation of ethnic and

gender groups may be more informative on students’ academic performance. The sample is too

small to make any changes to the program without obtaining additional data. Small sample sizes

affect the reliability of the results, because it leads to higher variability. Extending the study

would provide additional achievement data and more participants and potentially increase the

reliability of the study.

A second recommendation is including a control group in the replication. A scientific

control group allows researchers to diminish the effect of all variables except the independent

variable. The control group is used as a baseline to compare groups and assess the effect of that

intervention. Without a control group, evidence of treatment effectiveness is met with caution.

Educators continually expand their knowledge and skills to employ the best educational

88
practices. As a result, students learn at the highest levels. A third recommendation is continuous

professional development for READ 180 teachers and administrators. READ 180 provides

professional development to support teachers and leaders in evaluating and improving their

instructional practices to ensure a quality program. Professional learning also ensures teachers

are building expertise with the content, instructional practices, and technology. Although

administrators are not responsible for instruction, READ 180 affords training opportunities for

building supervisors. Administrators learn what to look for in classrooms and how to support

their teachers in effective implementation which could include block scheduling or furnishing

appropriate technology. The teacher in this study had no prior READ 180 teaching experience.

The teacher was unable to meet the daily 90-minute requirement. Providing a READ 180 mentor

to collaborate, discuss curriculum, and implementation would allow the READ 180 teacher to

foster confidence and seek guidance as needed. Teacher confidence could lead to more effective

instruction and enhance learning. Students’ learning and achievement increases when educators

engage in effective professional learning centered on the skills educators need to address

students’ learning challenges.

A fourth recommendation is continued remediation programs for students beyond the

ninth grade. After completing the program, all of the participants in the study continued to have a

below-grade-level Lexile score; therefore, additional literacy support and interventions are

needed for students to reach grade-level reading goals. READ 180 is evidenced based and

provides student-focused interventions. Effective secondary literacy interventions may decrease

the annual number of students who drop out of high school if they foster the confidence and

academic skills to complete the assigned work.

89
 Lastly, the district may elect to use a variety of data to measure at-risk student

achievement. Student achievement data offers invaluable support for making good decisions

about instruction. To gain a deeper understanding of students’ learning needs, teachers need to

collect data from multiple sources, such as annual state assessments, interim district and school

assessments, classroom performance data, and other relevant data. A districtwide data system

allows teachers to aggregate data by classroom, content areas, or assignment type to identify

patterns in performance. Curriculum decisions should not be made solely from one assessment

score.

Summary

The focus of this study was to determine if there was a significant difference in READ

180 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading Inventory pretest and posttest scores. Furthermore, this

study examined whether differences existed between gender and ethnicity for READ 180

participants. The study findings revealed no statistical significant difference in pretest and

posttest scores between gender and ethnicity.

This study involved a small sample size of 34 students, with only one Black American

female participant and students were not randomly assigned to the study. These factors limited

the researcher’s ability to make valuable conclusions from the results of the study. Future

research should include a larger sample size with a control group of similar demographics and

literacy levels as READ 180 participants. Researchers may also include assessing the program

with ELL students, using more than one high school, and including middle school participants.

The results of the study revealed that students were not reading on grade level even after

a year of READ 180. After careful examination of participants’ pretest and posttest, they were

90
all reading below 1000 Lexile levels which is considered on grade level for ninth grade students.

Ninth-grade college and career ready students read 1080 Lexile levels and above. Only ninth-

grade students receive this literacy intervention, so participants in this study will continue to

struggle with fluency and comprehension, increasing their chances of quitting school without an

intervention. The students in the study were enrolled in READ 180 and a traditional English

class for 90 minutes. I would recommend students continuing READ 180 with the required 90

minutes of instruction in addition to a traditional English course or a study skills class. As a

transition plan, the school could use peer tutors or paraprofessionals to check in and assist these

students as needed. Since Early identification and proper supports will best prepare students to

be college and career ready.

91
REFERENCES

92
 REFERENCES

Allington, R. L. (2015). What really matters for middle school readers: From research to

practice. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary

instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 74(4), 506-521.

Below, J. L., Skinner, C. H., Fearrington, J. Y., & Sorrell, C. A. (2010). Gender

differences in early literacy: Analysis of kindergarten through fifth-grade

dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills Probes. School Psychology

Review, 39(2), 240-257.

Brown, R. M. (2014). Factors predicting READ 180 18-week grades among middle

school students: The role of self-efficacy, ethnicity, reading and language skills

and socioeconomic indicators (Doctoral dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3583491)

Carter, L. (2015). A secondary-level READ 180 comparison study in an urban/suburban

high school. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database. (UMI No. 3719728)

93
Chenoweth, K. (2016). ESSA offers changes that can continue learning gains. Phi

Delta Kappan, 97(8), 38-42.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its

relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for

English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical

subjects. Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Connor, C. M., Phillips, B. M., Kaschak, M., Apel, K., Kim, Y.-S., K., Al Otaiba, S.,

… Lonigan C. J. (2014). Comprehension tools for teachers: Reading for understanding

from prekindergarten through fourth grade. Education Psychology Review, 26(3), 379-

401.

Cox, A. M. (2016). Examining the effects of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's READ 180

program on reading achievement and self-efficacy in middle schools (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

10249168)

Davidson, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Scholastic’s READ 180: A heritage of research. New

York, NY: Scholastic.

DeVivo, K., & Aguhob, M. (2004). Compendium of READ 180 research. New York,

NY: Scholastic.

94
Duke, N. (2000). 3.6 Minutes per Day: The scarcity of informational texts in first

Grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202-224. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/748074

Ford, M. P., & Opitz, M. F. (2011). Looking back to move forward with guided reading.

Reading Horizons, 50(4), 225-240.

Gentry, L. (2006). An evaluation of READ 180 in an urban secondary school (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

3234282)

Gober, C. (2014). READ 180: Is it an effective reading intervention for

English language learners? (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3668712)

Grigg, W. S., Daane, M. C., Jin, Y., & Campbell, J. R. (2003). The nation’s report cards:

Reading 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences.

Hartman, J.M., & Fuller, M.L. (1997). The development of curriculum-based

measurement norms in literature-based classrooms. Journal of School Psychology, 35(4),

377-389.

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable

assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.

Hasselbring, T. S. (1999). READ 180: Proven intervention that turns lives around. New

York, NY: Scholastic.

95
Hasselbring, T. S., & Goin, L. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers:

What is the role of technology? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 123-144.

Higgins, L. G. (2009). An evaluation of the relationship between Criterion-Referenced

Competency Test reading comprehension and Lexile scores and Fountas and

Pinnell's guided reading levels in a Georgia public school district (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3359655)

Hock, M. F., & Deshler, D. D. (2003). Don’t forget the adolescents. Principal

Leadership, 4(3), 50-56.

Honig, B. (2001). Teaching our children to read: The components of an effective

comprehensive reading program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2015, May 29). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt completes

acquisition of Scholastic’s educational technology and services business for $575

million [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.hmhco.com/media-

center/press-releases/2015/may/scholastic-closing

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt READ 180. (2018). READ 180 Unlock whole-brain reading

through blended learning intervention. Retrieved from

https://www.hmhco.com/programs/read-180-universal

Hudson, R. F., Isakson, C., Richman, T., Lane, H. B., & Arriaza-Allen, S. (2011). An

examination of a small-group decoding intervention for struggling readers: Comparing

accuracy and automaticity criteria. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 15-

27.

96
Hunley, S. A., Davies, S. C., & Miller, C. R. (2013). The relationship between

curriculum-based measures in oral reading fluency and high-stakes tests for seventh

grade students. RMLE Online, 36(5), 1-8.

International Literacy Association. (1997). Position Statement on the role of phonics in

reading instruction. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-

source/where-we-stand/phonics-position-statement.pdf

Kelley, J. G., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., & Faller, S. E. (2010). Effective academic

vocabulary instruction in the urban middle school. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 5-14.

Kennedy, M. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and

students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 289-298.

Kim, J. S., Capotosto, L., Hartry, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). Can a mixed-method

literacy intervention improve the reading achievement of low-performing

elementary school students in an after-school program? Results from a

randomized controlled trial of READ 180 enterprise. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 183-201.

Klingner, J. K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Brownell, M., & Menon, S. (2010). Teaching

Reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading

comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59-74.

97
Kratofil, M. D. (2006). A comparison of the effect of Scholastic READ 180 and

traditional reading interventions on the reading achievement of middle

school low-level readers (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Central Missouri

State University. Warrensburg, Missouri.

Laerd Statistics. (2013). Retrieved from

https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/two-way-repeated-measures-anova-using-spss-

statistics.php

Lai, M., Wilson, A., McNaughton, S., & Hsiao, S. (2014). Improving achievement in

secondary schools: Impact of a literacy project on reading comprehension

and secondary school qualifications. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(3), 305-

334.

Lang, L., Torgesen, J., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., Lefsky, E., & Petscher, Y (2009). Exploring the

relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of

Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 149–175. doi:10.1080/19345740802641535

McCown, M. A., & Thomason, G. B. (2014). Informational text comprehension: Its

challenges and how collaborative strategic reading can help. Reading Improvement,

51(2), 237-253.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of

long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A

replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(1), 3-18.

98
McIntosh, K., Flannery, B., Sugai, G., Braun, D., & Cochrane, K. (2008).

Relationships between academics and problem behavior in the transition from middle

school to high school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(4), 243-255.

Meisinger, E. B., Bloom, J. S., & Hynd, G. W. (2010). Reading fluency: Implications for

the assessment of children with reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 1-17.

Melekoglu, M. (2011). Impact of motivation to read on reading gains for struggling

readers with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,

34(4), 248-261.

Meltzer, J., & Okashige, S. (2001). First literacy, then learning. Principal Leadership,

2(2), 16-21.

MetaMetrics. (2014). Lexile framework for reading. Retrieved from

https://cdn.lexile.com/cms_page_media/135/The%20Lexile%20Framework%20for%20R

eading.pdf

Miller, C. (2014). The effect of participation in READ 180 on sixth grade students’

reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=the+effect+of+participation+in+read+180+

on+sixth+grade+students%27+reading+achievement&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C43&as_sdtp

Nagy, W., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word meanings from context

during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 237–270.

99
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading

2011. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC:

Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The Nation’s Report Card:

A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading. Institute of Education Sciences,

U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: Author.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State

School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.

National Reading Panel & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

(2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific

research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NICHD

Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: Author.

Nave, J. (2007). An assessment of READ 180 regarding its association with the

academic achievement of at-risk students in Sevier County schools (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2107

Parker, C. A., Holland, G., & Jones, D. (2013, March). The effectiveness of two reading

intervention programs in a south Texas urban school district. National

Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 1-9.

Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S.

(1995). Listening to children read aloud: Oral fluency. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

100
Plony, D. A. (2013). The effects of READ 180 on student achievement (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

3563453)

Proctor, C. P., Daley, S., Louick, R., Leider, C. M., & Gardner, G. L. (2014). How

motivation and engagement predict reading comprehension among native English-

speaking and English-learning middle school students with disabilities in a remedial

reading curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 76-83. doi:

10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.014

Rakestraw, K. R. (2013). The impact of the READ 180 program on response to

intervention (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/757

Rashotte, C., & Torgesen, J. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in

learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 180-188. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/747754

READ 180 (2010). A decade of proven effectiveness. Retrieved from

http://tuckersclass.wikispaces.com/file/view/R180ExecRevFall09.pdf

Rector, W. J. (2016). Teachers' perceptions about response to intervention reading

strategies for at-risk students (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/2869/

101
Resmovits, J. (2011). National math reading test scores show sluggish

growth, sustained achievement gaps. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/national-math-reading-test-scores-

2011_n_1068474.html

Schenck, A., Feighan, K., Coffey, D., & Rui, N. (2011). Memphis Striving Readers

Project evaluation report, Year 4. Washington, DC: Research for Better

Schools & RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/memphiseval32011.pdf

Scholastic, Inc. (2005a). READ 180: America’s premier reading intervention program

for elementary through high school. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic, Inc. (2005b). READ 180: Teacher implementation guide. New York, NY:

Author. Scholastic, Inc. (2014). Compendium of READ 180 research (Item #

632143). New York, NY: Author.

Slavin, R., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for

middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research

Quarterly, 43(3), 290-322.

Smith, K. J. (2012). Impact of READ 180 on adolescent struggling readers (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/355

Smith, S. J., & Okolo C. (2010). Response to intervention and evidence-based

practices: Where does technology fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4),

257-272.

102
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Selected housing characteristics, 2007-2011 American

Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_

11_5YR_DP04

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works

Clearinghouse (2009). Adolescent Literacy intervention report: READ 180. Retrieved

from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_read180_102009.pdf

Vogel, J. (2013). A case study on the impact of the READ 180 reading intervention

program on affective and cognitive reading skills for at-risk secondary level

students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/654

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changes over time in the

early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. A report of findings from the

National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition

Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at

www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_06/nlts2_report_2005_06_complet e.pdf

Wei, T., Liu, X., & Barnard-Brak, L. (2015). Gender differences in mathematics and

reading trajectories among children from kindergarten to eighth grade. Research in

Education, 93(1), 77-89.

Woods, D. E. (2007). An investigation of the effects of a middle school reading

intervention on school dropout rates (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04192007 222847/unrestricted/Dissertation.pdf

103
Yurchak, S. M. (2013). The effect of READ 180 on the reading achievement of struggling

readers in a large, public, urban high school in northern New Jersey (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

3613825)

Zhu, J., Loadman, W., Lomax, R., & Moore, R. (2010). Evaluating intervention effects of

Scholastic READ 180 on low-achieving incarcerated youth. Evanston, IL: Society for

Research on Educational Effectiveness.

104