1 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

EDPS 658
Reading difficulties at the word decoding level
and tier II, leveled literacy intervention
Jacqueline Munroe
University of Calgary






2 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

Specific Reading Disability and Levelled Literacy Intervention
Failing to learn to read, is the main reason for primary student retention (Stein, Johnson
& Gutlohn, 1999). Among children served in special educational programs, 80% experience
reading problems specific to the word decoding stage (Lerner, 1989, Kavale & Reese, 1992; as
cited in Lyon, 2003). Over 40 years of research has focused on the deficits of decoding and
single word reading ability in children with reading disabilities, as allocating cognitive processes
to word decoding decreases cognitive availability for reading comprehension (Stanovich, 1994;
as cited in 2003). Specific reading disability is characterized by deficits in fluent and accurate
word recognition skills, as well as deficits in decoding and spelling (2003). This paper will
discuss the theory and neurobiological basis of specific reading disability as poor phonological
skills is often the main area of weakness in beginning readers (2003). In 2002, the No Child Left
Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2007; as cited in Fletcher & Vaughn, 2008) allotted
specific funding for at risk populations, allowing an emphasis to be placed on early reading
intervention programs through a Response to Intervention model (RTI). I have chosen to
evaluate a tier II, evidence based reading program by Fountas and Pinnell (1996) in order to
implement the 12 step best practice system for intervention proposed by Upah and Tilly (2002).
While the Fountas and Pinnell system (1996) does target skills of phonological processing
(critical in specific reading disability) it is very much a program of the Less Simple View of
Reading, where reading involves much more than simply decoding text and listening to oneself
read (Gough & Tunmer,1986; as cited in Gutkin & Reynolds, 2009). However, this paper will
first briefly discuss associative processes of reading, neurological underpinning, as well as how
RTI through evidence based research, may work to remediate high risk children who may
otherwise go on to diagnosed with a reading disability.
3 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

Reading Ability
The associative learning process of reading and speaking assumes that a child has a basic
understanding that language is represented in written words, is composed of letters, and is read
left to right (Vellutino et al., 2004). While reading, many cognitive processes are at play. Visual
coding processes facilitate storage of graphic symbols followed by linguistic coding which takes
place in the form of speech codes (phonological coding) to represent words (2004). Semantic and
morphological coding stores information related to word meaning and syntactic coding stores
information relevant to word order rules. Pragmatic coding stores conventions of language in
communication (2004). Each of these linguistic and visual processes works together and creates
associations between spoken and written words. As heavy demand is placed on visual memory
when viewing words (due to similar characteristics) an understanding of the alphabetic principle
(letter-sound decoding) must also be in place to reduce the load on visual memory (2004).
Reading difficulties have been proposed to results from deficits in one of the many coding
systems with phonological challenges being linked to working memory deficits (Blachman,
1997; as cited in 2004).
Neurobiological Basis of Specific Reading Disability
Approximately 65% of children with specific reading disability have family members
who experience similar difficulties (Lyon, 2003). Studies using fMRIs have located the
following neural areas active during tasks of word reading (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2008);
Brocas area, located in the left anterior system is involved in articulation and word analysis. The
parietotemporal region is located posteriorly and is also involved in word analysis (studies have
implicated it in word decoding deficits). The occipitotemporal region, also located posteriorly is
4 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

involved in rapid and fluent word formulation (Cohen et al., 2000; as cited in 2008). Shaywitz et
al. (2002) conducted an fMRI study involving 144 dyslexic and typically developing children.
Both groups were asked to read pseudowords and real words (2008). Greater left hemisphere
activation was recorded in the control group during phonological analysis in the anterior and
posterior sites (2002; as cited in 2008). In individuals with specific reading disability, an over
activation in Brocas area and an under activation in the posterior systems, have been noted
(2008).
After developing an understanding of the neural systems involved in specific reading
disability, the next step is to identify the neural plasticity of these systems, when exposed to
effective, evidence based interventions (Lyon, Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2003). Shaywitz et al.
(2004) provided individuals with specific reading disability, a phonologically mediated, evidence
based intervention for early reading skills development. Grade 2 and 3 students were placed in
one of three experimental groups and neural imaging was conducted pre, post, and 1 year after
intervention (2003). The reading disabled community intervention group received supports
typically provided in the school setting (systematic phonological interventions). The
experimental group provided reading disabled students with 50 minutes of daily individual and
explicit systematic instruction that focused on alphabetic principles (how letters and letter
combinations represented phonemes) (as cited in 2003). One year later, fMRIs revealed
activation of posterior brain regions in the experimental group which had not been there in pre-
intervention imaging (as cited in 2003). These findings suggests that the use of evidence based
intervention programs which target phonological reading intervention enhances the anterior and
posterior neural systems in poor readers to what would typically be observed in skilled readers
5 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

(2003). However, further long term implications are needed, and extensive research must be
conducted before evidence becomes more conclusive (Samuels & Farstrup, 2006).
Response to Intervention
In the 2001, No Child Left Behind Act, evidence based practice (ensuring children are
getting the treatment they need) became popular for many professionals who worked within the
elementary school setting (Justice, 2006). U.S states began focusing on particular expectations
for each school level. For example, kindergarten students should be expected to master phonemic
awareness (alphabetic principle, mapping sounds to latters) (Pressley et al., 2009; as cited in
Gutkin & Reynoleds, 2009). Young children, at risk for Reading Disorders, are met with a
Response to Intervention (RTI) approach (3 tiered) in which highest quality instruction is the
base of the pyramid, delivered to all children beginning in elementary school. One such program,
Guided Reading, will be further described as a tier I program, with tier II extensions.
Evidence Based Interventions and Levelled Literacy Intervention
Guided Reading is a school wide instructional reading program where children are
levelled as indicated by Fountas and Pinnel (1996) Benchmark assessments. An A to Z gradient
based on reading accuracy and comprehension is used to determine the exact instructional level
of that student for appropriate, quality reading instruction. These levels are compared to
predicted outcomes given student grade and month at school (for example, at the end of grade 1
student should be around level J). If children in grades K-2 are significantly below level (2-3)
they may require tier II intervention of Levelled Literacy Intervention (LLI). Beyond 3 levels,
tier III intervention may be necessary (Pinnell, Fountas & Heinemann, 2010).
6 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

LLI is effectively tier II of the Guided Reading program. It is an intensive, short term,
supplemental reading program designed for students in K-2 who are struggling readers as
indicated by Benchmark levels (Ransford-Kaldon, Flynt & Ross, 2011). Systematic and explicit
instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary are applied
during this instruction.
12 Component Model for Best Practice in Interventions
Behavioural Definition
Children, who are below grade level readers in grade 1 show a .88 probability of being
below grade level in grade 4 (Stein, Johnson & Gutlohn, 1999). Although, specific reading
disability should target phonics instruction in particular, it is ideally integrated with phonemic
awareness instruction, fluency, and comprehension (Foorman & Moats, 2004) as per the less
simple view of reading, currently gaining momentum (Gutkin & Reynolds, 2009). According to
Upah and Tilly (2002), best practice interventions begin with problem identification. Paiges (my
student of interest) instructional reading level is B. She is at the pre-alphabetic stage
(characterized by incomplete phonemic awareness, lack of knowledge about the alphabetic
system) as per the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmarks. Target level for a grade 1 student during the
beginning months of school would be D to E. Examples of target behaviour include an inability
to identify complex digraphs such as sh or ch or more complex vowel systems and frequent
confusion of similarly spelt words spoon skin. The target goal of intervention is to bring
Paige up to full alphabetic stage (level D-J) in an intensive 18 week, small group instructional
period, where tier II intervention can be completed.
Baseline Data
7 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

Paiges current level of performance is assessed in September using the Fountas and
Pinnell (1996) Benchmark system. Her instructional reading level is where reading occurs with
90-94% accuracy and satisfactory comprehension. As Guided Reading Benchmarks are also used
to place children in their appropriate reading groups for effective tier I reading instruction, initial
data is collected by the classroom teacher. Similarly, data from the Dynamic Indicator of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) will be used to assess fluency measures before intervention
begins. Both pre and post Benchmark scores will be aligned with the DIBELS to support
measures of reading achievement (Ransford-Kaldon, Flynt & Ross, 2011).
Problem Validation
An A-Z gradient based on standards by the New Standards Project (Learning Research
and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh) was used to develop English language arts
standards for each grade by Fountas and Pinnel text level (Resnick and Hampton, 2009; as cited
in Pinnell, Fountas & Heinemann, 2010). This gradient assesses Paiges reading compared to
same age peers. For example falling between Benchmark levels A-D would be expected at the
kindergarten level. Since Paige, a grade 1 student is at level B; her peers have surpassed her in
reading ability. Intensive, tier II, LLI instruction should be implemented in order to bring Paige
up to current grade 1 reading levels.
Problem Analysis Steps
1) The underlying question in the problem analysis is to identify why Paige is below
grade 1 level in skills of phonemic awareness (pre-alphabetic stage). Comprehensive data
collection uncovers that Paige, a first nations student, comes from a single mother, with low
socioeconomic status, and familial patterns of LD. Kindergarten reports indicate that Paige
8 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

entered kindergarten with a limited vocabulary when compared to same age peers (possibly due
to emphasis of listening and observing prevalent in the first nations culture). Paige may be less
able to identify units of speech sounds due to limited language exposure.
2) Unknown variables which may be relevant to the problem and require further testing
include, expressive language ability, visual acuity, auditory processing, cognitive and attention
measures and ineffective kindergarten phonics instruction (gathered from teacher observations
during English classes).
3) After ruling out the unknown variables, a hypothesis may say, Paiges below grade
level phonological processing skills may be occurring due to environmental and genetic risk
factors. An explicit, small group phonics approach will be used in tier II, intensive LLI
instruction, in which letter-sound associations (including vowels and digraphs) will be
strengthened and then blended together.
Goal
Fortunately, this particular school is already implementing a tier I and II reading program
based on the schools high risk clientele. The next step is to identify the desired outcome for
Paiges reading achievement. Therefore, in 18 weeks, after intense LLI instruction has occurred,
Paige will be reading within a grade 1 level (between levels of D-J) and will have mastered
sounds produced by digraphs and complex vowel patterns. She will have progressed to the
alphabetic stage of reading.
Plan Implementation
9 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

Paige will be given intensive LLI instruction, by Mme. Diane Benoit, each day for 30
minutes after first bell in the balanced literacy room. The 30 minutes of LLI instruction will
focus on phonics instruction, word work and reading texts at her designated instructional level.
Initial Benchmark data, collected by Paiges classroom teacher, will be gathered and inputted (by
the literacy specialist) into the computer system to monitor progress throughout the year. During
the LLI sessions, interval assessment data will be collected every other day by Mme. Diane
Benoit. One reading record collected every 6 days will also be inputted into the computer data
management system. Further Benchmark data collection will be done by Mme. Diane Benoit, in
December and again in March at the end of the 18 week, tier II, LLI intervention.
Measurement Strategy, Decision Making Plan, and Problem Evaluation
At the center of evidence based instruction is systematic monitoring of student progress
(Samuels & Farstrup, 2006). In order to determine if the plan is working and Paige is making
strides in the area of phonemic awareness, ongoing formative assessment, interval data and
reading records will be collected by the LLI specialist. Accelerated reading growth is tracked and
documented through the LLI data management system which provides monitoring, reporting and
graphing, of Paiges progress. Benchmark data collections can determine if Paige is increasing
her Benchmark levels, and decreasing the gap between her reading ability and those of same age
peers (moving on to a level C from B for example). If treatment integrity is strong, the LLI
intervention should work for Paige, as research has found that systematic phonics instruction (a
part of this LLI instruction) is effective, even at the neurological level (Shaywitz et al., 2004). If
Paige makes minimal progress, the LLI program will be attempted again for an additional 18
weeks of intensive support. If Paige fails to achieve grade level expectations by the end of
10 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

primary grades, further assessment may be necessary to rule out an LD. If this is found to be the
case, special educational services will be provided (tier III intervention) (Justice, 2006).
Progress Monitoring and Formative Evaluation
Assessment monitoring occurs throughout the LLI instruction, to determine whether or
not the intervention is likely to be successful when gathering data from Benchmark assessments
mid-year. If success does not appear to be occurring, the formative evaluation will guide the LLI
instruction to where the emphasis needs to be (for example, a child is having difficulty with
particular complex vowel sounds and intervention must step back to these sounds to achieve
mastery. Accelerated reading growth is tracked and documented through the LLI Data
Management system.
Treatment Integrity
Implementation fidelity is measured using the Language Literacy Intervention
Observation Tool (LLIOT). A four point scale with 20 items used to assess treatment integrity. T
tests were conducted to assess differences in treatment integrity during the pre and post-test
observations (Ransford-Kaldon, Flynt & Ross, 2011). In the case of Paige and Mme. Benoit, no
significant differences were found (Quality of LLI instruction, Literacy Instructional Strategies).
Learning Environment scale did improve significantly, purportedly due to familiarity with
materials (2011). Mme. Benoit ensured that treatment was carried out, even during her absence
from school. One particular replacement teacher, with specific LLI training (CDs and
professional development) was brought in to deliver high quality intervention in her absence.
Similarly, treatment times were always rescheduled to accommodate for extra-curricular events
11 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

such as swimming or presentations. In this way, treatment was delivered with consistency and
integrity each day.
Summative Evaluation
Paiges baseline performance was compared against her post-treatment Benchmark
performance in order to determine if the treatment did in fact bring her up to a grade appropriate
reading level. Baseline Benchmark data collected in September placed Paige at the B level, or
pre-alphabetic stage of reading. Post intervention data collection (March Benchmark) revealed
Paige had progresses to the F Benchmark level, well within grade level expectations. Paige has
gained skills of digraph blends as well as complex vowel systems and is able to move back into
tier I reading intervention (Guided Reading program only). Paige will need to be monitored for
treatment maintenance, at the tier I level. This will be achieved through mid and end of year
Benchmark comparisons of same age peers for the next two years to ensure she has made gains
necessary to progress with same age peers.
As early intervention, LLI is coherently and consistently aligned with the framework on
which the National Assessment of Educational Progress is based in addition to carefully
sequenced and structured phonemic awareness, phonics, and word analysis lesson (Pinnell,
Fountas & Heinemann, 2010, p.1). Findings reveal that LLI instruction can positively and
significantly impact struggling readers when compared to classroom instruction alone (Ransford-
Kaldon, Flynt & Ross, 2011). Special education students have also shown strong and significant
positive effects of LLI instruction (2011). Overall, students enhanced reading achievement
between 1.5-5 benchmark levels by the end of intensive LLI instruction as compared to less than
1-3 Benchmark levels in the regular instructional setting (2011). Lastly, students in LLI finished
12 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

their reading instruction at appropriate reading level goals (compared to same age peers) (2011).
Overall, the Fountas and Pinnel Benchmark system and LLI seems to be a positive step in the
implementation of effective, evidence based instructional techniques, at the tier I and II levels.





















13 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

Works Cited
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating
academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37.
Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in
early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 51-60.
Fountas, I. P. (2013). Heinemann | Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (BAS).
Retrieved from Heinemann:
http://www.heinemann.com/fountasandpinnell/BAS2_overview.aspx
Gutkin, T. B. & Reynolds, C. R. (2009). The handbook of school psychology, fourth edition.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of
reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(4), 284.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia.Annals of
dyslexia, 53(1), 1-14.
Ransfor-Kaldon, C., Flynt, E., Sutton, E., & Ross, C. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of a
response-to-intervention (RTI) tier 2 literacy program: Levelled literacy instruction
(LLI). Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Samuels, S. J., & Farstrup, A. E. (2006). What research has to say about fluency instruction.
International Reading Association, 2006.
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). Paying attention to reading: The neurobiology of
reading and dyslexia. Development and psychopathology,20(04), 1329-1349.
Stein, M., Johnson, B., & Gutlohn, L. (1999). Analyzing beginning reading programs the
relationship between decoding instruction and text. Remedial and Special
Education, 20(5), 275-287.
Upah, K., & Tilly, D.W. (2002). Best practices in designing, implementing, and evaluating
14 Running Head: READING DIFFICULTIES AND LLI TIER II INTERVENTION

quality interventions. In Thomas, A. & Grimes, J. (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology (pp. 483- 506). Bethesda, MD: NAPS Publication.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading
disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?. Journal of child
psychology and psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40.