DBI Project Presentation

Hannah Kinnamon, Fall '14, EDSP 743, Dr. Knackendoffel

Caleb is a boy in the second grade and the youngest of six. He was born in Manhattan as were his other 5 brothers. His dad works full time and his mother stays at home and takes care of all their busy schedules and the home. They are involved, loving parents, but are busy with their 6 children and do the best they can to attend parent teacher conferences and reply to emails or return messages. Two of his brothers, one in 4th grade and one in 6th, struggled in reading but received interventions and are now performing at their grade level. Caleb struggles with his reading and spelling and his classroom teacher has noticed that the gap separating him from his peers is growing wider. When he reads aloud he sounds very choppy and he struggles with decoding words. His ability to use strategies during his reading is obsolete. He struggles to remember details and main points of his reading. He does not have the automaticity that his peers have grasped even with short everyday words. He is very hyperactive and cannot seem to keep his hands to himself. He is fairly disruptive, especially as the day goes on. He is always out of his seat walking around or messing with things around the room. He is a pleasant, confident child and gets along with his peers well. He is the first one out the door for recess and the last one to line up when the whistle is blown. He enjoys some of the tasks they do throughout the day but gets frustrated when it is reading and writing time which occurs during the morning. When Caleb ‘reads to self’ during centers, he chooses books that are not on an appropriate independent or instructional level and makes up the words according to what he sees in the pictures. He has memorized books that have been read aloud to him often and chooses these books as well because he knows the story line.

RTI Process

Caleb was identified because of his low achievement scores on school wide tests/screenings. Once he was identified we implemented Read Naturally program and when he wasn't making the adequate progress we added in Quick Reads program. He ended up reaching beyond his goal.

CBM Measure

R-CBM - This assesses Caleb's reading fluency by measuring his WRC (words read correctly) per minute. To figure out where Caleb needs to start, he reads a passage for 1 minute and the teacher marks down any errors (inserted words, words skipped over, mispronounced, etc) You do this a series of 3 times to get the mean score for his baseline. We progress monitor him once a week where he only reads one passage for 1 minute to determine his ROI (rate of improvement).


Caleb fell into the 10%ile which is 17 WRC. This is far below the norm (50%ile) which is about 62 WRC for his age group.


The goal I decided most appropriate for Caleb at the end of 14 weeks was 43 WRC. This was the best option over the others (basing it off the norming charts) because it is pushing him for high achievement but in a realistic state. The End of The Year Performance Goal calculated at 31 which would still leave him in the insufficient ROI Growth Norm for his grade level.

Big image

Phases of Intervention

Read Naturally was implemented first. It involves repeated reading and modeling. Caleb began to slowly progress but not at the rate we needed him to be. We started at a first grade reading level and when he started to improve, we began using 2nd grade reading material, which he began struggling with.


We then added in Quick Reads. It focuses on use of high frequency words and common phonetic patterns. He reads through each passage multiple times until he is successful at it. His ROI began to flourish and he beat his goal at the end of the 14 weeks by 9 WRC!.

Interventions and Materials

I chose both of these programs, Read Naturally and Quick Reads, because they were research based strategies that improved reading fluency for primary grades which was the focus for Caleb's intervention. I liked that Quick Reads were informational text that broadened their background knowledge while they were practicing their reading. I also liked how Read Naturally had the student listen to the recorded passage first before reading it on their own. Modeling is important to a students success because they need to hear appropriate pacing, pronouncing of words and prosody. I liked how they both incorporated repeated reading because the student can master a passage and gain self efficacy and confidence.

Research Support - Quick Reads

There have been two studies done with QuickReads which consisted of 1,000 students half of whom were receiving the intervention and the other half of whom were not. The results proved that with the combination of the sets of passages along with a consistent use of instructional routine it proved to produce significantly positive effects on the fluency and comprehension of the students using the QuickReads strategy. Students improved regardless of their native language or beginning achievement levels (Hiebert).


Hiebert, E. (n.d.). The Research on QuickReads. The QuickReads Program, 3-4.

Research Support - Read Naturally

A. Repeated reading can change a child’s attitude and improve motivation because it is ‘mastery learning’ and they are finally able to read text, understand it and enjoy it. Progress monitoring includes setting a goal for the student and providing consistent, continual feedback on their progress. This too helps boost morale and motivation when the students can visually see how far they’ve come. The National Reading Panel (2000) outlines the essential components of reading which include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, all of which are supported by the Read Naturally Program. A study was done at a University where 39% of the students who were using the Read Naturally intervention scored better than the control group who was not receiving the intervention.


Welcome to Read Naturally. (2014, January 1). Retrieved November 30, 2014, from http://www.readnaturally.com/


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office