Grapin et al. (2018) explained the implementation process of one elementary school’s RtI and the learners’ extended reading understanding consequences after exposure to different implementation stages. The study found that students exposed to the early RtI implementation phases during Grade 2 reported increased mean understanding marks in Grades 4 and 5 compared to those in standard circumstances. According to Grapin et al. (2018), indispensable RtI models’ features focus on outcomes for all learners, a tiered model of instructional reinforcements, systematic use of evaluation data to determine instruction’s effectiveness, and evidence-based practices implementation for essential instruction and intervention. Other features include recurrent collective screening to recognize learners needing additional intensive support and progress monitoring of development and evolution in interventions.
Brokamp et al. (2018) investigated the relationships among learners’ reading performance, their conduct in the classroom, and the instructor’s abilities. Learners’ reading performance and their classroom behavior are meaningfully interconnected. Brokamp et al. (2018) underlined that improved reading performance at the start of the school year closely correlates with improved conduct at the end of the school year. In turn, improved conduct at the start of the school year aligns with improved reading performance at the end. According to Brokamp et al. (2018), instructors can improve students’ behavior by offering superior reading teaching. Nonetheless, some instructor skills have differential impacts on the different behavioral features.
On the other hand, Cruz et al. (2023) examined the influence of Tier-2 reading fluency intervention abilities and incentives among 3rd-grade vulnerable learners. Accordingly, the intervention considerably enhanced word reading correctness and reading fluency marks in the intervention group compared to the control group. The study findings also indicated a slight reduction in the gap between the intervention and control groups, but no significant effects on motivation were observed. Thus, Tier-2 reading fluency interventions can prevent the growth of insistent reading challenges. Similarly, Cadime et al. (2022) assessed gains’ existence in word reading, verbal reading fluency, and listening understanding after Tier-2 intervention utilizing the digital tool “I’m still learning.” The study underlined that the gains did not rely on learners’ sex, intervention sittings attended, or interventions. According to Cadime et al. (2022), parents support remote intervention. Exploiting technology-based interventions can promote reading abilities. Cadime et al. (2022) underlined that RtI models offer a line of action about evaluation or appraisal and intervention in different capacities, such as reading.
Zimmerman et al. (2019) examined the efficacy of the Fluency Development Lesson (FDL) in advancing reading, which was realized in primary-grade struggling readings. The study underlined that teaching learners to read well is an essential duty of education. Word decoding is a vital influence in reading progression. Learners struggling with word decoding can improve their reading, improving reading comprehension. According to Zimmerman et al. (2019), word decoding precision is inadequate for talented reading and should be the aim or objective of reading instruction. The FDL can advance word decoding automaticity among learners whose reading difficulty stems from word decoding challenges. Thus, reading specialists and interventionalists should use the FDL as an intervention approach for such learners.
Kim et al. (2020) investigated and identified influential variables associated with single-subjective reading interventions for struggling readers. They identified participant-related and intervention-related variables with significant impacts on grade stages, disability kinds, implementer, and session length. Reading interventions for struggling readers can improve their basic skills. Kim et al. (2020) underlined that learners who fail to read successfully at an early age have an increased chance of struggling with general reading skills throughout their lives. Thus, effective reading intervention strategies in their early education paths are vital. Kim et al. (2020) recommended on-time screening and early interventional strategy for such vulnerable learners to decrease possibly more critical adverse impacts and deficits likely to follow. Wanzek et al. (2018) also recommended intensive reading interventions for students identified or at risk of reading difficulties.
Naveenkumar et al. (2021) investigated the quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) reading fluency intervention analyses utilizing the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards. Accordingly, reading fluency is a fundamental skill for becoming proficient in reading. Two factors, automaticity, and language prosodic features, support its development. Augmented usage of more demanding procedural designs may partially describe the reduced effect sizes. According to Truckenmiller and Brehmer (2020), US learning institutions need help creating effective systems to offer supplemental instructions for learners struggling to meet academic expectations. The incentive for this increased emphasis in the US stems from decades of inquiry and progressing national and state laws. These guidelines focus on increasing early reading intervention access to prevent later reading challenges and advance learning disabilities identification.
Gersten et al. (2020) determined the efficacy of reading interventions on word and pseudoword reading measures, passage fluency, and reading understanding. Besides, the study determined the role played by intervention and study variables in controlling the effects for learners vulnerable to reading challenges in Grades 1-3. Accordingly, early intervention addresses different facets of foundational reading, including decoding, passage reading fluency, phonological awareness, encoding (spelling), and writing. Interventions comprising instruction on phonological consciousness are linked with considerably reduced influences, whereas those addressing encoding and writing yield considerably superior effect magnitudes.
My research question is, “What is the relationship between RtI, student engagement, and reading fluency?” The literature review provided more background information on my research questions, such as how reading interventions improve word and pseudoword reading. Existing studies suggest a close correlation between reading interventions and improved reading. For instance, Cruz et al. (2023) implemented a Tier-2 reading fluency intervention that significantly improved word reading correctness and reading fluency scores. A similar study by Grapin et al. (2018) found that early learners who experienced the early stages of RtI implementation during Grade 2 reported superior understanding scores in Grades 4 and 5 compared to learners in the standard conditions.
The study will employ an experimental research design that will be performed objectively and controlled to maximize its accuracy and draw specific conclusions about the research question. The research method will include two groups of students, in which one group will be subject to a reading intervention and the control group will not. In the end, both groups will be tested for their reading fluency and comprehension to determine the effectiveness of the reading intervention.
The research study on the relationship between RtI, student engagement, and reading fluency will offer a learning paradigm for higher education learning institutions among academicians and researchers, boosting their background knowledge in this study area. Besides, it will add to the existing body of knowledge, providing much-needed empirical evidence on the topic. Lastly, it will form the basis for future studies by defining potential future research directions.
References
Brokamp, S. K., Houtveen, A. A., & van de Grift, W. J. (2018). The relationship among students’ reading performance, classroom behavior, and teacher skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1411878
Cadime, I., Ribeiro, I., Cruz, J., Cosme, M. do, Meira, D., Viana, F. L., & Santos, S. (2022). An intervention in reading disabilities using a digital tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862383
Cruz, J., Mendes, S., Alves, D., Marques, S., & Cadime, I. (2023). Fluency training for struggling readers: Examining the effects of a tier-2 intervention in third graders. Education Sciences, 13(9), 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090908
Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020a). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1689591
Grapin, S. L., Waldron, N., & Joyce‐Beaulieu, D. (2018). Longitudinal effects of RTI implementation on reading achievement outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 56(2), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22222
Kim, D., An, Y., Shin, H. G., Lee, J., & Park, S. (2020). A meta-analysis of single-subject reading intervention studies for struggling readers: Using improvement rate difference (IRD). Heliyon, 6(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05024
Naveenkumar, N., Georgiou, G. K., Vieira, A. P., Romero, S., & Parrila, R. (2021). A systematic review on quality indicators of randomized control trial reading fluency intervention studies. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 38(4), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2021.1961647
Truckenmiller, A. J., & Brehmer, J. S. (2020). Making the most of tier 2 intervention: What decisions are made in successful studies? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(3), 240–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1768612
Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775110
Zimmerman, B. S., Rasinski, T. V., Was, C. A., Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., Kruse, S. D., & Nikbakht, E. (2019). Enhancing outcomes for struggling readers: Empirical analysis of the fluency development lesson. Reading Psychology, 40(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2018.1555365
write