Word_sort_Building_fluency_th

WORD SORT: BUILDING FLUENCY THROUGH DECODING
A THESIS
Presented to the Department of
Advanced Studies in Education and Counseling
California State University, Long Beach
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Education Specialist in School Psychology
Committee Members:
Kristin Powers, Ph.D. (Chair)

Brandon Gamble, Ed.D.
Anne Duran, Ph.D.
College Designee:
Marquita Grenot-Scheyer, Ph.D.
By Ivan Silva
B.A., 2013, California State University, Bakersfield
August 2016
ProQuest Number: 10142972
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 10142972
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). 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
ABSTRACT
WORD SORT: BUILDING FLUENCY THROUGH DECODING
By
Ivan Silva
August 2016
This study examined the effectiveness of an evidenced-based reading intervention, Word
Sort, with bilingual students receiving Dual Immersion education. This study expands upon the
existing research on Word Sort by examining its impact on bilingual students’ reading fluency.
The following research question was proposed: Is Word Sort an effective intervention with
bilingual (Dual Immersion) students who are struggling early readers? A visual analysis and
effect size of participants’ data across baseline and treatment conditions found that all three
participants’ Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) improved. This suggests that Word Sort is a
promising intervention for bilingual, Dual Immersion students with reading delays.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge those that contributed to this thesis:
First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Powers, my committee chair. I would like to
give you my most sincere and greatest appreciation for the unwavering support and
encouragement you have provided me throughout the course the of this study/thesis. All the time
and energy invested in my thesis is greatly valued and appreciated.
To my committee members Dr. Gamble and Dr. Duran, I thank you for your
unconditional support and guidance you have provided me throughout these years. Dr. Gamble, I
greatly value your insight and your wealth of knowledge in the field of school psychology. Dr.
Duran, you have always been supportive through my ungraduated training and also now in my
graduate training. For that, you have my greatest appreciation.
Above all, I would like to thank my parents and siblings for their support and
encouragement throughout this process. I don’t know how I would have done this without your
support.
To Benjamin Corbitt and John Karras, I humbly give you my thanks for the editing and
feedback you have provided me with regards to my writing.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge Ivonne Valdovinos Macias, Patricia Marquez,
David Komatz, Courtney Petty, my three research participants, and the Patrick Henry Dual
Language Elementary School’s second grade teachers.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF TABLES..………..……………………………………………………………………...v
LIST OF FIGURES..………………………………..……………………………………...…….vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………...vii
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………………..9
3. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….……………..….19
4. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………......…27
5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECCOMENDATIONS……………………......…41
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………...........48
A. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………...49
B. INFORMED CONSENT FORMS……………………………………………………….52
C. CHILD ASSENT FORM………………………………………………………………...56
D. AGENCY LETTER……………………………………………………………………...58
E. RESEARCH PROTOCOL………………………………………………………………60
F. TREATMENT INTEGRITY CHECKLIST……………………………………………..65
G. BEA PROTOCOL……………………………………………………………………….68
H. IRB APPROVAL LETTER……………………………………………………………...76
I. IRB PHONE SCRIPT……………………………………………………………………79
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..81
iv
LIST OF TABLES
1. Student Inclusionary Data………………………………………………………………..22
2. Error Pattern Analysis Across All Participants…………………………………………..31
3. Abby’s Effect Size……………………………………………………………………….33
4. Jasmine’s Effect Size…………………………………………………………………….37
5. Lily’s Effect Size……………………………………………………………………...…40
v
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Multi-baseline design……………………………………………………..……………...28
2. Abby’s BEA……………………………………………………………………………...30
3. Abby’s response to intervention……………………………………………………...…32
4. Jasmine’s BEA…………………………………………………………………………...35
5. Jasmine’s response to intervention…………………………………………………...…36
6. Lily’s response to intervention…………………………………………………….……39
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ORF Oral Reading Fluency
RtI Response to Intervention
MTSS Multi-Tier System of Support
DI Dual Immersion
EBIs Evidenced Based Interventions
CBM Curriculum Based Measure
GOM General Outcome Measure
CLD Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
SES Socioeconomic Status
ELL English Language Learner
BEA Brief Experimental Analysis
PM Progress Monitoring
EA Error Analysis
SLA Survey Level Assessment
NLP National Literacy Panel
CREDE Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence
WCPM Words Read Correct Per Minute
vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Literacy instruction is an important component of education. The ability to read is highly
predictive of future academic success (Palumbo & Kramer-Vida, 2012). One in 3 students will
continue to struggle to read by third grade and approximately 40% of fourth graders will fail to
meet basic reading level standards (Kamps et al., 2007). Education disparities in reading
achievement outcomes (achievement gap) across groups (e.g., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, disability, etc.) of students persist despite decades of empirical research and large-scale
efforts to address this problem (Palumbo & Kramer-Vida, 2012; Strunk & McEachin, 2014).
Therefore, it is important to address the components that comprise literacy development.
The National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) in its 2008 synthesis of the research on early
literacy development identified five critical areas of literacy development: phonological
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Brown, 2014; Calderon, Slavin, &
Sanchez, 2011; Lyon, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Chhabra, 2005). Further, Brown (2014) contends
that these skills are interconnected and interdependent on one another. The process of learning to
read follows a sequential pattern of reading behaviors. In the early stages of reading, children
learn to read through an awareness of and the manipulation of the individual letter sounds in
spoken language (Carson, Gillon, & Boustead, 2013). Progressively, children’s literacy skills
develop into the linking of letter sounds to print (Brown, 2014). Ultimately, children develop
these foundational level skills into higher-level complex skills that allow them to become
proficient readers (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009).
1
The NELP reports that there are six predictors for academic and reading success:
alphabetical knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid letter naming, rapid object/color naming,
writing and phonological memory (Brown, 2014). Without these skills, students generally are
unable to read or comprehend grade level material (Paciga, Hoffman, & Teale, 2011). Therefore,
without the necessary foundational skills, students are at-risk of reading difficulties in
subsequent academic school years (Etmanskie, Partanen, & Siegel, 2016).
Reading difficulties among children are typically manifested in early school years
(Wanzek, Roberts, & Al Otaiba, 2014). Etmanskie et al., (2016) assert that difficulties in reading
stem from a lack of development of foundational literacy skills. It is well documented in the
research that early reading difficulties continue to persist, if not provided with early targeted or
intense intervention supports (Wanzek et al., 2014). Early literacy research also indicates that
students experiencing reading difficulties benefit from direct, explicit, and systematic instruction
(Brown, 2014; Wanzek et al., 2014). Therefore, the identification of early intervention supports
targeting foundation literacy skills is pivotal to academic and future success of young readers.
Word Sort is an evidence-based reading intervention that targets decoding (phonics) in
order to build fluency (Burns, Riley-Tillman, & VanDerHeyden, 2012). Word Sort is a literacy
intervention that serves three purposes: increase a student’s ability to decode, spelling abilities,
and word knowledge (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2012; Bloodgood & Pacifici,
2004). Decoding involves recognizing the letter-sound correspondences and word and letter
patterns to identify words in print (Bear et al., 2012). Within the five areas of reading, decoding
is preceded by phonological awareness and succeeded by fluency (Brown, 2014; Wanzek et al.,
2014). Therefore, emerging (young) readers generally need to master phonological awareness
prior to being able to decode words (Learning Point, 2004). Thus, students whose skills in
2
phonological awareness are limited or developing may not benefit from decoding instruction
(Bear et al., 2012). Similarly, it is assumed that ability to decode directly impacts a student’s
ability to read fluently (Burns et al., 2012).
Word Sort is typically delivered via a direct instruction approach (Staudt, 2009). Word
Sort involves the sorting of words based on sound, spelling, or meaning patterns; students take
an active role in the categorization, search, comparing, contrasting, and analyzing of words (Bear
et al., 2012; Joseph, 2002a & 2002b; Joseph & Orlins, 2005). Word Sorts can be categorized into
three types: meaning, pattern, and sound sorts (Bear et al., 2012; Invernizzi, Abouzeid, &
Bloodgood, 1997). Meaning sorts require that students categorize pictures or words by their
concept or meaning (Bear et al., 2012). Patterns sorts group words into word families containing
the same letter and sound patterns. Sound sorts utilize pictures that are sorted according to
phonemes contained in a word. Research on Word Sort has shown that Word Sort is an effective
intervention for students having difficulty with decoding and spelling (Bloodgood & Pacifici,
2004; Invernizzi et al., 1997; Zutell, 1998). In addition, Word Sort has also been shown to be an
effective literacy intervention with diverse populations of students (Bear et al., 2012). However,
for the purpose of this study, the effectiveness of Word Sort will be examined with respect to
students receiving Dual Immersion education.
Word Sort has been effective with general education students (Joseph, 2002b), college
students (Atkinson, Zhang, Phillips, & Zeller, 2014), students with learning disabilities (Staudt,
2009), and students with intellectual disabilities (Joseph & McCachran, 2003), but researchers
have not examined the effectiveness of Word Sort with students receiving Dual Immersion
education. Interventions that are effective for some students may not be as effective for other
populations of students (Maggin, Briesch, Chafouleas, Ferguson, & Clark, 2014). Therefore, it is
3
important that effective interventions for Dual Immersion students be identified for the purpose
of remediating reading difficulties with these students.
Theoretical Framework
Behaviorism is the supporting theoretical framework for this study. Behaviorism defines
learning as a long lasting change that occurs when an individual is able to behave and responds
in a manner consistent with the demands and changes of his or her environment (Ertmer &
Newby, 2013). B.F Skinner contended that learning is influenced and shaped by series of
consequences and reinforcements (Baum, 2011). Direct instruction (DI) is a structured and
systematic method of teaching academic skills. DI focuses on the mastery of foundational skills
prior to instruction on more complex skills (Stein et al., 1998). Grounded in behaviorism, DI
strategies consist of repeated learning trials, reinforcement of correct responses and immediate
corrective feedback. Word Sort, an evidenced based reading intervention, is a form of direct
instruction because it involves: (1) identifying big ideas, (2) explicit teaching, (3) scaffolding
instruction, (4) integrating skills and concepts, and (5) reviewing student performance (Stein et
al., 1998). Word Sort is a form of direct instruction.
Problem Statement
Current research on Word Sort has shown that Word Sort is an effective evidence-based
intervention for students in general education (Joseph, 2002b), college students (Atkinson et al.,
2014), students with learning disabilities (Staudt, 2009), and students with intellectual disabilities
(Joseph & McCachran, 2003); however, researchers have not examined the effectiveness for
Word Sort with bilingual learners in a Dual Immersion program.
4
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of Word Sort with students (i.e.,
bilingual learners) receiving Dual Immersion education. This study seeks to expand upon the
existing research on Word Sort. The current study will examine the impact of Word Sort on Oral
Reading Fluency (ORF).
Research Questions
1. Is Word Sort an effective intervention with bilingual learners receiving Dual Immersion
education who are struggling early readers?
Importance and Significance of Study
This study expands on the existing research on Word Sort and the research on effective
interventions for bilingual learners in Dual Immersion programs. Interventions may be effective
for specific groups of students, but not others (Lyon et al., 2005). Additionally, this study seeks
to establish the effectiveness of Word Sort as a tier two evidenced based intervention for
bilingual learners and native English speakers receiving Dual Immersion education.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions of terms apply:
Baseline: The baseline is a representation of student performance prior to intervention,
which serves as the point of reference for judging the effectiveness of an intervention. For the
purposes of this study and research methodology, a multiple baseline design was employed. The
median score on three administered ORF passages represents one baseline point.
Brief experimental analysis (BEA): BEA is an instructional technique utilized for
understanding a student’s difficulty in an area of academic achievement (Kampwirth & Powers,
2016). A BEA is commonly used to understand if academic difficulties are due to a skills deficit
5
(“can’t do”) or performance deficit (“won’t do”). BEA can identify effective instructional
strategies through brief instructional trials. Therefore, BEA provides a functional method of
identifying instructional strategies that a student responds to best.
Curriculum based measures (CBMs): CBMs are general measures that assess student
performance but, not in a given skill, in basic skills or knowledge in a broad academic area
(Greenwood, Carta, & McConnell, 2011). For example, ORF is considered a general indicator of
reading mastery or competency, even though it does not test all of the different skills involved
in reading. ORF acts as a good proxy for reading comprehension and language skills (Pearce &
Gayle, 2009). CBMs provide formative data that can be used in the evaluation of instruction,
programs, or interventions (Lemons et al., 2013).
Dual immersion education: Dual Immersion programs vary in structure from 50/50 to
90/10 models. Within a 50/50 model, students receive instruction in English and Spanish at equal
proportions throughout all primary school grades. 90/10 models provide instruction in the
minority language (Spanish) in kindergarten and first grade 90% of the time. From second
through fifth grades, the ratio/percentage changes from 80/20, to 70/30, then to 60/40, and finally
to 50/50. (Note: the present study took place with a 90/10 model, Dual Immersion school).
Levels of instruction: Levels of instruction indicate the grade level of instruction material
to be difficult enough to be challenging, but not so difficult that it is frustrating (Shapiro, 2011).
Students whose performance on an ORF assessment is observed to be too great or too little of a
challenge are said to be at a frustrational or mastery level. A frustrational level of instruction is
when a student’s knowledge of known words on ORF falls at or below a 93% accuracy range
(percentage of errors exceeding 7%). Instructional level is when a student’s knowledge of known
6
words on ORF falls within a 93-97% accuracy range (percentage of errors at 3-7%). Mastery
level is ORF performance of a 98-100% accuracy (percentage of errors at 2% or less).
Oral reading fluency (ORF): ORF is considered a critical component of reading, and is
defined as the ability to read accurately and quickly with minimal errors. ORF measures have
been found to be both reliable and valid indicators of reading (Greenwood et al., 2011). The
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) or AIMSweb reading curriculum
based measure (R-CBM) are highly sensitive to small, incremental growth, and quick and easy
to administer.
Progress monitoring (PM): PM (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1999) is the empirically based practice
of collecting frequent data from students receiving intervention for the purposes of assessing
academic performance, growth, and effectiveness of interventions. Fuchs and Fuchs (1999)
have established the following guidelines for collecting progress monitoring data: measures must
be relevant to the skills taught, brief in the time taken to administer, reliable, valid, sensitive to
small changes in performance, and have the capacity to measure growth over time. Curriculum
Based Measures assessments such as ORF meet these standards as effective progress monitoring
tools (Greenwood et al., 2011).
Survey level assessment (SLA): SLA is an assessment procedure used to identify the
educational placement of students in reading and mathematics (Shapiro, 2011). Students
suspected of having academic difficulties in reading or mathematics are administered CBMs at
grade level followed by lower grade level CBMs until an instructional level (defined above) is
identified.
Treatment integrity: Treatment integrity refers to how well all the essential components
of an intervention are implemented in consistent and comprehensive manner by a trained
7
interventionist (Fryling, Wallace, & Yassine, 2012; Kampwirth & Powers, 2016). Research in
education and applied behavior analysis have shown a strong correlational relationship between
treatment integrity and intervention effectiveness (Hagermoser, Sanetti, & Kratochwill, 2011).
Furthermore, the strong associations between integrity and intervention effectiveness indicate
that intervention effectiveness is contingent on the level of integrity; treatment integrity reassures
the interventionist that observable positive outcomes can be attributed to the intervene rather
other confounds (Fryling et al., 2012).
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Hypothesis
Research has shown that Word Sort is an effective intervention for children in general
education, struggling mono-language readers, students with intellectual disabilities, and college
students; however, current research literature has not examined the effectiveness of Word Sort
with students in a Dual Immersion program. This study will add to the existing research on Word
Sort by examining the impact of Word Sort on bilingual learners who are struggling readers
receiving Dual Immersion instruction.
Behaviorism and Direct Instruction
Behaviorism as a theoretical construct and a popular learning theory has had a long and
complex past, from Watson’s behaviorism to B.F Skinner’s radical Behaviorism (Moore, 2011).
For the purposes of this study, B.F Skinner’s Behaviorism will be reviewed as it best aligns with
the instructional design of Word Sort.
Behavior is understood as an interaction between that individual and his or her
environment (Goddard, 2014; Moore, 2011). Behaviorism focuses on observable and measurable
behaviors rather than ambiguous and unobservable concepts such as the mental process, or the
unconscious. Learning is theorized to result from the interactions or events between the
individual and his/her environment (Ertmer &Newby, 2013; Moore, 2011). Behaviorism defines
learning as a long lasting change in behavior that results in an individual’s ability to behave or
act in a manner that is consistent with the demands of his or her environment (Ertmer & Newby,
2013). The definition of learning varies across disciplines and no universal definition for this
construct exists. B.F Skinner emphasized that behavior is shaped by series of consequences and
9
reinforcements that, ultimately, contribute to an individual’s ability to learn a task or skill
(Baum, 2011). For example, when a desired behavior is observed, that behavior is positively
reinforced increasing the probability of the behavior occurring again under similar conditions.
Conversely, undesired behaviors that are not aligned to the environmental demands should not be
reinforced and they should become less likely to occur in similar environments in the future.
Behaviorism has become a framework for various teaching strategies. Explicit or direct
instruction is derived from Behaviorism. Direct instruction strategies introduce and teach to the
mastery of the simple concepts or steps before proceeding to more complex steps. Direct
instruction also eases the demands on the learner when he is first learning a skill by providing
scaffolding and cues (Steele, Slater, Li, Zamarro, & Miller, 2015). Scaffolding is the amount of
support a teacher provides for a student to successfully complete a task (W.D. Bursuck & Damer,
2015). For example, a teacher may segment difficult words for a student; however, on a second
attempt the segmentation of a word may be done jointly. Slowly, support is withdrawn until the
student is able to segment the word independently. Direct Instruction (DI) is a structured and
systematic way to teach a skill (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). Students are theorized to better
understand the procedure and keep up when tasks are broken into manageable steps. Direct
instruction includes “modeling, reinforcement, feedback, and successive approximations”
(Magliaro, Lockee, & Burton, 2005, p.41).
Direct instruction (DI) is characterized as a teacher directed model for instruction rather
than a “child centered” approach (Stein et al., 1998). In DI, teachers or interventionists structure
and provide the instruction. More child-directed types of instruction, such as whole language and
developmentally appropriate instruction, also exist but they are grounded in a different
10
theoretical orientation. While DI is based on Behaviorism, Humanistic and Constructivism are
two different paradigms that have influenced the way students are taught.
It is not uncommon for people who adhere to one paradigm (Constructivist) to malign
theories or practices from another Behaviorism; (Alberto & Troutman, 2013). Thus, some
teachers do not use DI. Further, DI is associated with special education (Simmons, 1991). While
the effectiveness of direct instruction with students with learning problems is well documented in
research literature (Steele et al., 2015) general education teachers may be hesitant to employ
what is seen as a special education teaching technique (Simmons, 1991).
The primary goal of DI is to increase learning and the quality of learning by explicitly
teaching background knowledge and applying that knowledge to new situations (Stein et al.,
1998). Instruction that is explicit builds on the understanding of basic skills to teach more
complex skills (Stein et al., 1998).
Stein et al., (1998) identified five important features of DI: (1) identifying big ideas, (2)
explicit teaching, (3) scaffolding instruction, (4) integrating skills and concepts, and (5)
reviewing student performance. Identifying big ideas requires students to utilize or develop
background knowledge in order to solve complex problems. Explicit teaching is the presenting
and delivering of information in clear and direct manner that allows for student understanding
and the generalization of the skills that have been taught. Scaffolding of instruction is the
supports a teacher provides students in the form of cues, prompts, looping, or other behavioral
signals that aid students when learning new skills. The integration of skills and concepts refers to
how well students not only generalize learned information across settings, but compare and
examine the relationships among other concepts. Providing adequate review involves monitoring
student progress to evaluate the effectiveness of the instruction.
11
Various models of direct instruction exist. Direct instruction has been used to teach
emergent literacy, numeracy skills, and higher level thinking skills (Botts, Losardo, Tillery, &
Werts, 2014). Moreover, models of DI refer to intervention programs that utilize the theoretical
underpinnings of the DI approach (Botts et al., 2014). For example, reading programs such as
Read Naturally, Reading Recovery, and Read 180 incorporate one or several components of DI.
Effective Reading Instruction
English Language Learners (ELLs) are a rapidly growing population in the United States,
accounting for more than 5.3 million students (Calderon et al., 2011). The majority of these
students are Spanish speaking (Calderon et al., 2011). Often, many ELLs are placed together in
the same classroom with varying levels of English proficiency taught by monolingual English
speaking teachers (Calderon et al., 2011; Lee & Buxton, 2013). Many educators are unprepared
and/or lack training to effectively teach ELLs (Calderon et al., 2011). Research on teachers’
capacity and training varies; many teachers do not have the knowledge, skills, and training in
effective instructional practices to support ELLs (Boyle et al., 2014). Boyle et al. (2014) identify
three key features that educators lack when providing ELLs with effective literacy instruction:
knowledge on how to differentiate instruction for diverse learners, effective vocabulary
instruction for ELLs, and knowledge of effective instructional techniques for ELLs.
Dual Immersion or Dual Bilingual education has demonstrated great success in
improving literacy skills among Latino and ELL students (Brooke-Garza, 2015). Dual
Immersion education programs’ success stems from the integration of instruction for both
monolingual English speakers and bilingual students. Dual Immersion programs emphasize the
integration of language and culture and the improvement of language and literacy acquisition for
both monolingual and bilingual students (Brooke-Garza, 2015; Calderon et al., 2011). Within a
12
Dual Immersion program, educators provide foundational literacy instruction to struggling ELLs
as well as native English students (Brooke-Garza, 2015). More notably, bilingual education
programs do not lend themselves to the same disparities in language skills among students
adopted by mainstream programs (Brooke-Garza, 2015; Martin-Beltran, 2010). Proponents of
Dual Immersion programs assert that all students’ language abilities are valued and see that all
students are working towards building their foundational literacy skills (Brooke-Garza, 2015).
Overall, ELL students struggle to meet both state and national reading assessment
standards; thus, schools, teachers, and school districts face undue pressure to increase the number
of ELLs that meet these standards (Kamps et al., 2007). In order to effectively address the
disparities in literacy achievement among ELLs and native English speakers, teachers need to
employ the use of effective evidenced based practices that address ELLs students’ literacy needs
(Lee & Buxton, 2013). Additionally, ELLs benefit form instructional strategies that have been
shown to be effective for all students i.e., explicit instruction, scaffolding, modeling, etc.; (W. D.
Bursuck & Damer, 2015).
The National Literacy Panel (NLP) and Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and
Excellence (CREDE) proposed that effective reading instruction for native English speakers is
also effective for ELLs (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009). The NLP recommends that literacy
instruction encompasses five areas: phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension (Calderon et al., 2011; Lyon et al., 2005).
Phonological awareness is the hearing and identifying and/or discriminating of sounds in
spoken language (Tindall & Nisbet, 2010). Decoding links letter sounds to print. Fluency, often
one of the most targeted components in literacy interventions, is the ability to read accurately and
quickly (Tindall & Nisbet, 2010). Vocabulary is the knowledge of words and their meaning, and
13
comprehension is the understanding of the meaning and context of written text (Tindall &
Nisbet, 2010). Of the five skills important to becoming literate, decoding and fluency will be
targeted by the present study.
Word Sort: Decoding and Vocabulary Based Instruction
Word Sort or Words Study is a literacy intervention that serves three purposes: to
increase a student’s ability to decode, spell, and word knowledge (Bear et al., 2012; Bloodgood
& Pacific, 2004).
Often, decoding and phonics are used interchangeably to refer to one of the five areas of
reading; however, decoding involves letter sound correspondences and word and letter patterns
to identify words in print; while phonics is the mode of instruction (Bear et al., 2012). Emerging
(young) readers generally need to master phonological awareness prior to being able to decode
words (Learning Point, 2004). A child whose skills in phonological awareness are limited will
struggle with instruction targeting decoding and therefore, may not benefit from the instruction.
Word Sort is a fluency building intervention that targets decoding skills (Burns et al.,
2012). Word Sorts involve the sorting of words based on sound, spelling, or meaning patterns;
so that students take an active role in the categorization, searching, comparing, contrasting and
analyzing of words (Bear et al., 2012; Joseph, 2002a; Joseph & Orlins, 2005). Sound Sorts use
visual representations that are sorted according to phonemes contained in the word. For example,
the sound “Mm” in the word “mop” may be the common sound in that sort and is then paired
with a visual representation containing that sound. This sort is best suited for students in
emergent, alphabetic, or early literacy stages (Bear et al., 2012).
Pattern sorts are sorts that group words into word families containing the same letter and
sound pattern. For example, the “oi” in the word boil may be the printed and sound pattern in a
14
sort; therefore, the preceding words such as foil, oil, and soil would contain the same printed and
sound pattern, thus creating word families. A critical component of this intervention is that
students should know the sounds being practiced and the other sounds that make up the words
(Burns et al., 2012).
Meaning Sorts require students to categorize sorts by pictures, or words by their concept
or meaning. This sort is a good way to link vocabulary instruction to students’ conceptual
understanding (Invernizzi et al., 1997).
Research on the effectiveness of Word Sorts has been limited, though many programs
have embedded words sorts as part of their curriculum (Joseph & Orlins, 2005). Word Sorts are
primarily used in elementary school settings, with students who have some sort of difficulty with
decoding or spelling (Bloodgood & Pacifici, 2004; Invernizzi et al., 1997; Zutell, 1998).
Bloodgood and Pacifici (2004) suggested that Word Sort could be beneficial in intermediate
classroom settings, though the research in this area is limited.
Reading programs, such as Reading Recovery, tend to use variations of Word Sort when
students have difficulty understanding the order of spoken words and the letter sequence of
written words (Joseph, 2000). For example, sound boxes are utilized to segment the sounds of
spoken words, but also match sounds to print (i.e., matching the short “a” sound with the printed
letter “A”). With such instruction, the words in the Word Sort are divided into smaller
manageable parts, or phonemes that essentially target decoding skills (Joseph, 2002b).
Word Sort is typically delivered via a DI approach (Staudt, 2009). Students are expected
to progress from simple letter sound correspondences to more complex multi-syllabic Word
Sorts (Invernizzi et al., 1997). Typically, Word Sorts are tailored to the student’s level of
decoding varying from simple words to complex multisyllabic words. Students whose skills are
15
emergent might be instructed using pattern or picture sorts that provide some context with the
words provided (Fresch, 2000). For example, an emergent student would be provided a picture of
an object (i.e., basketball) and asked to provide the first sound he or she hears when stating the
objects name. Most research on Word Sort has focused on student spelling performance on
various spelling assessments (Bloodgood, 1991; Bloodgood & Pacifici, 2004).
Researchers have found that Word Sort is effective in building students’ word knowledge
and enhancing their ability to decode. Staudt (2009) examined the effects of meaning Word Sorts
with students identified as having a learning disability. The researcher hypothesized that utilizing
Word Sort with other literacy strategies, in this case repeat reading, would lead to increased
abilities in reading fluently. A single case study found that both participants made considerable
gains in their reading fluency over baseline scores, however, the researchers reported that the
students were still slow readers.
Joseph and McCachran (2003) examined the effectiveness of Word Sort with students
with intellectual disabilities. They hypothesized that Word Sort (sound and pattern sorts) would
be effective in increasing the fluency, word recognition and spelling abilities of students with
intellectual disabilities. Pre and post-test measure were individually administered to the
participants. A total of six male and two female students with intellectual disabilities participated
in the study. A MANCOVA analysis was conducted to determine if there were statistically
significant differences between the groups on spelling, phonological awareness, and word
recognition growth. The results indicated that there were no significant statistical differences
among the groups on post-test measures, while pretest performance remained constant. Notably,
the lack of statistically significant results may be attributed to low power. However, despite non
statistical results, two students with intellectual disabilities (ID) made considerable gains. A
16
qualitative analysis indicated that the student participants were able to complete a consonant
vowel consonant (CVC) pattern sort.
Atkinson et al. (2014) investigated the effect of Word Sort on word recognition with
college students in a remedial reading course. A quasi-experimental pre and post-test control
group design was utilized in the evaluation of the effects of Word Sort (pattern and meaning
sorts) on college students taking a remedial reading class. A total of 39 first year college students
participated in the study. The researchers hypothesized that students who were exposed to word
study would perform higher than those in the control group on the spelling inventory assessment.
Results of the study showed significant difference between both groups, in which students in the
treatment condition out performed those in the control condition on word recognition.
Joseph (2002b) evaluated the effects of Word Sort (sound and pattern sorts) on word
recognition and spelling with three students with mild intellectual disabilities. The researcher
employed the use of a single subject, multiple baseline design in order to evaluate Word Sorts’
effects on word recognition and spelling. Oral reading fluency and spelling measures were
utilized. Results indicated that all participants made considerable improvements on spelling and
word recognition tasks compared to their performance at the time of baseline scoring.
Joseph (2000) examined the effects of Word Sort (CVC pattern sorts) and word boxes on
phonological awareness, word recognition, and spelling with first grade students. A
multifactorial design was utilized in the evaluation of the effect of Word Sort. Students were
place into three conditions: traditional instruction, Word Sort instruction, and word box
instruction. A total of 42 Caucasian first grade students participated in the study. Results of the
study showed that Word Sort was more effective at increasing students’ abilities to spell words.
Furthermore, the results indicated that words sorts may be effective at increasing word
17
recognition skills. However, no significant effects of phonological awareness skills were
observed.
Researchers have evaluated the effectiveness of Word Sort with English speaking
students, students with intellectual disabilities, students with learning disabilities, and college
students in remedial English classes. However, there has yet to be a study that evaluates the
effective of Word Sort with bilingual students receiving Dual Immersion education.
Summary
Research on Word Sort indicates that it is indeed an effective decoding and spelling
intervention that enhances students’ word recognition skills. Research on reading instruction had
shown that instruction effective for certain students may not be effective for all other students.
Thus, it paramount to validate the effectiveness of Word Sort with bilingual students receiving
Dual Immersion education.
18
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The present study examines the effectiveness of Word Sort on bilingual learners
receiving dual language immersion education by using a single-subject multiple baseline design.
Single-subject research is an empirically supported and rigorous methodology utilized to
establish evidence-based practices in education (Horner et al., 2005). Moreover, single-subject
research is an experimental research approach that accounts for both within and between subject
differences, thus, controlling for threats to internal validity (Horner et al., 2005). The purpose of
single-subject research is to document “causal and functional relationships,” rather than
correlational relationships. In single-subject designs, statistical data analysis can be used;
however, the traditional research approach has been to conduct a systematic visual analysis of
the data across conditions (e.g., baseline data compared to treatment data).
Single-subject research may involve the participation of one student, but typically
involves multiple student participants (e.g., three to eight). Each student participant serves as his
or her own control. Staggering the introduction of the intervention across multiple baselines data
series allows for the documentation of experimental effects (Horner et al., 2005).
Participants and Setting
Participants in the study consisted of three female students attending an urban
kindergarten through eighth grade (K-8) school in Southern California. As of the 2014-2015
school year, the school’s composition was 64% Latino students, 20% Caucasian, 4.8% African
American, 1.5% Asian, and 1.1% Native American or Pacific Islander. Approximately 32.5% of
the students are classified as being socioeconomically disadvantaged, 15.6% are ELLs, and 5.6%
of students are identified as having a disability.
19
Additionally, the school’s defining feature is its Dual Immersion program, which spans
from kindergarten through eighth grades. During kindergarten and first grade, students receive
90% instruction in Spanish and 10% instruction in English. Subsequently, students in second
grade receive 80% instruction in Spanish and 20% in English, and by fifth grade students receive
50% Spanish instruction and 50% English instruction.
At the time of the study, all participants were enrolled in the second grade. Participants in
the study were involved in the study from March 31 to June 10, 2015, with one participant
withdrawing early from the study by parental request.
Participant selection was conducted based on teacher nomination and student
performance on reading assessments. Students from the second grade were targeted as
prospective participants because learning to read fluently is a critical developmental skill at this
age. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the study, study materials and instruments
was granted on January 14, 2015. Upon approval of the study from both IRB and the school
principal, a meeting to discuss the purpose of the study was held with the second grade teachers.
There are a total of four second grade classrooms involved in this research.
The meeting with the second grade teachers took place during their weekly grade level
meeting. At the meeting, each teacher was provided with three packets of information and forms.
Packet materials consisted of a letter of introduction with the teacher’s name, parental consent
form for child participation in research, and description of the intervention. A total of 12 packets
were distributed. Teachers were debriefed on the intervention, purpose of the study, and the
significance of the study. The teachers were tasked with selecting three students from their
classes who would benefit from a reading intervention that targeted decoding. Teachers sent
20
home packets with the students they had selected as prospective research participants. Please
refer to the appendices for an examples of the research materials and instruments.
Nine of the twelve (75%) student packets distributed were returned with signed parental
consent forms. The principal investigators proceeded with an assessment of the students’ oral
reading fluency. Six female students and three male students were assessed using the Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). The criteria for inclusion consisted of
performance being at least at the instructional level for first grade based on the AIMSweb
national norms for first grade. The AIMSweb national norms were considered more ambitious
than the DIBELS benchmark cut points. Therefore, the AIMSweb national norms were utilized
in the inclusion criteria process.
All nine students were initially assessed using DIBELS second grade passages. Once the
level of instruction was identified, baseline scores were established. Students whose baseline
performance was below a first grade level or at the second grade were not included in the study.
One of the nine students was excluded due reading being at grade level and five were
considered to be too far below grade level to benefit from Word Sort (see Table 1). Parents of the
students excluded from the study were immediately informed. The principle investigator agreed
to provide intervention supports to the students not included. Participant assent was obtained
prior to the data collection process.
Instruments and Materials
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)—Oral Reading Fluency
(ORF) and AIMSweb R-CBM were utilized throughout the study. DIBELS was developed by
researchers of the University of Oregon Center for Teaching and Learning (Hoffman et al.,
2009). DIBELS assesses students’ acquisition of literacy skills from K-6th grades. AIMSweb R-
21
CBM is a similar assessment measure to the DIBLES DORF. AIMSweb is a commercially
available set of assessment measures for grades K-8 (though norms for grades 9-12 are also
available). Due to their compatibility, both DIBELS DORF and R-CBM curriculum-based
measures were utilized in the present study.
TABLE 1. Student Inclusionary Data

Student Gender Baseline (Word Inclusion Status
Correct/Errors)
1001 Male 88/1 (2nd grade probe) Not Included (at grade level)
1002 Female 43/5 (1st grade probe) Included (1st grade

instructional level)
instructional level)
1004 Male 32/9 (1st grade probe) Not Included (Frustrational at
1st grade)
1005 Female 39/5 (1st grade probe) Not Included (Frustrational at
1st grade)
1st grade)
1st grade)
1008 Male 27/5 (1st grade probe) Not Included (Frustrational at
1st grade)
Instructional level)
DIBELS ORF (DORF) passages were obtained through the University of Oregon
DIBELS web page at no cost. AIMSweb passages were accessed through a University
subscription with Pearson Publishing AIMSweb division.
Ardoin and Christ (2009) contented that DIBLES DORF and AIMSweb R-CBM are brief
formative assessment measures with adequate reliability and validity.
22
Treatment Integrity
Treatment Integrity data were collected utilizing a check list consisting of the essential
components of Word Sort. The treatment integrity check list was developed by the principle
investigator as a means of documenting the consistency of intervention implementation. The
faculty sponsor provided bi-weekly integrity checks. During the observations, the faculty
sponsor recorded whether or not a component of the intervention was observed. A treatment
integrity accuracy percentage was calculated dividing the number of observed components and
total applicable components (see appendices for check list).
Procedures
Data collection for inclusion in the study began on February 24, 2015 and ended on
March 9, 2015. After the selection of students, the parents of students included and excluded
from the study were informed via phone. For the students excluded, the researcher agreed to
provide those students with intervention supports. Student participants selected for the study
were further debriefed on the study and were read the child assent form. Participants in the study
were explicitly informed of their rights to voluntary participation and withdrawal from the study
without repercussions. All three participants agreed and signed the child assent form. For the
purpose of this study, pseudonyms were utilized to protect participant identities. Moreover, it is
important to note that all participants’ primary and home language was English. The
intervention, procedures, and measures were administered and/or delivered in English throughout
the course of the study.
Phase I (Baseline phase) commenced for all three participants on March 31, 2015.
Baseline and intervention sessions with participants took place before school on Tuesday and
Thursday from 8:15 AM to 9:00 AM. Sessions with participants took place in a bungalow in the
23
center quad of the school (which also served as the school psychologist office). During the
baseline phase, participants were provided with three R-CBM unnumbered reading passages.
Standardized instructions from the DIBELS manual were read prior to instructing students to
read the provided passages. The researcher retained the numbered copy of the reading passages
for scoring purposes.
At the conclusion of the sessions, the researcher counted the total number of words read
using the numbering grid provided on the scoring passages. Once the total of words read was
recorded for each passage, a tally of the total of errors was recorded. The totals for words read
correctly were computed for each passage by subtracting the number of errors from the total of
words read. Due to the possible variability of performance, the median score of the three probes
served as one baseline point. The aforementioned process was conducted for each participant
until a stable baseline was established. Stable baselines were established through a visual
analysis of the fluctuation of the baseline data over time and consultation with a faculty sponsor.
Student 1009 established a stable baseline after the fifth session and began the
intervention phase the following session. Participant 1002 established a stable baseline after the
seventh session and participant 1003 established a stable baseline at the ninth session.
Phase II (Intervention phase) commenced once a stable baseline had been established for
each participant. The stability of baseline data is essential in single-subject research for the
purposes of making accurate judgements of an intervention’s effectiveness. Additionally, a stable
baseline serves as a more accurate representation of an individual’s ability than an assessment
that is fluctuating; therefore, accurate comparisons between baseline and treatment data can be
made. In the first intervention session, the participant was introduced to a set of three words
containing underlined sound patters (e.g. cat, plate, bait).
24
The principle investigator began by modeling the tasks and completing the first row
containing the same word pattern as cat (e.g. bat, hat, mat, flat, and splat). Subsequently, the
researcher provided the participant with the remaining cards to sort. When providing Word Sorts,
the words are randomly mixed. As the participant sorts words, the researcher observed and
provided immediate corrective feedback. Once the words were correctly sorted into their
respective rows, the researcher had the participant state the sound then the word using looping
signals for the first word. The participant subsequently repeats the same procedure until he/she
can read the words completely with 100% accuracy. Word Sort is practiced until 100% accuracy
is achieved. Following the first sort the, the participants are introduced to a new Word Sort and
the aforementioned procedure was repeated. During each session, the last introduced sort was
reviewed before introducing a new sort. Word Sorts were generated based on errors individual
students made on the R-CBM passages. At the conclusion of each session, three R-CBM
passages were administered to the participants. The median score on the three passages
represents one progress monitoring datum. Students were sporadically given small rewards (i.e.
Smecils) for effort.
These procedures were conducted with all Word Sorts until the conclusion of the study.
After six weeks, Participant 1009 was withdrawn from the study at parental request. The
remaining two participants remained in the study until its conclusion. The study concluded on
June 10, 2015. All students received a $10 gift card to their preferred food service establishment.
Data Analysis
Baseline and progress monitoring data were graphed on Microsoft Excel. A visual
analysis of the data across all participants was conducted. Cohen’s d was calculated for each
25
individual participant’s data. A Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA) was conducted to identify
potential effective reading strategies for the future.
Brief Experimental Analysis
The BEA is utilized to identify which intervention strategies an individual student is
more likely to respond to (e.g reward contingency, repeat reading, phrase drill, syllable
segmentation and blending, listening passage preview, or a combination of strategies).
Administration instructions developed by Daley et al. (1996) were read to two of the three
students individually. The third student was not available at the conclusion of the study due to
illness. Parental contact was attempted without success. Please see the appendices for the exact
protocol utilized.
26
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
The effectiveness of a Tier 3 intervention: Word Sort with bilingual learners receiving
Dual Immersion education will be presented. Students’ Oral Reading Fluency data across
baseline and treatment conditions will be evaluated utilizing a visual analysis of the data. A
visual analysis in figure 1 suggest Word Sort is an effective intervention. Intervention effect size,
and student goal attainment are also reported. Moreover, student error pattern analysis, treatment
integrity data, and results from a brief experimental analysis will also be reviewed. Students
Abby, Lily, and Jasmine along with six other second grade students were referred as prospective
participants for the study due to teacher concerns with regards to reading difficulties. Based on
their performance on the survey level assessment (Oral Reading Fluency), Abby, Lily, and
Jasmine were included in the study due to their performance on ORF being at a first grade
instructional level (see chapter 3 for survey level assessment data). Participants received
intervention supports twice a week for 20 minutes each session, for a total of 40 minutes of
intervention a week.
First Case Study: Abby
Baseline
Baseline data were collected using the DIBLES ORF reading probes. Each session, three
probes were administered, and the median score for each session was recorded. A single-subject
multiple baseline repeated measures design was employed. Baseline data were collected until
visual analysis indicated a stable baseline. Additionally, consultation with a faculty sponsor took
place to confirm the determination of a stable baseline. A total of five baseline data points were
27
Abby's Reponse to Intervention
120
110 Baseline Intervention
Words Correct Per Minute
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Session
Jasmine's Response to Intervention

120 Baseline Intervention
110 Intervention
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Session
Lily's Response to Intervention

120
110
Baseline Intervention
Intervention
Baseline
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Session
FIGURE 1. Multiple baseline.
28
collected for Abby; Abby was the first student to establish a stable baseline. The median datum
of 62 words read correct per minute (WCPM) served as Abby’s baseline. Utilizing the baseline
of 62 WCPM, an instructional goal was computed based on the AIMSweb national norms for
second grade.
Abby’s rate of improvement (ROI) was calculated by targeting WCPM of 82, which is
considered to be at the 25th percentile on the AIMSweb national norms for the Spring of second
82−62 (𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒)
grade. The following formula was used to calculate the ROI = 2.5. Thus, the goal
8 (# 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑠)
was for Abby’s ORF to increase by 2.5 WCPM per week. The goal was developed with the
intention that Abby would receive at least 8 weeks of intervention; however, Abby was
withdrawn early from the study due to parental difficulties with bringing Abby to school on time
for the intervention; Abby completed six weeks of the intervention.
Problem Analysis
Prior to the beginning of the study, Abby was enrolled in the second grade at an urban,
public K-8 school with a Dual Immersion program. At that time, Abby received 20% of her
instruction in English and 80 percent instruction in Spanish. In an effort to identify effective
intervention strategies and further determine whether Abby’s reading difficulties were due to
problems in acquisition, motivation, or fluency, a Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA) was
conducted. The BEA assessed whether Abby’s ORF would most improved by (1) increasing her
motivation via the offering of a performance-based reward; (2) providing more practice
(rereading a probe or phrase); or (3) direct instruction (modeling and corrective feedback) on the
target skills. Five conditions were assessed, each employing a different intervention strategy.
Abby’s pre-instructional, post-instructional (if applicable), and generalization scores on Oral
Reading Fluency were measured.
29
Abby's Brief Experimental Analysis
140
117
120
108
Words Read Correct Per Minute
103103 103
100 96 94 91 95
90 92 92
79
80 Baseline
Pre-Intervention
60
Post-Intervention
40 Generalization
20
0
Reward Repeat Reading Phrase Drill Syllable Listening
Contingency Segmentation Passage Preview
FIGURE 2. Abby’s BEA.
In each condition, the first ORF probe (pre-intervention) administered provided baseline
information and served as the instructional material for each condition. The second probe (post-
intervention) consisted of a passage with high content overlap (80% of words were the same in
both the first and second probe passages). The third probe (generalization probe) provided
information on how well Abby was able to generalize what she had learned in each condition via
a similar probe. Based on the data in the above graph, Abby performed best when provided with
a reward contingency strategy and a repeat reading strategy.
Results indicate that Abby may benefit from frequent positive reinforcement in order to
increase motivation and reading performance; additionally, results also indicate that Abby would
benefit from instructional strategies that allow her to practice re-reading a passage multiple
times. In Abby’s case, there seems to be a performance/motivation deficit impacting her reading
performance on the ORF passages. (Please see appendices for Daly probe examples, and BEA
protocols).
30
Error Analysis
TABLE 2. Error Pattern Analysis Across All Participants

Types of Word Sorts Targeted Word Sorts
Patterns Sounds and common
Errors on ORF
Prefixes “Mis,” “Dis,” “Pro,”

“Post,” “Fore,” “Trans,
“Anti,” “Inter,” “Sub,”
“Super,” “Auto,” “Irr,”
“Wh,” “De,” “Ad,” “Th,”
“Mal,” “Ill,” and “Im.’
Suffixes “ung,” “ies,” “able,” “ly,”

“ed,” and “es.”
Within Word “a_e (cvc),” “ai,” “ea,”

“oi,” “I (short I sound),”
“oo,” “oa,” “au,” “ight,”
“ur,” “u (short U sound,”
“ur,” “ee,” and i_e (cvc
long I sound.”
An error analysis (EA) or error pattern analysis (EPA) is an instructional strategy utilized
to provide an interventionist with diagnostic information about a student’s mastery of a skill
and/or areas in need of improvement (Dennis et al., 2014). EPA is a formative procedure that
allows an interventionist to examine persistent errors in reading, writing, and mathematics, so
that those errors can be targeted during instruction/intervention. The following errors were
identified and utilized in the development of Word Sorts for the participants during the sessions.
The following figure depicts the consistent errors among all three participants on ORF.
Additionally, the word errors also depict the type of pattern sorts utilized in the intervention.
31
Intervention Results
Target behavior: Oral Reading Fluency
Baseline: 62 Words correct per minute (WCPM).
Intervention goal: 82WCPM (8 week goal by 6/9/2015: an increase of 2.5 words per
week).
Results:
By the sixth week (12 sessions), Abby’s WCPM on the ORF measures was of 89 words
read correct per minute. As illustrated in the figure below, Abby exceeded her goal of 82 WCPM
on ORF. Additionally, the difference between her performance score at the end of intervention
(89 WCPM) and her baseline (62 WCPM) is 27 WCMP, indicating the amount of growth during
the six weeks of the intervention. According to the AIMSweb national norms, Abby’s
performance of 89 WCPM is considered to be at the 33rd percentile for the end (spring) of second
grade.
Abby's Response to Intervention

120
110
100
90
80 Trendline
70 Goal
60
50 Baseline
40 INT
30
20
10
0
Week 6.1
BL 1
BL 2
BL 3
BL 4
BL 5
Week 1.1
Week 1.2
Week 2.1
Week 2.2
Week 3.1
Week 4.1
Week 4.2
Week 5.1
Week 5.2
Week 6.2
Weel 3.2
FIGURE 3. Abby’s response to intervention results.
32
Intervention Integrity:
Treatment integrity data were collected to insure adherence to intervention protocol and
insure the integrity of the implementation of the intervention design. A faculty sponsor and a
graduate student research assistant provided frequent integrity checks utilizing a fidelity check
list developed by the researcher. Please see appendices for the exact checklist utilized.
Throughout all observed intervention sessions, the average percentage of treatment integrity was
93.94%. Abby attended a total of eleven out of twelve intervention sessions.
Effect Size:
There is no universally agreed upon measure of effect size for a single subject research
design; therefore, for the purposes of this study, Cohen’s d and percentage of non-overlapping
data (PNOD) are both reported, as measures of effect size. Effect size is the impact or effect of
the intervention on the dependent measure, which can be attributed to the overall intervention’s
effectiveness (Moeyaert,2014). Cohen’s d was calculated using the following formula

𝑀1 − 𝑀2
. PNOD was calculated by using the total number of treatment data points above
√[(𝑠 1²+ 𝑠 2²) / 2]
highest baseline data point divided by total number of intervention data points. Based on
Cohen’s classification for standard mean differences, Abby’s Cohen’s d effective was large
(Rakap, 2015). Additionally, Abby’s PNOD indicated a small/weak effect (Vannest & Ninci,
2015).
TABLE 3. Abby’s Effect Size

Effect Size Calculation
Cohen’s d PNOD
1.38 .36
Strong effect Weak effect
Second Case Study: Jasmine

Baseline
33
Baseline data were collected using the DIBLES ORF reading probes. Each session, three
probes were administered, and the median score for each session was recorded. A single-subject,
multiple baseline repeated measures design was employed. Baseline data were collected until
visual analysis indicated a stable baseline. Additionally, consultation with a faculty sponsor took
place to confirm the determination of a stable baseline. A total of seven baseline data points were
collected for Jasmine. Jasmine was the second student to establish a stable baseline. The median
score of 56 words read correct per minute (WCPM) serves as Jasmine’s baseline. Utilizing the
baseline of 56 WCPM, a rate of improvement was calculated based the AIMSweb national
norms for second grade.
Jasmine’s rate of improvement (ROI) was calculated by targeting 82 WCPM, which is
considered to be at the 25th percentile on the AIMSweb national norms for the spring of Second
grade. The following formula was used to calculate the ROI = 3.25. Thus, the goal
was for Jasmine’s ORF to increase by 3.25 WCPM per week. The goal was developed with the
intention that Jasmine would receive at least 8 weeks of intervention; from the beginning of the
intervention phase until the end of school Jasmine would have received 8 weeks of intervention.
Jasmine remained for the entirety of the study.
Problem Analysis
The BEA assessed whether Jasmine’s ORF will be best improved by (1) increasing her
motivation by offering a performance-based reward; (2) providing more practice (rereading a
probe or phrase); or (3) direct instruction (modeling and corrective feedback) on the target skills.
Five conditions were assessed, each employing a different intervention strategy. Jasmine’s pre-
instructional, post-instructional (if applicable), and generalization on Oral Reading Fluency was
measured.
34
Jasmine's Brief Experimental Analysis
140
117
Words Read Correct Per Minute
120
107
101
100 90
79 80
80 72 Baseline
66 67
60
56 Pre-Intervention
60 50 47
Post-Intervention
40
Generalization
20
0
Reward Repeat Phrase Drill Syllable Listening
Contingency Reading Segmentation Passage
Preview
FIGURE 4. Jasmine’s BEA.
In each condition, the first ORF probe (pre-intervention) administered provided baseline
information and served as the instructional material for each condition. The second probe (post-
intervention) consisted of a passage with high content overlap (80% of words were the same in
both passages) with the first probe. The third probe (generalization probe) provided information
on how well Jasmine was able to generalize what she learned in each condition from a similar
probe. Based on the data in the above graph, Jasmine performed best when provided with
syllable segmentation strategies and listening passage preview strategies. Additionally, results
indicate that Jasmine would benefit most from strategies that allow her to identify and segment
individual syllables followed by blending the syllables. Additionally, Jasmine would benefit
from strategies that allow her listen to and preview a reading passage.
Intervention Evaluation
35
Intervention goal: 82WCPM (8 weeks by 6/11/2015: increase of 3.25 words per week).
Results:
By the eighth week (15 sessions), Jasmine’s WCPM on the ORF measures was of 80
words read correct per minute, based at on the trend line. Jasmine’s intervention data indicate a
positive yet stable trend with minimal variability. As illustrated in the figure below, Jasmine did
not meet her goal of 82 WCPM on ORF. Though Jasmine did not meet her goal, a visual analysis
indicates that Jasmine is on a trajectory towards meeting her goal. Additionally, the difference
between performance at the end of intervention (80 WCPM) and baseline (56 WCPM) is of 24
WCMP, indicating the amount of growth during the eight weeks of intervention. According to
the AIMSweb national norms, Jasmine’s performance of 80 WCPM is consider to be at the 24th
percentile for the end (spring) of second grade. Based on Jasmine’s slow growth, Jasmine would
benefit from an additional targeted reading intervention.
Jasmine's Response to Intervention

100
70 Trendline
Goal
Baseline
INT
40
10
Week 4.2
BL 1
BL 2
BL 3
BL 4
BL 5
BL 6
BL 7
Week 1.1
Week 1.2
Week 2.1
Week 2.2
Week 3.1
Week 4.1
Week 5.1
Week 5.2
Week 6.1
Week 6.2
Week 7.1
Week 7.2
Week 8.1
Weel 3.2
FIGURE 5. Jasmine’s response to intervention results.
36
Treatment integrity data was collected to insure adherence to intervention protocol and insure
implementation of intervention design. A faculty sponsor and a graduate student research
assistant provided frequent integrity check utilizing a fidelity check list developed by the
researcher. (See appendices for the exact checklist utilized). Throughout all observed
intervention sessions, the average percentage of treatment integrity was of 94%. Additionally,
Jasmine attended a total of fifteen out of fifteen intervention sessions.
Effect Size:
𝑀1 − 𝑀2
Cohen’s d was calculated using the following formula √[(𝑠 1²+ 𝑠 2²) / 2]. PNOD was calculated
by using the total number of treatment data points above highest baseline data point divided by
total number of intervention data points. Based on Cohen’s classification for standard mean
differences, Jasmine’s Cohen’s d effective was large (Rakap, 2015). Jasmine’s PNOD indicated
a small/weak effect (Vannest &Ninci, 2015).
TABLE 4. Jasmine’s Effect Size
Cohen’s d PNOD
1.27 .40
Third Case Study: Lily
Baseline
A total of seven baseline data points were collected for Lily; Lily was the third student to
establish a stable baseline. The median score of 68 words read correct per minute (WCPM)
served as Lily’s baseline.
Utilizing the baseline of 68 WCPM, an instructional goal was computed based on the
AIMSweb national norms for second grade. Lily’s rate of improvement (ROI) was calculated
targeting 82 WCPM, which is considered to be at the 25th percentile on the AIMSweb national
37
norms for the spring of second grade. The following formula was used to calculate the ROI
= 2 (ROI). Thus, the goal was for Lily’s ORF to increase by 2 WCPM per week.
The goal was developed with the intention that Lily would receive at least seven weeks of
intervention. Lily remained for the entirety of the study.
Problem Analysis
A BEA was attempted at the conclusion of the study. Lily was absent the last two class
days of the school year and was unable to complete the BEA. An attempt to call her parents was
made without success.
Intervention Evaluation
Intervention goal: 82WCPM (7 week goal by 6/11/2015-an increase of 2 words correct
per week).
Results:
By the seventh week (13 sessions), Lily’s WCPM on the ORF measures was of 90 words read
correct per minute. As illustrated in the figure below, Lily exceeded her goal of 82 WCPM on
ORF. Additionally, the difference between performance at the end of intervention (90 WCPM)
and baseline (68 WCPM) is of 22 WCMP, indicating the amount of growth during the seven
weeks of the intervention. Additionally, visual analysis of Lily’s data indicated a positive trend.
According to the AIMSweb national norms, Lily’s performance of 90 WCPM is consider to be at
the 34th percentile for the end (spring) of second grade.
38
120
Lily's Response to Intervention
110
100
Word Correct Per Minute
90
80
Trend line
70 Goal
60 Baseline
50 INT
40
30
20
10
0
BL 1
BL 2
BL 3
BL 4
BL 5
BL 6
BL 7
BL 8
BL 9
Week 1.1
Week 1.2
Week 2.1
Week 2.2
Week 3.1
Week 4.1
Week 4.2
Week 5.1
Week 5.2
Week 6.1
Week 6.2
Week 7.1
Weel 3.2
FIGURE 6. Lily’s response to intervention results.
Treatment integrity data were collected to insure adherence to intervention protocol and
insure implementation of intervention design. A faculty sponsor and a graduate student research
assistant provided frequent integrity check utilizing a fidelity checks list developed by the
researcher. (See appendices for the exact checklist utilized). Throughout all observed
intervention sessions, the average percentage of treatment integrity was of 94%. Lily attended a
total of twelve out of the thirteen intervention sessions; additionally, Lily was absent for two
days during the baseline phase of the study.
Effect Size:
𝑀1 − 𝑀2
Cohen’s d was calculated using the following formula √[(𝑠 1²+ 𝑠 2²) / 2]. PNOD was calculated
by using the total number of treatment data points above highest baseline data point divided by
total number of intervention data points. Based on Jacob Cohen’s classification for standard
39
mean differences, Jasmine’s Cohen’s d effective was large (Rakap, 2015). Additionally,
Jasmine’s PNOD indicated a small/weak effect (Vannest &Ninci, 2015).
TABLE 5. Lily’s Effect Size
Cohen’s d PNOD
1.30 .40
Conclusion
The results of the intervention indicated that Word Sort was effective for all three
participants. Abby’s, Jasmine, and Lily’s results suggest that Word Sort as an intervention is
effective at improving Oral Reading Fluency as evidenced by their performance across baseline
and treatment conditions. Word Sort, however, appeared to have a stronger impact on Abby and
Lily. Abby’s performance at the end of intervention was of 89 WCPM indicating a growth of 27
WCPM at six weeks of intervention. Lily’s performance at the end of intervention was of 90
WCPM indicating a growth of 22 WCPM at seven weeks of intervention. Jasmine’s performance
at the end of intervention (80 WCPM) and baseline (56 WCPM) is of 24 WCMP. Though
Jasmine did not meet her goal, a visual trend analysis indicated a positive and stable trend. These
results indicate that Word Sort, though effective, did not have the anticipated impact with
Jasmine.
40
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECCOMENDATIONS
The purpose of this research study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Word Sort, an
evidenced based intervention, with bilingual learners receiving Dual Immersion education.
Additionally, this study also sought to examine the impact of Word Sort on students’ Oral
Reading Fluency (ORF) and expand upon the existing research on Word Sort. The study’s results
indicated that Word Sort was effective for all three students. During the course of the study,
students’ ORF increased; however, Word Sort did not have the same impact on all participants.
This chapter presents the study’s finding with the research literature on effective interventions.
The study’s limitations, implications, and recommendations for future practice and research are
also provided.
An extensive body of research in education has documented the relationships between
early reading achievement and future academic success, and social and economic well-being
(Stockard & Engelmann, 2010). Further, research has demonstrated that students who struggle to
read will continue to experience reading difficulties unless provided with targeted or intensive
intervention supports early on. The cumulative effects of poor or good literacy skills on students
has shown to have long lasting effects on students’ academic success (Bursuck & Blanks, 2010;
Stockard & Engelmann, 2010).
Current research on Word Sort indicates that Word Sort is an effective reading
intervention for individuals with intellectual disabilities (Joseph & McCachran, 2003), general
education students (Joseph, 2010), students with learning disabilities (Staudt, 2009), and college
students (Atkinson et al., 2014). It was hypothesized that Word Sort would be an effective
reading intervention with bilingual learners receiving Dual Immersion education.
41
Research Question
Is Word Sort an effective reading intervention with Dual Immersion students who are
struggling early readers?
The study results indicated that Word Sort was effective at increasing participants’ scores
on ORF. A visual analysis of the data trend across all three participants indicated positive and
stable growth. Abby was first to establish a stable baseline. When comparing Abby’s
performance at baseline to the treatment condition, Abby demonstrated considerable growth in
the span of six weeks. Though Abby withdrew prematurely from the study, Abby was able to
exceed her intervention goal. Considering Abby’s performance trend, it is predicted that Abby’s
ORF would have continued to increase given continued intervention supports. Given the BEA
results, Abby may have made even greater improvements if a performance reward were included
with the Word Sort intervention. The magnitude of the effect size varies by type of effect size
metric. Cohen’s d suggests a large effect occurred; Percentage of Non-Overlapping Data
(PNOD) indicates a weak effect.
Jasmine’s data across baseline and treatment conditions indicated a positive trend;
however, Jasmine failed to meet her instructional goal at the conclusion of the study. Jasmine’s
performance trend during the eight weeks of the intensive intervention indicated that Word Sort
had a positive impact on Jasmine’s ORF. Jasmine’s performance on the Brief Experimental
Analysis (BEA) indicate that Jasmine would have benefited from syllable segmentation based
instructional strategies.
Lily showed considerable growth and exceed her instructional goal at the completion of
the study. Additionally, of the three participants, Lily had seven weeks of intervention and made
the most growth on ORF. The effect of Word Sort on ORF was evident across all three
42
participants; however, the strength of the effect varied across the three participants. Though the
study’s results indicate that Word Sort is effective at increasing the ORF of students receiving
Dual Immersion education, the results suggest that Word Sort, though effective, may not have an
immediate or as strong of an effect on students receiving Dual Immersion education.
Limitations of Study
Internal validity refers to the extent to which the results are due to a causal relationship
between the independent and dependent variables (Horner et al., 2005; Kern & Manz, 2004;). In
single subject research designs, the documentation of experimental control can be achieved by
the staggering introduction of the independent variable across different points of time (multiple
baseline designs) (Horner et al., 2005). Social validity refers to the social importance of an
intervention and importance of intervention effects on socially important outcomes (Horner et
al., 2005; Finn & Sladeczek, 2001). Lastly, the discussion of effect size measurement differences
in single subject research designs are discussed.
Internal Validity
The effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is evident in this study
due to the staggering introduction of the intervention within a multiple baseline design.
Furthermore, Horner et al., (2005) stated that, to determine experimental effect of the
independent variable on the dependent, an immediate effect on performance following the
introduction of the intervention (independent variable) must be observed. A visual analysis of
figure 1 do not illustrate an immediate effect on ORF upon the introduction of the intervention.
Due to a lack of change in progress upon the introduction of the intervention (i.e., phase shift),
the observed growth on ORF may not be due to Word Sort. Therefore, it is possible that the
positive results of the study may be due to a maturation effect. Further, in order to make accurate
43
comparisons between baseline and treatment conditions, a stable baseline is required; in Lily’s
case, due to time constraints to complete the study, a stable baseline was not achieved. Another
potential threat to internal validity is the method in which the Word Sorts were selected. Because
there is no clear or systematic manner for selecting words sorts, it is possible that the words sorts
selected may not be beneficial or accurately target students’ skill deficits. Though an error
analysis was conducted for all three participants based on their pervious performance on ORF
passages, the common errors across all three participants were utilized in selecting words to
target in Word Sort. However, a poor match between target words and ORF reading probes may
have impacted the independent variable’s effect on the dependent measure. Additional research
is needed with regards to determining an effective and systematic selection of target words
during the intervention phase. Finally, another limitation to the study is the BEA was
administered at the conclusion of the study rather than at the beginning (prior to the intervention
phase). For the purpose of identifying effective interventions strategies, a BEA at the beginning
of the study would have been more helpful.
External Validity
The results of this study may be limited in its generalizability to other schools,
populations, and settings. The extent to which this study’s results can be replicated in other
settings and with other populations may be impacted by the unique structure of the school. The
school Dual Immersion program (DI) followed a 90/10 DI model; however, it is uncertain if
similar results can be observed in other DI schools (i.e. 50/50 DI model). The school site was not
selected at random from a large selection of Dual Immersion programs; in fact, the school site
was selected due to its unique structure and accessibility for research.
44
Social Validity
Social validity is defined as the importance and relevance of an intervention concerning
a socially important outcome or behavior (Finn & Saldeczek, 2001; Horner et al., 2005). The
social validity of an intervention can be determined by three factors a) treatment goals must be
socially significant, b) treatment procedures must be socially appropriate and c) treatment effect
must hold social and/or clinical importance (Finn & Saldeczek, 2001). The impact of Word Sort
on students’ literacy skills indicates the presence of social validity. Word Sort’s (independent
variable) impact on ORF (dependent variable) was observed across all three participants. The
study’s social validity is further enhance by the impact of ORF on other literacy skills (i.e.
comprehension) (Horner et al., 2005; Grima-Farrell, 2015). Furthermore, the use of effective
evidenced based practices and the use of reliable and valid measures for the purposes of the
identification students for early intervention supports illustrates the use of socially appropriate
treatment procedures (Finn & Saldeczek, 2001; Horner et al., 2005; Miramontes et al., 2011).
Effect Size Measurements in Single Subject Research Designs
Cohen’s d and Percentage of Non-overlapping data (PNOD) were computed as measures
of intervention effect on the dependent variable. Effect Size calculations allow researchers to
make comparisons of treatment effects across participants and studies; further, effect sized allow
for the detection of small differences between treatments when effects are aggregated (Vannest
& Ninci, 2015). The study’s results indicated weak to strong effects. Cohen’s d assumes that data
are independent, evenly distributed, and have constant variance, characteristics not typical of
single subject designs (Parker, Vannest, & Brown, 2009). Additionally, Cohen’s d represents the
magnitude of intervention effect in terms of standard deviation units. However, Cohen’s d fails
to be sensitive to trends in data that are present in single subject research designs (Rakap, 2015).
45
Non-overlap measures of effect size represent the magnitude of intervention effect in terms of
percentage units (Rakap, 2015). Limitations to percentage of non-overlapping data (PNOD)
calculations for treatment effect are in the susceptibility of PNOD to celling effects and the
insensitivity to outliers as PNOD utilizes only one baseline data point (Byiers et al., 2012). Give
the differences between both effect size calculation, results of the effect size estimates should be
interpreted with caution. However, data trend indicates the presence of treatment effects.
Recommendation for Future Practice
The findings of this study have implications for providing Dual Immersions students with
effective targeted intervention supports. The results of this study indicate that Word Sort was
effective for students with reading delays receiving Dual Immersion (DI) education. Though
Word Sort proved to be an effective intervention for DI students, the difference in performance
across the three participants suggests that Word Sort alone may not be enough or as impactful
intervention to improve DI students’ Oral reading Fluency (ORF). Word Sort in conjunction with
other evidence based interventions and/or strategies may yield greater outcomes. Furthermore, a
common pitfall when providing intervention supports in schools or within an RtI framework is
the instruction mismatch between the students’ skill deficits and the prescribed intervention
(VanDerHeyden et al., 2016). Thus, identifying a clear systematic and effective match between
targeted words sorts and ORF passaged is warranted.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the results and limitations of this study, more research is needed to determine
how Word Sort can be strengthen to better improve ORF outcomes for students receiving Dual
Immersion education. Additionally, examining the effects between the types of Word Sorts (i.e.
meaning, pattern, and sound sorts) and ORF is needed to determine an effective instructional
46
match between targeted Word Sorts and ORF reading probes. The replication of the study’s
results in other DI models is needed to determine the generalizability of the intervention results
and identify possible differences of intervention impacts across different DI models. Finally,
future research should examine the impact of Word Sort with other evidenced based strategies on
Dual Immersion students. Given that a limitation of this study was the manner in which Word
Sorts were selected based on the performance of all three participants, it recommended that in
future research Word Sorts be individualized based on an individual student error analysis.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Word Sort with students
receiving Dual Immersion education. The study examined the impact of Word Sort on students’
oral reading fluency, expanding the existing research on Word Sort. Research in education
indicates that not all interventions are beneficial for all students; therefore, it is paramount that
the effectiveness of interventions are examine across various populations of students (Maggin et
al., 2013). Due to disparities in reading achievement and its impact on future academic success,
and social-economic well-being, it is of great importance that struggling early readers are
provided with the necessary evidenced based intervention supports (Palumbo & Kramer-Vida,
2012). The study’s results indicated that Word Sort was effective at increasing the participants’
overall ORF. Thus, the research hypothesis was supported. Most notably, more research is
needed to evaluate the effectiveness of Word Sort across different Dual Immersion school
settings.
47
APPENDICES
48
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
49
PATRICK HENRY K-8
3720 CANEHILL AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CA 90808
(562) 421-3754 FAX: (562) 420-7849
Letter of Introduction and Child Invitation to Participate in Research
Dear Parents/Legal Guardians of _________________________________________,
[Insert Date]
As your child’s second grade teacher, I would like to invite you, the parent(s), to allow your child
to participate in a research study examining the effectiveness of an evidence based intervention
(Word Sort) with students in a Dual Immersion school setting.
The study will be conducted at Patrick Henry K-8 before school and will not conflict with your
child’s instruction. The study involves two 20-25 minute sessions a week for 8-10 weeks totaling
16-20 sessions. If your child is a 2nd grader who might need help with reading fluently, he/she is
invited to participate.
Your child will be working one-on-one with researchers/Investigators from California State
University, Long Beach on Word Sorts. The sessions will occur during a time that does not
interfere with your child’s instruction and/or learning, before school between 8:15am-9:00am.
An assessment of your child’s reading ability will be done to determine if your child qualifies for
the study.
As the parent, it is your complete right and choice whether or not you want to allow your child to
participate in this research study. Because participation is voluntary, if you choose not allow
your child to participate in the research study, it will not negatively affect your child in way.
Furthermore, in no way will participating or not participating in the study impact your child’s
grades or standing in the class. Also, at any time, if you choose to allow your child to participate,
you may withdraw your permission and discontinue your child’s participation in the study
without any penalty to your child. If you choose to allow your child to participate in this research
study, please sign and return the enclosed copy of the Parental Consent Form for Child
Participation in Research within seven days in the envelope provided.
If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ivan Silva B.A., graduate
student Investigator, at (661) 333-6666 or by email at [email protected]. You may also
contact Kristin Powers Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor Investigator, at 562-985-1121 or by email at
[email protected].
50
Sincerely,
[Insert Teacher Name]
Patrick Henry K-8
51
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT FORMS
52
PARENTAL CONSENT FOR CHILD PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH STUDY
Dear Parents/Legal Guardians of _____________________________________,
Title: Word Sort: Building Fluency Through Decoding
INTRODUCTION:
Your child has the opportunity to participate in a research study. The purpose of this form is
to provide you, the parent of a prospective research study participant, with information that
would affect your decision of whether or not you would want to have your child participate
in this research study. The person conducting the research and/or other investigators involved
in study will be able to answer all your questions or concerns that may arise. Please read the
following information provided in this consent form before making a decision on whether or
not you want your child to participate. If you decide to provide consent for your child to
participate in this research study, the receipt and signed copy of this consent form will be
used to record your permission.
PURPOSE OF STUDY:
If you decide and agree to allow your child to participate in this research study, your child
will be asked to participate in a research study about an evidenced based intervention: Word
Sort. The research study is also part of a graduate student’s culminating activity or thesis.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of an evidence based intervention,
Word Sort, with students in a Dual Immersion school setting. Little to no research with this
evidenced based intervention has been done with this population of students.
PROCEDURE:
What is my child being asked to do?
If you allow your child to participate in this study, he/she will be asked to:
 Work one-on-one with the researcher twice a week for 20-25 minutes for 8 – 10
weeks on Word Sorts. Furthermore, sessions with the research will occur at a time
that does not conflict with your child’s instruction. The research sessions with your
child will take place before school between 8:15am-9:00am.
 Read DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (1 minute in duration) passages at the beginning
of every session to determine instructional level and to monitor progress.
 Based on your child’s performance on the DIBELS passages, your child will be
taught Word Sorts that represent syllabic parts of words such as “At” in cat or “Oi” in
boil. Your child will learn sorts that fall under word families, which in turn build
decoding skills, thus, increasing your child’s reading fluency.
53
POTENIAL RISK OR DISCOMFORT:
In any research study involving the participation of a vulnerable population such as children,
possible risks must be addressed with the legal parents/guardians of the child participating in
the research study. There are minimal foreseeable risks to your child participating in this
research study. Possible minimal risks may include frustration or embarrassment if your child
can not read material in the passages.
MINIMIZING RISKS OR DISCOMFORT:
In an effort to minimize possible frustration or embarrassment, frequent positive praise and

praising of effort will be used. Research in education has shown that frequent praising of
effort and positive praise helps increase a student’s self-efficacy and confidence. The
intervention will target your child’s instructional level, which will minimize frustration.
BENEFITS:
Possible benefits to your child are direct improvement in his/her ability to read fluently and
decode words that are unfamiliar to him/her. Increase confidence in reading and
improvement in school assignments requiring reading fluently are other possible benefits.
PATICIPATION AND WITHDRAWL:
Your child’s participation in this research study is completely voluntary. Your child has the
right to decline to participate or withdraw from the research study at any time without any
penalty to him/her. Withdrawing from or declining to participate will not affect any
relationship or future relationship with you or child and Patrick Henry K-8. You can agree to
allow your child to participate and change your mind later; as the parent, you have the right
to withdraw your child from the research study at any time without any penalty to you or
your child.
PARTICPATION OF CHILD:
In addition to your permission to participate, your child must also agree to participate in the
research study. If your child declines to participate in the research, he/she will not be
included in the study in anyway and there will be no penalty. If your child does agree to
participate, he/she may change his mind later on without any penalty to him/her. A child
assent form will be given and read to your child once your consent has been obtained.
COMPENSATION:
Neither you nor your child will receive any form of monetary compensation for participation
in this study. Small prizes may be used to motivate your child to read at their best ability.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
54
Your child’s privacy and confidentiality of his/her information and data will remain
confidential and will only be released with your written prior permission or if ordered by a
court or as required by law. Your child’s district reading benchmark data, grades, and
demographic information may be viewed by research investigator to understand your child’s
current level of performance in reading. Strict confidentiality of your child’s records and data
will be maintained in adherence to professional ethical standards set forth by the California
State University, Long Beach Institutional Review Board.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Ivan
Silva, B.A., principle graduate student investigator, by phone at 661-333-6666 or by email at
[email protected]. You may also contact Kristin Powers, Ph.D., faculty sponsor
investigator, by phone at 562-985-1121 or by email at [email protected].
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue your child’s participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
child’s participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your child’s rights
as a research participant, contact the Office of University Research, CSU Long Beach, 1250
Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840; Telephone: (562) 985-5314.
SIGNAGTURE AND CONSENT
You are making a decision about allowing your child to participate in this study. Your
signature below indicates that you have read the information provided above and have
decided to allow your child to participate in the study. If you later decide that you wish to
withdraw your permission for your child to participate in the study, you may discontinue his
or her participation at any time. You will be given a copy of this document for your records.
____________________________________
Printed Name of Child
____________________________________
Printed Name of Parent(s) or Legal Guardian
____________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Parent(s) or Legal Guardian Date
55
APPENDIX C
CHILD ASSENT FORM
56
Child/Adolescent Assent Form
Program: Word Sort: Building Fluency Through Decoding
Investigator: Ivan Silva, B.A. (661) 333-6666
Sponsor Investigator: Kristin Powers, Ph.D. (562) 985-1121
Study Synopsis: We are doing a study about students in a bilingual school who need help with
reading. We are asking you for your participation in order to see how students in a bilingual
school do with a reading intervention: Word Sort. The amount of time we need you to participate
is for about 8-10 weeks.
If you agree to be a part of our study, we will help you with developing your reading abilities
using Word Sorts. You will be asked to put words into rows of word families containing the
same sound and word pattern. For example, you may have a word such as “boil,” and will put it
in the word family that has the word/sound pattern of “oil.” The goal of this intervention and
research study is to help increase your reading skills and to see how bilingual students benefit
from Word Sort.
The researcher explained to you what the study is about. You know what you will be asked to do,
if you choose to be a part of the study.
By signing this paper, you are agreeing or say “yes” to participate in this study. If you do not
want to be a part of the study or project, please do not sign this paper. Being in this study is up to
you and is completely your choice. No one will be upset if you decide to not to be a part of this
study; there will be no negative or bad effects on grades or other school outcomes. Also, you can
choose to change your mind later on and “stop” being a part of the study without any negative
consequences. It okay to say “no” or change your mind later and stop; no one will be upset if you
say no or stop being a part of this. Being part of this is up to you.
Your printed name: ________________________________ Date __________
Your signature: ___________________________________ Date __________
Printed name of person obtaining consent: ______________ Date __________
Signature of person obtaining consent: _________________ Date __________
57
APPENDIX D
AGENCY LETTER
58
PATRICK HENRY K-8
3720 CANEHILL AVENUE, LONG BEACH, CA 90808
(562) 421-3754 FAX: (562) 420-7849
September 28, 2014
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs

1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Suite FO-511
Long Beach, California 90840-4509
To California State University, Long Beach Institutional Review Board,
This memo certifies that Ivan Silva has shared and discussed the study titled Word Study: Building Fluency
Through Decoding with me and other representatives of our school, Patrick Henry K-8 School in the Long Beach
Unified School District. This single subject research case study design will target 2 nd grade students in need of an
intensive fluency intervention that aims at building students’ word knowledge and decoding skills to increase Oral
Reading Fluency (ORF). Students will be identified by through use of the 2 nd grade database at Patrick Henry K-8.
2nd grade students who have scored one or two grade levels below their grade level on the most recent reading
benchmarks will be invited to participate.
This letter also confirms that this graduate student, as part of his education in the Educational Specialist Degree in
School Psychology Program at California State University, Long Beach’s School of Education, has permission to
conduct the above stated study at Patrick Henry K-8. Furthermore, this letter grants investigator permission to
consult with the teachers of prospective participating students and access student benchmark data, grades, and
demographics.
Sincerely,
David Komatz, Principal
Patrick Henry K-8
59
APPENDIX E
RESEARCH PROTOCOL
60
Word Study: Intervention Implementation and Assessment Protocol
Title: Word Sort: Building Fluency Through Decoding
Length of Study: 8-10 weeks.
Current literature on Word Study has shown that Word Study is an effective evidenced
based intervention for children in general education; however, current research literature
has not examined the effectiveness for Word Sort with bilingual students in a Dual
Immersion program.
Research Question:
Is Word Sort, a decoding and fluency building intervention, effective in increasing

students’ Oral Reading Fluency in a Dual Immersion program?
Definitions
Assessment:
Assess student’s current instructional level of fluency. Provide student(s) with grade level
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) reading passage. Use survey level assessment for
instructional level identification, as necessary.
Survey Level Assessment:
Assessing students in successive levels of the general education curricula for the purpose
determining instructional placement on ORF.
Instructional Placement/Levels of Instruction:
Mastery: Mastery level is when student can complete task with 97% accuracy and falls
above the 75th percentile on ORF.
Instructional: Instructional level is when student fall with in the 25th and 75th percentile
on national norms on ORF.
Frustrational: Frustrational level is when student fall below the 25th percentile on
national norms on ORF.
Baseline:
Once instructional level in oral reading fluency is identified, administer three different
oral reading fluency passages at instructional level for one minute each. The median
score on the three probes will serve as the student’s first baseline point. Two or more
baseline data points will be collected in the same manner over the following two or more
61
weeks until relatively stable baseline appears. The baseline is a representation of a
student’s performance prior to intervention, which serves as the point of reference for
judging the effectiveness of an intervention.
Progress Monitoring
After each intervention session, the student will again complete 3 one-minute oral
reading fluency DIBELS probes, which will be used for progress monitoring. Progress
monitoring will occur weekly. Score from passage will be recorded on physical oral
reading fluency passage and entered into Excel data file to review intervention and
student progress. Student’s baseline and weekly probe data will be input and plotted on
Excel showing student regression/goal-line, Student goal, and weekly probe data points.
Intervention:
Instructions for DIBELS ORF Survey Level Assessment, Baseline, Progress Monitoring,
and Intervention implementation
Procedure
Survey Level Assessment
Step 1: (Greet student) “Hello, I am (Insert name). I want you to read a few short
passages or stories for me today.”
Step2: Provide student with one current grade level ORF probe. Provide student with
non-numbered copy of ORF probe. Test administrator retains numbered copy of probe
for scoring.
Step 3: Read ORF standardized instructions and set timer to 1 minute and being when
DIBELS instructions direct to do so.
Step 4: If student falls within Frustrational level on first probe, administer the next lower
grade level ORF probe, then administer two additional probes.
Step 5: Repeat step 4, as necessary, until instructional level is identified.
Step6: Once Instructional level is identified, administer three probes. These three probes
will serve as baseline.
Baseline:
Follow DIBELS Oral Reading fluency administration procedure and scoring guidelines. Once
probes have been administered, take median score of the three probes as baseline.
Progress Monitoring:
62
At the end of every intervention session, 5 minutes before the intervention session ends,
three one minute DIBELS ORF progress monitoring probe will be given to student.
Unnumbered copy if given to the student and number copy is retained by researcher.
Intervention Procedures: Pattern Word Sort
1) Identify three target sounds from errors made on the previously administered
DIBELS probes and find six words that uniquely contain each target sound. Examples
of target sounds: “Archy,” “Cracy,” and “tuate.”
2) Write the 3 target sounds a six words containing the target sound on cards (i.e. on 5”
X 8” notecards).
3) Select one example of each the target sounds and place the card on the table in a row.
For example, “Anarchy,” Democracy,” and “Punctuate.”
4) Read each card to the student and point to the target sounds. For example, point to
“Archy,” read the word, point to “archy” and say: This part sounds like arke. Please
say arke as in “anarchy.”
5) Model the task first for the student by completing a second row directly beneath the
top row. For example, hold up the word “Hierarchy,” and say: “This is Hierarchy.
Does it look more like anarchy, democracy, or punctuate? I think it looks most like
anarchy because it ends in archy. This word is autocracy. Does it look more like
anarchy anarchy, democracy, or punctuate? I think it looks most like democracy
because it ends in cracy. This word is situate. Does it look more like anarchy
anarchy, democracy, or punctuate? I think it looks most like punctuate because it
ends in tuate. Be sure to say the sounds rather than the letters while pointing to the
letters.
6) Give the student three cards with one example of each sound (e.g., “Panarchy,”
“Theocracy,” and “Habituate”) and ask him or her to put the cards into the
appropriate column according to the target words at the top. Give the student
feedback after each one.
7) Give the student the remaining nine cards and ask him or her to sort them into the
three columns.
8) Give the student feedback after he or she has sorted the nine cards.
Note: procedural instructions were adapted from RTI Applications: Academic and Behavioral
Interventions (Burns et al., 2012). Also note, target sounds and words outline in the procedures
are not the exact target sounds or words that will be used with students in the intervention.
Target sounds and words outlined in the procedure served as an example of procedural
instructions in the implementation of the intervention.
Burns, M., Riley-Tillman, T., & VanDerHeyden, A. (2012). Academic Fluency-Building
Interventions. In RTI applications: Academic and behavioral interventions (Vol. 1, pp.
63
134-136). New York: Guilford Press.
Error Analysis: In order to identify what target sounds to teach the students, an error analysis
will be performed to identify target sounds. An error analysis is done after an academic
assessment has been given to a student, in which it evaluates and examines the pattern and
frequency of errors by the student on the given assessment. This provides the interventionist or
researcher with information on areas or skills the student is having difficulty with. In turn, the
interventionist or research can target those areas or skill of difficulty.
Oral Reading Fluency Shapiro (2011):
Grade Level of Level Words Correct Per Errors Per Minute

Materials Minute
1-2 Frustrational <40 >4
Instructional 40-60 ≤4
Mastery >60 ≤4
3-6 Frustrational <70 >6

Instructional 70-100 ≤6
Mastery >100 ≤6
64
APPENDIX F
TREATMENT INTEGRITY CHECKLIST
65
Word Sort: Building Fluency Through Decoding
Treatment Integrity Check List
Interventionist Name: Date: Time:
School: Observer/Rater: Grade:
Instructional Strategies: Components Observed:

DESCRIPTION OF BEHAVIOR YES NO N/A
1. (First Session Only): Interventionist Begins with

Modeling Words Sort Task.
2. Interventionist provides three words with the 3
underlined target sounds.
3. Words are set up in a row.
4. Interventionist points to first target sound and

states the target sound (i.e at in Cat) and
subsequently does the same with the rest of the
underlined target sounds.
5. Interventionist uses two fingers under target
sounds when stating sound.
6. After steps 4 & 5 Interventionist states “what
word?” And moves one finger under word, in a
“U’ patter from the first letter of the word to the
last letter of the word.
7. (First session only): Interventionist completes
first Row for the student.
8. Student Sorts remaining Words into Rows
(make sure words are mixed up).
9. Interventionist provides immediate corrective
feedback, if student sorts word into wrong row.
Feedback should be immediate and no longer
than 3 seconds after student makes error. Ask
student what sound, does it follow the pattern,
then have student move word into correct row.
10. After words have been sorted in respected rows,
provided feedback.
11. Point to each of the 3 beginning target sounds
and stated “what sound” and right after state
“what word.” Follow the same gestures
illustrated in steps 5 & 6.
12. If student has difficulty decoding a word, point
one finger at the beginning of word and state
66
“think time; this is your time to take it slow and
think about the sounds of the letters.”
13. Continue to do the same for each row where the
student is having difficulty decoding one or
more words until student can completely say all
words in row without errors or difficulty saying
words.
14. Move to next row and repeat steps in steps 12 &
13 as necessary.
15. Once all three row have been review, review one
last time following previous steps (11, 12, 13).
16. AIMWeb Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) probe
was administered at conclusion on intervention
session and time for one minute.
Treatment Integrity Summary:

_______________________ of 16 applicable components observed
_______________________ Percentage of Integrity
Check box if Intervention lasted at least 20 minute and no more than 25.
Rater Comments: _______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
67
APPENDIX G
BEA PROTOCOL
68
DAY 1 BEA PROTOCOL
Materials
 Examiner Copy of the 3 Instructional Passages
 Student Copy of the 3 Instructional Passages
 Examiner Copy of the corresponding 3 HWO/Generalization Passages (with predetermined goal*)
 Student Copy of the corresponding 3 HWO/Generalization Passages
 Stopwatch
 Pen or Pencil
 Highlighter
 Rewards
 Tape Recorder and tape
_____________________________________________________________________________
Begin recording
Reward Contingency (Instructional Passage #1)

 1. Present the Student Copy of the Instructional Passage #1 to the student, saying: “HERE IS A
STORY THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO READ. WHEN I SAY ‘BEGIN,’ START
READING ALOUD AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE (point to the top of the page) AND READ
ACROSS THE PAGE (demonstrate by pointing). TRY TO READ EACH WORD. IF YOU
COME TO A WORD YOU DON’T KNOW, I WILL TELL IT TO YOU. DO NOT STOP
READING UNTIL I SAY ‘STOP’. BE SURE TO DO YOUR BEST READING.”
 2. Say, “BEGIN!” and start the stopwatch when the student says the first word. While the
student is reading the passage aloud, follow along on the Examiner Copy putting a slash
through errors. If the student hesitates on a word for more than 3 seconds, say the word and put
a slash through it.
Make a bracket after ONE MINUTE and tell the student to stop reading.
1. Place several rewards in front of the child and say: “YOU WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO
EARN ONE OF THESE REWARDS FOR READING THIS STORY (point to the generalization
passage).”
 3. Say “LET’S CHOOSE A REWARD. CHOOSE ONE OF THE THINGS BEFORE
YOU TO WORK FOR.”
 4. Place the chosen reward so that it is visible to the student but beyond his or her reach.
 5. Compute the goal (30% greater than first read).
Reward (HWO/Generalization Passage)
 6. Remove the Instructional Passage and replace it with the HWO/Generalization
passage.
 7. Say: “NOW I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO READ THIS STORY. THIS TIME YOU
CAN EARN THE REWARD FOR DOING WELL. IN ORDER TO EARN THE _____ (say the
name of the chosen reward) YOU HAVE TO BEAT YOUR LAST SCORE, WHILE MAKING
69
NO MORE THAN THREE ERRORS. WHEN I SAY ‘BEGIN,’ START READING ALOUD
AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE (point to the top of the page) AND READ ACROSS THE PAGE
(demonstrate by pointing). TRY TO READ EACH WORD. IF YOU COME TO A WORD YOU
DON’T KNOW, I WILL TELL IT TO YOU. DO NOT STOP READING UNTIL I SAY
‘STOP’. BE SURE TO DO YOUR BEST READING.”
through errors. If the student hesitates on a word for more than 3 seconds, say the word
and put a slash through it.
 9. Make a bracket after ONE MINUTE and tell the student to stop reading.
 10. When the student finishes the passage, determine whether the student read past the
goal bracket and count the number of error words.
A. If the student met the goal with no more than 3 errors, say, "THAT TIME, YOU
READ ___ WORDS PER MINUTE AND MADE ___ ERRORS. GREAT WORK!
YOU MET THE GOAL AND EARNED THE REWARD!” Deliver the reward to the
student.
B. If the student did not meet the goal and/or made more than 3 errors, say "THAT
TIME, YOU READ ___ WORDS PER MINUTE AND MADE ___ ERRORS. NICE
TRY. BUT, YOU DID NOT MEET THE GOAL. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER
CHANCE TO EARN THE REWARD LATER” Remove reward from sight.
Repeated Reading (Instructional Passage #2)

 11. Say: “NOW I WANT YOU TO READ THIS STORY. YOU ARE GOING TO
PRACTICE READING THIS STORY A COUPLE OF TIMES TO HELP YOU GET
BETTER AT READING. EACH TIME I WILL TELL YOU HOW FAST YOU HAVE
READ THE STORY AND HOW MANY WORDS YOU MISSED. READ THE STORY
ALOUD. TRY TO READ EACH WORD. IF YOU COME TO A WORD YOU DON’T
KNOW, I WILL TELL IT TO YOU. BE SURE TO DO YOUR BEST READING. DO
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?”
 12. Say, “BEGIN!” and start the stopwatch when the student says the first word.
 13. Have the student read the entire passage 3Xs noting # WCPM for the first minute of
each reading. Write down (on the bottom of the probe) and tell the student the # of
seconds it took them to read the passage and the number of words they miss read. Record
WCPM for 1st minute of each read on CBM record.
Repeated Reading (HWO/Generalization Passage #2)

 14. Remove the Instructional Passage and replace it with the HWO/Generalization
passage.
 15. Say: “NOW I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO READ THIS STORY. MANY OF THE
WORDS ARE THE SAME AS THE PASSAGE YOU PRACTICED, SEE IF YOU CAN
BEAT YOUR LAST TIME. READ THE STORY ALOUD. TRY TO READ EACH
WORD. IF YOU COME TO A WORD YOU DON’T KNOW, I WILL TELL IT TO
YOU. BE SURE TO DO YOUR BEST READING.
70
 16. Record the # WCPM for the first minute on the CBM Data record, write the total # of
seconds and errors on the bottom of the probe.
Phrase Drill (Instructional Passage #3)

 17. Say: “NOW I WANT YOU TO READ THIS STORY. I WILL TELL YOU HOW
FAST YOU HAVE READ THE STORY AND HOW MANY WORDS YOU MISSED.
READ THE STORY ALOUD. TRY TO READ EACH WORD. IF YOU COME TO A
WORD YOU DON’T KNOW, I WILL TELL IT TO YOU. BE SURE TO DO YOUR
BEST READING. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?”
 18. Say, “BEGIN!” and start the stopwatch when the student says the first word.
 19. While the student is reading the passage aloud, follow along on the Examiner Copy
highlighting errors. If the student hesitates on a word for more than 3 seconds, say the
word and highlight it.
 20. Make a bracket and write the number “1” after the first minute of reading, but have
the student read aloud for TWO MINUTES and tell the student to stop reading. [The
number 1 indicates that this is where you stopped after the first reading.]
 21. Say, "THAT TIME, YOU READ ___ WORDS PER MINUTE AND MADE ___
ERRORS."
 22. Say: “YOU MISSED [SEVERAL/A COUPLE/NO] WORDS. WE ARE GOING TO
PRACTICE THE WORDS YOU MISSED.” Show the student where each error word is
highlighted in the passage.
 23. Point to the first word read incorrectly and say: “THIS WORD IS ____.” Have the
student say the word. Point to the beginning of the sentence containing the error word and
say, “PLEASE READ THIS SENTENCE THREE TIMES. GO ALL THE WAY TO
HERE [point to closest punctuation; e.g., period, question mark].” Have the student read
the sentence containing the error word three times. If more than 1 error occurs in the
sentence, model and prompt correct reading of each word once in the sentence and only
have the student read the sentence three times (regardless of the number of errors in the
sentence). Do the same for each of the highlighted words.
 24. Say: LET’S READ THIS PASSAGE AGAIN FROM THE TOP” Make a bracket and
write the number “2” after the first minute of reading, but have the student read aloud for
TWO MINUTES and tell the student to stop reading. [The number 2 indicates that this is
where you stopped after the first reading.
Phrase Drill (Generalization Passage #3)

WORDS ARE THE SAME AS THE PASSAGE YOU PRACTICED; SEE IF YOU CAN
 26. Say, “BEGIN!” and start the stopwatch when the student says the first word. While
the student is reading the passage aloud, follow along on the Examiner Copy putting a
slash through errors. If the student hesitates on a word for more than 3 seconds, say the
word and put a slash through it.
71
 27. Make a bracket and write the number “1” after the first minute of reading, but have
the student read aloud for TWO MINUTES and tell the student to stop reading. [The
number 1 indicates that this is where you stopped after the first reading. Record WRC for
first minute.
72
DAY 2 BEA PROTOCOL
Materials
 Examiner Copy of the 2 Instructional Passages
 Student Copy of the 2 Instructional Passages
 Examiner Copy of the corresponding 2 HWO/Generalization Passages (with predetermined goal*)
 Student Copy of the corresponding 3 HWO/Generalization Passages
 Stopwatch
 Pen or Pencil
 Highlighter
 Index card
 Reward (if motivation used in combo condition)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Begin Recording
Syllable Segmenting and Blending Lesson (Instructional Passage #4)

 1. Say: “NOW I WANT YOU TO READ THIS STORY. YOU ARE GOING TO
PRACTICE READING THIS STORY A COUPLE OF TIMES TO HELP YOU GET
BETTER AT READING. READ THE STORY ALOUD. TRY TO READ EACH
YOU. BE SURE TO DO YOUR BEST READING. DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS?”
 2. Present the instructional probe and record the WCPM for the first minute for each
reading. Have the student read the entire probe both times. Record the total seconds for
each reading on the bottom of the probe. Underline errors in first reading, highlight
errors during second reading.
 3. Say: “WE ARE GOING TO PRACTICE SOME OF THE DIFFICULT WORDS.”
[You will work only with words missed during both student readings. These words will
be both underlined and highlighted.]
 4. Turn the Examiner Copy of the instructional passage towards the student. For each
underlined and highlighted error word in the passage, cover all but the first syllable of
the error word with an index card. Say, “THESE LETTERS SAY____. NOW YOU SAY
IT.” Wait for a response and say, “GOOD!” [If the student makes an error or fails to
respond, say, “THESE LETTERS SAY___. SAY IT. GOOD!”] Repeat this step for all of
the syllables in the word, successively exposing each syllable until the student practices
all of the syllables in the word. Do this for every underlined and highlighted word.
 5. Returning to the first error word, cover all but the first syllable of the error word with
an index card and say, “NOW SAY THE SOUNDS AND THEN SAY THE WORD.”
Expose the first syllable and have the student say the sounds. [If the student makes an
error or fails to respond, say, “NO. THESE LETTERS SAY___. SAY IT. GOOD!”]
Expose each successive syllable, following the same procedure. With all syllables
73
exposed, say, “SAY THE WORD.” [If the student makes an error, say, “NO. THE
WORD IS ___. SAY IT. GOOD!”] Do this for every underlined and highlighted word.
 6. Say: LET’S READ THIS PASSAGE AGAIN FROM THE TOP” Make a bracket and
write the number “1” after the first minute of reading, record WCPM for first minute.
Syllable Segmentation (HWO/ Generalization Passage #4)

WORDS ARE THE SAME AS THE PASSAGE YOU PRACTICED; SEE IF YOU CAN
through errors. If the student hesitates on a word for more than 3 seconds, say the word
and put a slash through it. Make a bracket after ONE MINUTE and tell the student to
stop reading. Record WCPM for first minute.
Listening Passage Preview (Instructional Passage #5)
 9. Present the Student Copy of the Instructional Passage to the student, saying: “HERE IS A
STORY THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO READ. HOWEVER, I AM GOING TO
READ THE STORY TO YOU FIRST. PLEASE FOLLOW ALONG WITH YOUR
FINGER, READING THE WORDS TO YOURSELF AS I SAY THEM.”
 10. Using the Examiner Copy of the Instructional Passage, read the entire passage at a
comfortable reading rate (approx. 130 words per minute), making sure that the student is
following along with a finger. Prompt the student to follow along if he or she is not doing so.
 11. “NOW I WANT YOU TO READ THIS STORY. READ THE STORY ALOUD.
TRY TO READ EACH WORD. IF YOU COME TO A WORD YOU DON’T KNOW, I
WILL TELL IT TO YOU. BE SURE TO DO YOUR BEST READING. DO YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?”
word and put a slash through it. Make a bracket after ONE MINUTE and tell the
student to stop reading. Record WCPM for first minute.
Listening Passage Preview (HWO/ Generalization Passage #5)

 13. Present the Student Copy of the Generalization Passage to the student Say: “NOW I
WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO READ THIS STORY. MANY OF THE WORDS ARE
THE SAME AS THE PASSAGE YOU JUST READ; SEE IF YOU CAN BEAT YOUR
LAST TIME. READ THE STORY ALOUD. TRY TO READ EACH WORD. IF YOU
COME TO A WORD YOU DON’T KNOW, I WILL TELL IT TO YOU. BE SURE TO
DO YOUR BEST READING.
74
student to stop reading. Record WCPM for first minute..
Combination (Instructional Passage #6)
 15. Select two or three interventions from above and provide them to the student in
combinations such as:
 16. Present the Student Copy of the Instructional Passage to the student, saying: “HERE IS A
STORY THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO READ. HOWEVER, I AM GOING TO
READ THE STORY TO YOU FIRST. PLEASE FOLLOW ALONG WITH YOUR
FINGER, READING THE WORDS TO YOURSELF AS I SAY THEM.”
 17. Using the Examiner Copy of the Instructional Passage, read the entire passage at a
comfortable reading rate (approx. 130 words per minute), making sure that the student is
following along with a finger. Prompt the student to follow along if he or she is not doing so.
 18. “NOW I WANT YOU TO READ THIS STORY. READ THE STORY ALOUD.
TRY TO READ EACH WORD. IF YOU COME TO A WORD YOU DON’T KNOW, I
WILL TELL IT TO YOU. BE SURE TO DO YOUR BEST READING. DO YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?”
Combination (HWO/ Generalization Passage)

WORDS ARE THE SAME AS THE PASSAGE YOU JUST READ; SEE IF YOU CAN
Record Ending Time______________
75
APPENDIX H
IRB APPROVAL LETTER
76
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG
BEACH
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & SPONSORED PROGRAMS
DATE: January 14, 2015
TO: Ivan Silva

FROM: California State University, Long Beach (IRB)
PROJECT TITLE: [688202-3] Word Sort: Building Fluency Through Decoding

REFERENCE #: 15-166s
SUBMISSION TYPE: Revision
ACTION: APPROVED
APPROVAL DATE: January 14,
2015
EXPIRATION DATE: January 13, 2016
REVIEW TYPE: Administrative
This is to advise you that the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects (IRB)
of California State University, Long Beach, has reviewed your protocol application.
Your application is approved. The requested modifications have been received, reviewed, and
accepted.
Approval is for a period of one year from the date of this letter and conditional upon your
willingness to carry out your continuing responsibilities under University policy. If you would like to
continue this research after this one year period, please submit a renewal application and an
annual report to the Office of Research & Sponsored Programs two months prior to your
expiration date of January 13, 2016.
1. You must clearly indicate in the header or footer of each page of your approved Informed Consent
Form the approval and expiration dates of the protocol as follows: "Approved from January 14,
2015 to January 13, 2016 by the CSULB IRB".
2. You are required to inform the Director or Senior Associate Director, Office of Research &
Sponsored Programs, in writing (email is acceptable) or through IRBNet within twenty-four hours
of any adverse event in the conduct of research involving human subjects. The report shall
include the nature of the adverse event, the names of the persons affected, the extent of the
injury or breach of security, if any, and any other information material to the situation.
77
3. You may not change any aspect of your research procedure involving human subjects without
written permission from the Director, Office of Research & Sponsored Programs or the Chair of
the IRB. Please use the Protocol Modification Form on IRBNet to request any changes.
4. Maintain your research records as detailed in the protocol
Should you have any questions about the conduct of your research under this protocol, particularly
about providing informed consent and unexpected contingencies, please do not hesitate to call the
Office of Research & Sponsored Programs at (562) 985-8147. We wish you the best of success in
your research.
This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations, and a copy is retained within California
State University, Long Beach Institutional Review Board's records.
78
APPENDIX I
IRB PHONE SCRIPT
79
IRB Phone Script
Dialogue:
Ivan Silva:
Hello [parents name]. My name is Ivan Silva. I am graduate student researcher from California
State University, Long Beach.
A week ago, your child’s 2nd teacher mailed you a pack containing a letter of Introduction and
Invitation for Child Participation in Research. As the research conducting this study, I am doing
a follow up call to make sure you received the packet and see if you had any further questions or
concerns.
As a safeguard for you and your child, choosing to not participate in this study will not
negatively affect you or your child in anyway. Also, if you later change your mind, you may
withdraw your child from the study without any ramifications. Participation in this study is
completely voluntary. Choosing to participate or not participate will not affect your child’s
grades or standing in the class.
Please, if you have any question or concerns, don’t hesitate to call me. My contact information is
on both the Introduction and Parent Consent form. You may also contact my Faculty Supervisor
whose information is also on the Introduction and consent form.
80
REFERENCES
81
REFERENCES
Alanis, I., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2008). Sustaining a dual language immersion program: Features
of success. Journal of Latinos and Education, 7(4), 305-319.
Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Atkinson, T. S., Zhang, G., Phillips, S. F., & Zeller, N. (2014). Using word study instruction with
developmental college students. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(4), 433-448.
Baum, W. M. (2011). What is radical behaviorism? A review of Jay Moore's conceptual

foundations of radical behaviorism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
95(1), 119-126. doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.95-119
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. R., (2012). Words their
way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Bloodgood, J. W. (1991). A new approach to spelling instruction in language arts programs. The
Elementary School Journal, 92(2), 203-211. doi:10.1086/461688
Bloodgood, J. W., & Pacifici, L. C. (2004). Bringing word study to intermediate classrooms.
Reading Teacher, 58(3), 250-263.
Botts, D. C., Losardo, A. S., Tillery, C. Y., & Werts, M. G. (2014). A comparison of activity-
based intervention and embedded direct instruction when teaching emergent literacy
skills. Journal of Special Education, 48(2), 120-134.
Boyle, A., Golden, L., Le Floch, K. C., O'Day, J., Harris, B., Wissel, S., & Mathematica
Policy Research, Institute. (2014). Building teacher capacity to support English language
learners in schools receiving school improvement grants. NCEE Evaluation Brief (NCEE
2015-4004). Ipswich, MA: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance.
Brooke-Garza, E. (2015). Two-way bilingual education and Latino students. Educational

Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 26,75-85.
Brown, C. S. (2014). Language and literacy development in the early years: Foundational
skills that support emergent readers. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 24(3), 5-49.
Burns, M. K., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2012). RTI applications:

Academic and behavioral interventions (Vol. 1). New York: Guilford Press.
82
Bursuck, B., & Blanks, B. (2010). Evidence-based early reading practices within a response to
intervention system. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 421-431.
Bursuck, W. D., & Damer, M. (2014). Teaching reading to students who are at risk or have
disabilities: A multi-tier, RTI approach (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Byiers, B. J., Reichle, J., & Symons, F. J. (2012). Single-subject experimental design for
evidence-based practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(4), 397-
414.
Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners.
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
Carson, K. L., Gillon, G. T., & Boustead, T. M. (2013). Classroom phonological awareness
instruction and literacy outcomes in the first year of school. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 44(2), 147-160.
Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). What does research say about effective practices for
English learners? Introduction and Part I: Oral Language Proficiency. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 46(1), 10-16.
Daly, E. I., Martens, B. K., Kilmer, A., & Massie, D. R. (1996). The effects of instructional
match and content overlap on generalized reading performance. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 507-518. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-507
Daly, E. I., Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a
functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review,
26(4), 554-74.
Dennis, M. S., Calhoon, M. B., Olson, C. L., & Williams, C. (2014). Using computation
curriculum-based measurement probes for error pattern analysis. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 49(5), 281-289.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing

critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. doi:10.1002/piq.21143
Etmanskie, J. M., Partanen, M., & Siegel, L. S. (2016). A longitudinal examination of the
persistence of late emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1),
21-35.
Finn, C. A., & Sladeczek, I. E. (2001). Assessing the social validity of behavioral nterventions:
A review of treatment acceptability measures. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 176-
206.
83
Fresch, M. J. (2000). What we learned from Josh: Sorting out word sorting. Language Arts,
77(3), 232-40.
Fryling, M. J., Wallace, M. D., & Yassine, J. N. (2012). Impact of treatment integrity on
intervention effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(2), 449-453.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of
reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School
Psychology Review, 28, 659-671.
Goddard, M. J. (2014). Critical psychiatry, critical psychology, and the behaviorism of B. F.

Skinner. Review of General Psychology, 18(3), 208-215. doi:10.1037/gpr0000012
Grima-Farrell, C. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R): An

objective orientated evaluation study. Support for Learning, 29(4), 370-393.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Goldstein, H., Kaminski, R. A., McConnell, S. R., & Atwater, J.
(2014). The center for Response to Intervention in early childhood: Developing evidence-
based tools for a Multi-Tier approach to preschool language and early literacy instruction.
Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 246-262.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & McConnell, S. (2011). Advances in measurement for universal
screening and individual progress monitoring of young children. Journal of Early
Intervention, 33(4), 254-267.
Hagermoser, Sanetti, L. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2011). An evaluation of the "Treatment

Integrity Planning Protocol" and two schedules of treatment integrity self-report: Impact
on implementation and report accuracy. Journal of Educational & Psychological
Consultation, 21(4), 284-308.
Hall, C., & Mahoney, J. (2013). Response to intervention: Research and practice. Contemporary
Issues in Education Research, 6(3), 273-278.
Hanselman, P., Bruch, S. K., Gamoran, A., & Borman, G. D. (2014). Threat in context: School
moderation of the impact of social identity threat on racial/ethnic achievement gaps.
Sociology of Education, 87(2), 106-124.
Hoffman, A. R., Jenkins, J. E., & Dunlap, S. K. (2009). Using DIBELS: A survey of purposes
and practices. Reading Psychology, 30(1), 1-16.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of
single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education.
Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179.
Invernizzi, M., Abouzeid, M., & Bloodgood, J. (1997). Integrated word study: Spelling,
84
grammar, and meaning in the language arts classroom. Language Arts, 74,185–192.
Joseph, L. M. (2000). Developing first graders' phonemic awareness, word identification and
spelling: A comparison of two contemporary phonic instructional approaches. Reading
Research and Instruction, 39(2), 160-169. doi:10.1080/19388070009558318
Joseph, L. M. (2002a). Facilitating word recognition and spelling using word boxes and Word
Sort phonic procedures. School Psychology Review, 31(1), 122-29.
Joseph, L. M. (2002b). Helping children link sound to print: phonics procedures for small-group
or whole-class settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 217-21.
Joseph, L. M., & McCachran, M. (2003). Comparison of a word study phonics technique
between students with moderate to mild mental retardation and struggling readers without
disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(2), 192-199.
Joseph, L. M., & Orlins, A. (2005). Multiple uses of a word study technique. Reading
Improvement, 42(2), 73-79.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., ...
Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small group reading instruction for English
language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-Tier Intervention. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 30(3), 153-168.
Kampwirth, T. J., & Powers, K. M. (2016). Collaborative consultation in the schools: Effective
practices for students with learning and behavior problems (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Kern, L., & Manz, P. (2004). A look at current validity issues of school-wide behavior support.
Behavioral Disorders, 30(1), 47-59.
Learning Point, A. (2004). A Closer Look at the Five Essential Components of Effective
Reading Instruction: A Review of Scientifically Based Reading Research for Teachers.
Learning Point Associates.
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Integrating science and English proficiency for English
language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 36-42.
Lemons, C. J., Zigmond, N., Kloo, A. M., Hill, D. R., Mrachko, A. A., Paterra, M. F., & Davis,
S. M. (2013). Performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities on early-
grade curriculum-based measures of word and passage reading fluency. Exceptional
Children, 79(4), 408-426.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Chhabra, V. (2005). Evidence-based reading
policy in the United States: How scientific research informs instructional practices.
85
Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 209-250.
Maggin, D. M., Briesch, A. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Ferguson, T. D., & Clark, C. (2014). A
comparison of rubrics for identifying empirically supported practices with single-case
research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(2), 287-311.
Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K. (2005). Direct instruction revisited: A key model
for instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4),
41-56.
Martin-Beltran, M. (2010). The Two-Way Language Bridge: Co-Constructing Bilingual

Language Learning Opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 254-277.
Miramontes, N. Y., Marchant, M., Heath, M. A., & Fischer, L. (2011). Social validity of a
positive behavior interventions and support model. Education and Treatment of Children,
34(4), 445-468.
Moeyaert, M., Ugille, M., Ferron, J. M., Onghena, P., Heyvaert, M., Beretvas, S. N., & Van den
Noortgate, W. (2015). Estimating intervention effects across different types of single-
subject experimental designs: Empirical illustration. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1),
50-63.
Moore, J. (2011). Behaviorism. Psychological Record, 61(3), 449-463.
O'reilly, T., Sabatini, J., Bruce, K., Pillarisetti, S., & McCormick, C. (2012). Middle school
Reading Assessment: Measuring What Matters under a RTI Framework. Reading
Psychology, 33(1-2), 162-189.
Paciga, K. A., Hoffman, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2011). The national early literacy panel and
preschool literacy instruction: Green lights, caution lights, and red lights. Young
Children, 66(6), 50-57.
Palumbo, A., & Kramer-Vida, L. (2012). An academic curriculum will close the academic
achievement gap. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,
85(3), 117-121.
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Brown, L. (2009). The "Improvement Rate Difference" for
single-case research. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 135-150.
Pearce, L. R., & Gayle, R. (2009). Oral reading fluency as a predictor of reading comprehension
with American Indian and white elementary students. School Psychology Review, 38(3),
419-427.
Rakap, S. (2015). Effect sizes as result interpretation aids in single-subject experimental

research: Description and application of four nonoverlap Methods. British Journal of
86
Special Education, 42(1), 11-33.
Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Simmons, J. (1991, September 21). Learning controversy: A situational perspective. Retrieved

from ERIC database. (ED337759)
Smith, J. D. (2012). Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research

and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 510-550.
Staudt, D. H. (2009). Intensive word study and repeated reading improves reading skills for two
students with learning disabilities. Reading Teacher, 63(2), 142-151.
Stein, M., Carnine, D., & Dixon, R. (1998). Direct instruction: Integrating curriculum design and
effective teaching practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4), 227-33.
Steele, J. L., Slater, R., Li, J., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., & Society for Research on Educational
Effectiveness, (2015). Costs and effects of dual-language immersion in the Portland
Public Schools. Evanston, IL: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Stockard, J., & Engelmann, K. (2010). The development of early academic success: The impact
of Direct Instruction's reading mastery. Journal of Behavior Assessment and Intervention
in Children, 1(1), 2-24. doi:10.1037/h0100357
Strunk, K. O., & McEachin, A. (2014). More than sanctions: Closing achievement gaps through
California’s use of intensive technical assistance. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 36(3), 281-306.
Tindall, E., & Nisbet, D. (2010). Exploring the essential components of reading. Journal of Adult
Education, 39(1), 1-9.
VanDerHeyden, A., Burns, M., Brown, R., Shinn, M. R., Kukic, S., Gibbons, K., & Tilly, W.
(2016, January 5). Four steps to implement RTI correctly. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/four-steps-to-implement-rti-correctly
.html? cmp=eml-contshr-shr
Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single‐case research
designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(4), 403-411. doi:10.1002/jcad.12038
Wanzek, J., Roberts, G., & Al Otaiba, S. (2014). Academic responding during instruction and
reading outcomes for kindergarten students at-risk for reading difficulties. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 55-78.
87
Zutell, J. (1998). Word Sorting: A developmental spelling approach to word study for delayed
readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14(2), 219-
238. doi:10.1080/1057356980140205
88

Word_sort_Building_fluency_th

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Word_sort_Building_fluency_th

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Word_sort_Building_fluency_th

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORD SORT: BUILDING FLUENCY THROUGH DECODING

Presented to the Department of

Advanced Studies in Education and Counseling

California State University, Long Beach

of the Requirements for the Degree

Education Specialist in School Psychology

Kristin Powers, Ph.D. (Chair)

Marquita Grenot-Scheyer, Ph.D.

B.A., 2013, California State University, Bakersfield

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

WORD SORT: BUILDING FLUENCY THROUGH DECODING

This study examined the effectiveness of an evidenced-based reading intervention, Word

I would like to acknowledge those that contributed to this thesis:

and energy invested in my thesis is greatly valued and appreciated.

graduate training. For that, you have my greatest appreciation.

feedback you have provided me with regards to my writing.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Ivonne Valdovinos Macias, Patricia Marquez,

Language Elementary School’s second grade teachers.

5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECCOMENDATIONS……………………......…41

B. INFORMED CONSENT FORMS……………………………………………………….52

C. CHILD ASSENT FORM………………………………………………………………...56

F. TREATMENT INTEGRITY CHECKLIST……………………………………………..65

H. IRB APPROVAL LETTER……………………………………………………………...76

I. IRB PHONE SCRIPT……………………………………………………………………79

1. Student Inclusionary Data………………………………………………………………..22

2. Error Pattern Analysis Across All Participants…………………………………………..31

3. Abby’s Effect Size……………………………………………………………………….33

4. Jasmine’s Effect Size…………………………………………………………………….37

5. Lily’s Effect Size……………………………………………………………………...…40

3. Abby’s response to intervention……………………………………………………...…32

5. Jasmine’s response to intervention…………………………………………………...…36

6. Lily’s response to intervention…………………………………………………….……39

ORF Oral Reading Fluency

RtI Response to Intervention

MTSS Multi-Tier System of Support

EBIs Evidenced Based Interventions

CBM Curriculum Based Measure

GOM General Outcome Measure

CLD Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

SES Socioeconomic Status

ELL English Language Learner

BEA Brief Experimental Analysis

SLA Survey Level Assessment

NLP National Literacy Panel

CREDE Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence

WCPM Words Read Correct Per Minute

Literacy instruction is an important component of education. The ability to read is highly

Therefore, it is important to address the components that comprise literacy development.

literacy development identified five critical areas of literacy development: phonological

proficient readers (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009).

subsequent academic school years (Etmanskie, Partanen, & Siegel, 2016).

Word Sort is an evidence-based reading intervention that targets decoding (phonics) in

ability to read fluently (Burns et al., 2012).

students receiving Dual Immersion education.

of remediating reading difficulties with these students.

al., 1998). Word Sort is a form of direct instruction.

Word Sort with bilingual learners in a Dual Immersion program.

Reading Fluency (ORF).