The Impact of Response to Intervention Strategy on EFL Iraqi Primary School Pupils' Reading Comprehension
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25130/Lang.9.4.P2.9Keywords:
Comprehension, EFL, Response to Intervention, PosttestAbstract
The current study aims to find out the impact of the Response to Intervention (RTI) strategy on improving reading comprehension skills of Iraqi primary school pupils learning English as a foreign language. Recognizing the critical role of reading comprehension in language acquisition, the study is based on two hypotheses: There is no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group taught using the Response to Intervention strategy and the control group taught using the prescribed method in the posttest. There is no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group in the pretest and posttest. To achieve the aim of this study and verify its hypotheses, a non-randomized experimental group pretest-posttest group design has been chosen. The pupils have been taught during the academic year 2024-2025 in English subject. The sample comprises 68 sixth-grade pupils selected from Al-Khansaa'1st School for Girls in Tikrit City. The experimental group, consisting of 34 pupils, was taught using the Response to Intervention strategy, while the control group, also consisting of 34 pupils, received instruction through the prescribed traditional method. A posttest contains six questions, which are constructed to collect data. Face and content validity have been achieved. The reliability coefficient has been verified, and the researcher herself teaches both groups. The data collected from the posttest results have been analyzed statistically by using a t-test to measure the pupils' performance. The results show that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group and control group in posttest. Moreover, there is a statistically significant difference between the mean score of the experimental group in pre and posttest. which indicates that Response to Intervention strategy is more effective than the prescribed method. The study ends with recommendations and suggestions for further studies based on the obtained results.
References
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 423–436.
American Institute for Research. (2004). A closer look at the five essential components of effective reading instruction: A review of scientifically based reading research for teachers. American Institute for Research.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Social studies texts are hard to understand: Mediating some of the difficulties. Language Arts, 68, 482–490.
Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B., & Gibbons, K. A. (2007). The St. Croix River district model: Incorporating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 319–330). Springer.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. Guilford Press. (Cited in Tammy J. Samples, 2013)
Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response to intervention in elementary and secondary schools. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem-solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1–16.
Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. A. (2009). Progress monitoring within a response-to-intervention model. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.rtinetwork.org
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Press.
Fuchs, D., Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–322.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Zumeta, R. O. (2008). A curricular-sampling approach to progress monitoring: Mathematics concepts and applications. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(4), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508407313484
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Grimes, J. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special education identification, service, and exiting decision making. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Programs LD Summit Conference, Washington, DC.
Hagaman, J. L., & Reid, R. (2008). The effects of paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school pupilsat risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29(4), 222–234.
Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Ward, D. (2013). A brief history of the field of learning disabilities. In H. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 15–32). Guilford Press.
Harris, D. R. (1967). Teaching English as a second language. McGraw-Hill.
Hintze, J. M. (2007, September). Conceptual & empirical issues related to developing a response-to-intervention framework. Paper presented at the National Center on Pupil Progress Monitoring, Washington, DC. Retrieved May 26, 2008.
Hosp, K. M., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2012). A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. Guilford Press.
Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534934 (Cited in Smith, 2013)
Jenkins, J. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention symposium, Kansas City, MO.
Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.
Kovaleski, J. F., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Runge, T. J., Zirkel, P. A., & Shapiro, E. S. (2022). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities: Second edition. Guilford Press.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational research. Jossey-Bass.
McMaster, K. L., & Wagner, D. (2007). Monitoring response to general education instruction. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 223–233). Springer.
Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to implementing response to intervention. Corwin Press.
Mousavi, S. A. (2009). An encyclopedia dictionary of language testing (4th ed.). Tehran: Rahnama Press.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. https://intensiveintervention.org/resource/data-based-individualization-framework-intensive-intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010, March). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. U.S. Department of Education.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (Report No. 00-4754). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Oluwatayo, J. A. (2012). Validity and reliability issues in educational research. Journal of Educational and Social Research.
Penner-Wilger, M. (2008, February). Reading fluency: A bridge from decoding to comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.autoskill.com/pdf/fluency_research.pdf
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519.
Rapp, D. N., Sandoval, S., & Berman, M. (2007). Working memory and comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 327–342). Blackwell Publishing.
Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older pupils with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 63–69.
Rivers, W. M. (1994). Teaching foreign language skills. University of Chicago Press.
Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Not just speed reading: Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting high-stakes third-grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366.
Shinn, M. R. (2007). A five-step model for implementing response to intervention. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1051–1065). National Association of School Psychologists.
Smith, S. J., & Okolo, C. (2010). Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300404
Snow, C. E., & Sweet, A. P. (2003). Reading for comprehension. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (p. 241). Guilford Press.
Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 147–169.
Verma, G. K., & Beard, R. M. (1981). What is educational research? Perspectives on techniques of research. Gower Publishing Company.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Reading and communication. In Teaching English as a foreign/second language. Newbury House Publishers.
Wold, K. (2009). Response to intervention: A guide for educators. Pearson Education.
