Monitoring children's growth in early literacy skills: effects of feedback on performance and classroom environments.(Report)

Abstract

The study examined the benefits of providing kindergarten teachers with feedback about students' performance on early literacy progress-monitoring probes. Students were administered the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in fall, winter, and spring; classroom environment was evaluated using the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) in fall and spring. Teachers received either (a) specific information about students' performance on the DIBELS or (b) descriptive information about the DIBELS without performance feedback. Students whose teachers received feedback (n=55) made greater improvements on two DIBELS subtests compared to students whose teachers did not receive feedback (n=48). Feedback did not lead to greater change in classroom environment. Implications for using progress-monitoring to promote early literacy skill development are discussed.

**********

Children enter kindergarten with a wide range of early literacy skills, such as phonemic awareness and letter naming, which are strongly predictive of later success in reading (Burns, Griffin, & Snow, 1999; Neuman & Dickinson, 2001). Most children develop skills rapidly during their first 2 years of school. For some children, however, early reading skill deficits at the beginning of kindergarten tend to remain, or even worsen, throughout elementary school Quel, 1988; Scarborough, 1998; Simmons, Kame'enui, Coyne, & Chard, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Children who are poor readers at the end of elementary school are most often those who fail to show typical progress in developing early literacy skills during kindergarten and first grade.

In recent years, Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) has been recommended as an approach for identifying children who may be at risk for reading problems (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). RTI is an alternative to a discrepancy model, or so-called "wait and fail" approach, in which students must fall significantly behind in reading before they receive special services. RTI hinges on the use of systematic progress-monitoring to (a) collect information about how children are performing, and (b) enable teachers to respond with well-targeted instruction and individualized support as soon as delays are evident. The major premise of RTI is that intervening early can prevent the development of serious academic problems. Recently, researchers have developed a model known as Recognition and Response (R&R) which adapts RTI to early childhood education (Coleman, Buysse, & Neitzel, 2006). This model assumes that once teachers recognize when children are falling below expected benchmarks, they will respond in ways to promote children's success, such as making adjustments in the literacy environment or providing additional assistance as needed. The aim of the current study was, in part, to test this critical assumption underlying RTI.

Monitoring Growth in Early Literacy Skills

A key element of RTI is the use of appropriate progress-monitoring tools to identify children who fail to make adequate progress in acquiring early literacy skills and, as a result, may be at risk for reading problems. Most RTI implementation models rely on two cycles of progress-monitoring (Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2002). The first cycle involves measuring periodically (three times per year) skills that predict future reading achievement including phonemic awareness, alphabet knowledge, and alphabet code (or phonics) fluency (Casey & Howe, 2002). Typically, all students participate in periodic progress-monitoring which uses benchmark assessments to identify children who are at risk for reading difficulty and to evaluate the overall effectiveness of classroom instruction. The second cycle of progress-monitoring measures the same skills and often uses the same assessment tools; however, only students who fall below benchmarks based on periodic progress-monitoring are included. This type of progress-monitoring occurs with greater frequency (up to twice per week) and is designed to help educators provide individualized instruction and monitor the progress of at-risk students toward important reading goals. For purposes of the current study, our focus was on the use of periodic benchmark assessments for all children.