Running Head: IMPACT OF TIERED READING INSTRUCTION

IMPACT OF ENHANCING CORE READING INSTRUCTION IN TIER 1, 2 AND
3 MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Kara Elizabeth Eckert
California University of Pennsylvania
July 2020
California University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

iii

Acknowledgements

The past two years have been filled with exciting and challenging moments, and
through it all, my support system has kept me motivated. Thank you to my inner circle of
friends and colleagues that cheered me on, talked through assignments and research,
reviewed drafts, provided feedback, and encouraged me every step of the way. Thank
you to the many inspiring faculty members of California University, especially Dr. Mary
Wolf for your guidance throughout this process. Thank you to my long-time colleague
and friend, Dr. Wesley Shipley, you have been my biggest cheerleader for work and
school over the past ten years. Thank you to my parents for supporting my dreams and
providing me a pathway to turn them into a career. Thank you to my husband, Jim, for
being by my side through all of life’s challenges and successes, I wouldn’t be who I am
today without you. To my children, Emma and Brady, thank you for understanding how
important this process has been to me and for allowing me the time I need to complete
research and assignments. Your support, excitement and words of encouragement meant
more than anything as I sacrificed many precious hours over the past two years. It is my
hope that I have set a positive example of perseverance, challenge and drive toward
success for you as you continue your pathway to your future. I am looking forward to
where my passions and journey will take me next.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments

iii

Abstract

ix

List of Tables

vii

List of Figures

viii

CHAPTER I. Introduction

1

CHAPTER II. Literature Review

7

Universal Screeners

12

Progress Monitoring

15

Data Analysis

16

Foundational Components of Reading

17

Instructional Approaches to Early Literacy

23

Core and Supplemental Reading Program

27

Early Literacy Instructional Materials

30

Reading Instruction in an Elementary Classroom

32

Delivery of Instruction

37

Fidelity of Implementation

38

Conclusion

40

CHAPTER III. Methodology

42

Introduction

42

Purpose

43

Setting and Participants

55

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

v

Intervention and Research Plan

58

Potential Financial Implications

65

Research Design, Methods and Data Collection

69

Validity

71

Triangulate Data

72

Summary

73

CHAPTER IV. Results

74

Introduction

74

Results

75

Discussion

105

Summary

104

CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations

106

Study Implications

107

Research Question 1

108

Research Question 2

112

Research Question 3

115

Research Conclusions

118

Financial Implications

120

Reflective Planning

123

Implications for Future Research

125

Implications for Practice

126

Summary

127

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

vi

References

129

APPENDIX A.

136

APPENDIX B.

138

APPENDIX C.

139

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

vii

List of Tables
Table 1. AIMSweb Second Grade Cut Scores for R-CBM

51

Table 2. AIMSweb Second Grade Cut Scores for Maze

52

Table 3. Acadience Second Grade ORF Scores

53

Table 4. AIMSweb Benchmark Scores for R-CBM and Maze

83

Table 5. AIMSweb Benchmark Scores and Cohort Ranges

84

Table 6. Acadience Reading Benchmark Scores and Cohort Ranges

85

Table 7. AIMSweb Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for R-CBM

87

Table 8. AIMSweb Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for Maze

87

Table 9. Acadience Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for ORF-

89

Accuracy
Table 10. Acadience Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for ORF-

89

Fluency
Table 11. AIMSweb Scores Within Tier 1 - R-CBM

91

Table 12. AIMSweb Scores Within Tier 1 - Maze

91

Table 13. Acadience ORF-Accuracy Scores

92

Table 14. Accidence Within Tier 1 ORF-Fluency

92

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1. RtI Triangle

8

Figure 2. Dimensions of Literacy

28

Figure 3. Fall Composite Scores

77

Figure 4. Winter Composite Scores

78

Figure 5. Growth Rate Between Tiers with AIMSweb

79

Figure 6. Growth Rate Between Tiers with Acadience Reading

81

Figure 7. Rating Scale Questions and Responses

93

Figure 8. Open-Ended Responses from Voluntary Grade 2 Teacher Survey

97

Figure 9. Fidelity Checks - Instructional Groups

101

Figure 10. Fidelity Checks - Organizational Delivery of Materials

102

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

ix

Abstract
The focus of this action research project was to gather information regarding instructional
success in reading while implementing varying interventions in tiered approaches within
a newly implemented Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework in second
grade. Two cohort years were utilized for the data analysis to demonstrate movement
based upon instructional and programmatic changes in implementation year one and two.
The data was collected through three sources of assessments, fidelity checks in
classrooms, and teacher input from a voluntary teacher survey response. All data was
based upon a second grade level for reading instruction as part of a multi-tiered system of
supports model. All teachers who participated in the survey provided responses
voluntarily based upon their perception of the effectiveness of MTSS, What I Need
(WIN) time data and instructional resources. The purpose was to determine if tiered
instruction impacted student growth during set intervention periods for reading
instruction at the second grade level. The results of the research indicate that minimal
growth was made within each cohort year after implementing tiered interventions.
Although growth was evident, the data did not demonstrate a clear picture of what
components were more successful than others. Increasing the amount of instructional
time for interventions during WIN, securing and aligning more specific intervention
resources for teachers at all tier levels and allowing teachers the time to gain a deeper
understanding of MTSS would be beneficial in continuous improvement.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

1

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) for English Language Arts is the
premise for the action research conducted in this study. In response to a Pennsylvania
Special Education audit stating that the district was not meeting the needs of all learners,
a MTSS framework was established and implemented in 2018-2019 for K-6 students
focusing on English Language Arts. Additionally, As the Director of Curriculum,
Instruction and Innovative Practices within the district for three years, it was evident that
a curriculum and instructional change was critical for improvement in the elementary
grades to support the tenants of implementing MTSS with fidelity.
As part of the audit, the district was to create a viable action plan and it was
determined that the K-6 schools must establish a model of intervention supports for all
students as a means to provide integrated instructional interventions. These interventions
were to be based upon data from benchmark screenings three times per year. Explicit
intervention tools were to be used in Tier 2 and Tier 3, and additional time for skill-based
instruction would strengthen the core Tier 1 content exposure for all students. Reading
Specialists were assigned at the K-4 buildings to support the at-risk population of
students not meeting benchmark prior to being referred for special education evaluation.
For years, the district’s response to the students’ lack of success to core
curriculum was a referral to a special education evaluation, which in turn, drastically
increased the number of students requiring formal evaluations. It also impacted the
increasing number of students qualifying for an academic IEP. Not many classroom

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

2

support systems were in place, other than Title 1 reading instruction for a small
percentage of students who met the qualifications. The district was seeing a rapid
increase of students who were referred for special education evaluations, and when
they did not qualify, the district fell short on providing appropriate levels of instruction
to meet their individual needs. The district operated a traditional instructional model
emphasizing the implementation of purchased core materials for whole-group as the
sole approach. Instruction was very segmented and methodical according to what was
outlined in the textbook series which was taught unit by unit. The concerning audit
outcomes provided the push that the district needed to begin putting the proper
components into place.
The development and implementation of MTSS was created based upon the
recommendations of Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and training
models from Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN).
Teachers received training from district administrators at the start of the 2018-2019
school year, which identified the multi-year process and expectations. During the
course of the 2018-2019 school year, the district participated in two MTSS cohorts
sponsored by PDE and PaTTAN for early literacy and elementary academic/behavior
interventions. The cohorts allowed district administrators and teachers to attend six
professional development sessions, off-site, to learn and understand a deeper
foundation of MTSS. It also required the participants to put the learning into practice
and complete a district-based case study on student data and interventions for a K-1

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

3

student in ELA and a Grade 3-6 student for behavior. The end goal was to determine
the program needs and supports, as well as to identify future needs and the
sustainability of MTSS K-6. Through this work, it was determined that the district
needed a behavioral screening tool and more direct phonemic awareness and phonics
intervention tools at the early elementary grades. Both items were purchased through
the cohort grant stipend, but the subsequent training did not occur for the Enhanced
Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) intervention materials in Grades 1 and 2 due to a lack
of supporting district funding. Intervention materials were purchased and implemented
at the K-4 levels for Tier 2 and Tier 3 based upon the reading specialist’s recommended
needs of previous student data.
One newly purchased program was Leveled Literacy Interventions (LLI) for
leveled literacy and achievement levels. Fountas and Pinnel’s LLI program is an
intensive, small-group, supplementary literacy intervention for students who find
reading and writing difficult (2019). The goal of LLI is to lift the literacy achievement
of students who are not achieving grade-level expectations in reading. The LLI systems
uses close reading strategies to expand a students’comprehension skills with more
exposure to text (Fountas & Pinnell, 2020). Another intervention purchased was RaveO. It is a small-group, evidence-based literacy intervention curriculum for students in
grades 2–4, which empowers students to read text deeply to build new knowledge,
develop new ideas, and reach new levels of reading achievement (Engaging SmallGroup Literacy Instruction, 2020). Both reading interventions are utilized as a main

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

method of instructional delivery in Tier 2 and 3 settings. The K-4 core reading series is
McGraw Hill Wonders 2014, which has been used with fidelity as the core
instructional delivery method for six years. Finally, teacher “clusters” were formed to
allow for a better structure of data-teaming and instructional delivery at each grade
level.
The basis of this research study is to focus on second grade and the levels of
interventions provided to students at the 3 tiers, their effectiveness, student response to
the interventions based upon their data from universal screeners used 3 times per year,
and the movement of students between tiers. Through this research, the goal is to
determine the overall effectiveness of the MTSS framework in place, and to determine
if the core instructional resources are supporting 80% of the students’ needs, as well as
how effective the current purchased intervention materials are working for the
remaining 20% of students in Tiers 2 and 3. In addition to assessment data, teacher
feedback will be collected on a voluntary basis at two points in the year to see what
teacher’s initial thoughts are for the program as it stands in January 2020 and June
2020 to determine the growth and direction for the following year’s improvements.
Assessment data collected will be from the 2018-2019 second grade student cohort.
Two different data subgroups will be randomly sampled from a second grade cohort in
the year that MTSS was initially implemented, and the second subgroup will be
randomly selected using the 2019-2020 data with full-year MTSS implementation.
Both data analyses looked at the rate of improvement between the fall, winter and

4

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

5

spring benchmark assessments for reading.
The assessment tools used to monitor student progress will be AIMSweb from
2018-2019 and Acadience Reading (2019-2020). Both assessments measure very
similar components of early reading indicators and give a solid foundation of data to
compare and identify patterns in instruction, intervention and movement of students
between tiers in the second grade. The second grade was targeted due to its role in the
literacy development of students. By the second grade, students have been exposed to
the foundational skills of language and they are applying those skills into reading.
They are at the cusp of becoming fluent readers that are grasping deeper levels of
understanding through comprehension, writing, and expanding vocabulary.
With MTSS beginning in 2018-2019, the students in second grade have had a
year and a half of a new intervention framework designed to support their needs. The
study focuses on the effectiveness of the framework in place, the interventions and the
movement between tiers. To dig deeper into the research, this study will focus on the
following questions:
1. How is the movement between tiers (1, 2 and 3) reflective of the student
response to the core instruction and interventions in place?
2. Are the instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong
foundational reading skills for all students?
3. What is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

6

reading achievement?
As the district’s Director of Curriculum and Instruction, it is crucial to know and
understand the effectiveness of the resources and programs in place. The district is
entering into a K-12 English-Language Arts curriculum revision cycle, and this data
will provide a solid understanding of the MTSS framework, the core program and
intervention success rate. The results of the action research will become a guide of
where the district should proceed as they continue to plan and improve instruction,
delivery of content, interventions and assessments for all students. As a result of this
study, time and money will be invested into the improvement planning and
implementation of newly written and aligned curriculum for the elementary grades, the
potential purchase of more effectively aligned resources, more relevant professional
development for teachers and for additional personnel to fully support the tiered
instructional framework. The outcome desired is to fully understand and grasp the
effectiveness of programs in place to ensure the alignment of appropriate materials, as
well as using data to make informed instructional decisions to benefit all learners.
Curriculum development and implementation is the most critical component in a
school, and it is well worth the financial and personnel investments made to allow all
students to achieve and grow academically to their greatest ability.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

7

CHAPTER II
Literature Review
Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RtI) are
interchangeable terms that can frequently be used to describe a framework that supports
multiple intervention levels, or tiers, of academic supports. Many point to the 2004 U.S.
federal authorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) as
the birth of RtI as we know it. MTSS represents an overarching umbrella of intervention
supports for Reading, Math and Behavior. MTSS has combined the intervention supports
from the RtI model and the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) system
to create a comprehensive approach to students who are in need of leveled supports. The
focus of this research will strictly be for reading interventions. MTSS has three basic
required features:
The first component is matching high quality research-based intervention to
student’s educational and behavioral needs. Second, progress monitoring is used
to assess the need for changes in instruction or goals. Third, student response’s
from progress monitoring data is the basis of important educational decisions,
which might include additional levels or tiers of instructional intensity or possibly
eligibility for special education. (Bianco, 2010, p. 4)
As part of MTSS, universal screening tools should be used to determine academic
benchmarks three times a year, as well as for continuous academic monitoring to define
the rate of progress as a response to the intervention in place. Universal screening tools
provide a snapshot assessment for all students on basic reading, math and behavioral

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

8

skills per grade level, to help determine the appropriate placement for academic
instruction and support. Data-teaming discussions between teachers, reading specialists,
administrators, parents and school psychologists should occur on a regular basis to make
instructional decisions and intervention adjustments based upon active data points. For
reading, the recommended target areas for early screening and progress monitoring are
for letter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation, nonsense word fluency, word
identification, and oral reading fluency (United States Department of Education, 2009).
The process of MTSS begins with the identification of a student’s academic or behavior
level through a universal screening assessment, such as AIMSweb 1.0 or Acadience
Reading, as a benchmark of growth and a student’s response to intervention. A universal
screening tool is administered to all students to receive baseline data. A recognizable
component of MTSS is the ubiquitous triangle that represents the three levels of
prevention and types of supports for students in tiered instruction (McIntosh & Goodman,
2016).
Figure 1
RtI Triangle. From McREL International, 2019.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

9

“In RtI, the levels of interventions are conventionally referred to as “tiers”. RtI is
typically thought of as having three tiers, with the first tier encompassing general
classroom instruction” (United States Department of Education, 2009, p. 4).
Interventions aligned with the individual student needs in reading occur outside of the
core reading instructional time. RtI becomes an extension of the skills taught at a more
intensive and focused approach driven by the results of the benchmark and progressmonitoring data collected throughout the duration of the intervention period. The three
tiers represent the various levels of intervention to be taught to students who fall into that
specific category based upon their current reading levels and data. Tier 1 instruction
generally houses the core reading instruction to traditionally 80% of the students. In
some cases, Tier 1 instruction is a part of the core reading instruction block, or it can be
provided in addition to the core reading instruction. During Tier 1, high-quality
evidence-based reading instruction occurs with the implementation of a basal reading
series or a program with balanced, explicit, and systematic reading instruction (United
States Department of Education, 2009). Core reading instruction can consist of wholelanguage balanced literacy series or a system of supplemental foundational reading
programs that support the foundational reading skills at the early literacy stage. An
example of a core reading series is McGraw Hill’s Reading Wonders 2014, which is a
systematic language arts curriculum that offers whole group reading, small group
differentiated instruction, and whole group language arts (Morin, Dorsey, Bell, & Welsh,
2013).

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

10

As instruction is offered at each tier, more intensive interventions play a role with
more fidelity and intensity based upon the student’s learning needs. Tier 2 interventions
are provided to students demonstrating increased need based on screening tools or
insufficient progress from core instruction occurring at the Tier 1 level (United States
Department of Education, 2009). Students who are performing slightly below the
benchmark level on the universal screener at any point in the year will be placed into a
Tier 2 intervention level. Tier 2 typically represents 10%-15% of the student population
in a grade level. Student progress is closely monitored on a bi-monthly basis to
determine their Rate of Improvement (ROI). Students who are performing well below
benchmark, or who are not responding to any interventions occurring in Tier 2, would be
placed in a Tier 3 intervention where they would require more intensive assistance with
specially designed instruction. These intensive interventions are based upon the targeted
areas of need defined by the progress monitoring or benchmark data, and represent
approximately 5% of the student population for a particular grade level.
The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) and the
National Academy of Sciences both reported that schools needed to place more emphasis
on the interventions prior to special education identification process (Haager, Klinger, &
Vaughn, 2007; IES Practical Guide, 2009, p. 5). Most recently, with a focus on
improving outcomes for all students, especially those who have been historically
underserved, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) suggested that schools and districts
implement a tiered system of support and allow states flexibility in developing their
MTSS model for both behavior and academic needs (2017). There are a variety of

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

11

universal screening tools to choose from that offer all of these targeted areas, and such
tools should be selected based upon their reliability and alignment with the recommended
levels posted on the websites for National Center on Progress Monitoring, and Response
to Intervention (United States Department of Education, 2009). Within the actual
instructional tiers, interventions are differentiated based upon the data representing the
students’ needs. Tiered interventions are best to occur for 30-40 minutes daily, outside of
the 90-minute core reading instruction. Interventions must be research-based, evidencebased, and used with fidelity to ensure that students are able to strengthen their
foundational skills in order to grow and apply to reading. Providing interventions with
fidelity will only increase the probability that more students would make significant
growth.
With a focus area of second grade, according to the Institute for Educational
Science, foundational reading skills consist of: phonics, fluency with connected text,
vocabulary and comprehension (2019). Phonics interventions for second grade
concentrate on learning more difficult skills, such as digraphs, diphthongs, and controlled
R. In addition to phonics skills, fluency should continuously be stressed (United States
Department of Education, 2009).
The MTSS framework is a fluid system of interventions where students have the
ability, based upon what their data represents, to move between tiers. Movement between
tiers can only occur once the data supports changes, or after 4-6 weeks of intervention
and progress monitoring. Change can move between a tier depending on what the data
represents for each student. The MTSS framework in a school depends on the support of

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

12

all teachers, reading specialists, paraprofessionals, administrators, students and parents.
It is a team approach and focuses on providing the aligned supports for each child.
Universal Screeners
A critical component of MTSS is the universal screening tool and its supporting
data. Screening tools produce data with which to identify students who may be in need
of additional supports beyond Tier 1 to be successful (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
There are several types of universal screening tools to be used for students in reading.
Universal screening data is used to determine if there are enhancements needed in the
core curriculum, instruction, and/or general educational environment, as well as to guide
decisions about supplemental or intensive interventions for students who may need
additional support (Ikeda, Neesen, & Witt, 2007). Universal screening tools are used as a
benchmark assessment administered by classroom teachers, reading specialists, or other
instructional support personnel. The data is collected and analyzed in several ways by
teams either at an individual, classroom, grade or building level. Universal screening
tools are essentially worthless if they are not aligned to the general curriculum and
instruction and used to seek improvements with student achievement (Ikeda et. al., 2007).
Screening tools help to identify strengths and weakness of students by a snapshot
approach to foundational reading skills. They provide immediate feedback for teachers in
a quick assessment approach to make instructional changes in a timely manner.
Screening is a major asset in the early stages of problem analysis (Ikeda et. al., 2007).
This screening process typically occurs three times a year; at the beginning of the school
year as a benchmark assessment, at the mid-point of the year, and at the end of the school

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

13

year. The importance of universal screening is that students who are at risk for academic
failure can be identified early and proactively (Ikeda et. al, 2007). Universal screeners
provide an avenue for teachers to make instructional change to individual, small group or
whole group instruction. The data-analysis team in a school can meet to discuss the gaps
presented in the curriculum as represented by the screening results, and then narrow
down the instructional changes and adaptations to be made to ensure student success at
the levels in which they are performing.
While there are many different types of screening tools that districts can use, for
the sake of this research. Acadience Reading (formerly Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy, or DIBELS) will be referenced. Acadience Reading allows students to
quickly apply their knowledge to basic scenarios focused on the following grade levelspecific criteria measures: phonemic awareness through first sound fluency or phoneme
segmentation, letter naming fluency, nonsense word fluency, oral reading fluency
including retell and a maze for reading comprehension (Acadience Reading K-6, 2019).
Within the Acadience reading screening tool, teachers can administer the benchmark
assessments three times yearly, as well as administer progress monitoring to examine the
response to interventions a student is receiving through tiered instruction. Acadience
Reading is a standardized tool and measures foundational early literacy skills that are
response to interventions (Acadience Reading, 2019). The Acadience Reading
benchmark assessment tool is recognized as a necessary MTSS data analysis tool due to
its Outcomes-Driven Model. In an Outcomes-Driven-Model, educators can identify the
need for support, validate the need for support through the available data, cycle through

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

14

planning, implementing and evaluating the interventions and then review outcomes
(Acadience Reading, 2019). In order to use Acadience Reading data appropriately and
effectively to support individual students, it is important that educators have a clear
understanding of the conceptual and empirical foundations of the decision-making utility
of Acadience Reading benchmark goals (Kaminski et. al., 2019). When a data team
meets to discuss the performance of a student or group of students, there are specific
indicators that should be analyzed. Acadience Reading scores are aligned to work with
identifying the appropriate tier of instruction that would benefit the student. The official
Acadience Reading benchmark goals and cut points for risk are empirically derived,
criterion-referenced scores (Kaminski et. al., 2019). The scores are broken down by a set
benchmark for students to achieve at certain grade levels. When students are above
benchmark, then they are to be placed in Tier 1. Those who are at or slightly below
benchmark will be placed in Tier 2 instruction receiving intervention supports. Those
students who fall significantly below benchmark are in need of intensive intervention
supports at the Tier 3 level. While the benchmark assessment tool is a great indicator of
student success with the foundational reading skills, it is highly recommended that
teachers use the progress monitoring tools to continually assess the progress students are
making as a response to the interventions in place. Teachers should let the data drive
their instructional decisions and planning, as well as to assist with setting attainable goals
that are meaningful and important in aiding their growth (Kaminski et. al., 2019).

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

15

Progress Monitoring
Another critical component to data analysis is progress monitoring. After
screening identifies students who require targeted or intensive support, diagnostic
assessments are used to select interventions, and progress monitoring plans are used to
assess whether students are making adequate growth (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
Progress monitoring can occur at every tier and results are analyzed by the team members
to determine movement between tiers for students who are performing above the targeted
benchmark. Progress monitoring needs to occur more frequently than screening because
the data is used to make instructional decisions that cannot wait until the next benchmark
period (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Tools for progress monitoring can be formative
assessments aligned to the skills taught in Tier 1, a component of the universal screening
tools used for the benchmark testing, and/or embedded tools within an evidence-based
intervention program. Effective progress monitoring is focused on specific skills that the
students show a deficit with their benchmark screening. Progress monitoring is less
intensive, less time consuming and allows assessments to be conducted more frequently
(McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
The best method to collecting progress monitoring data is performed by the
teacher who is providing the intervention, potentially the classroom teacher, reading
specialist or other professional supporting the student. Data is recorded within a data
management system where progress graphs can be generated to determine the student’s
rate of improvement per skill assessed. The progress monitoring data is used to
determine the steps along the way of a student acquiring and expanding their skill set.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

16

The data tell us whether the student is making adequate progress with the current support
(McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). When there is progress made, changes can be determined
by the MTSS team to provide better and more aligned supports for the student.
Data Analysis
MTSS is strongly dependent upon data collection and analysis as a foundation for
all implementation and decision-making efforts (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Once
data has been collected in the various types of methods, through benchmark screening,
progress monitoring, formative or summative assessments, MTSS teams can collaborate
to plan the most appropriate action. Within a MTTS framework, there could potentially
be a few different levels of data-analysis among team members. One method is at the
student level, where a teacher or team would analyze an individual student’s profile of
data to determine their strengths and weakness to develop a plan aligned to their specific
needs. Another level of data-teaming could come at a class or grade level approach. In
this model, a team of teachers, reading specialists, and administrators would collaborate
and discuss the implications of data based upon the entire class or grade level. This type
of data analysis would be more in alignment with looking at core instructional strengths,
weakness, and performances of students as a whole group.
The final method of data analysis within the MTSS framework would be to look
at data from a more global perspective, or from a building-wide or district-wide lens.
This approach would determine the effectiveness of core programming, interventions and
aligned curriculum and instruction. Teachers and teams collecting data need to be
efficient with data collection so as not to interrupt instruction unnecessarily, and it should

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

17

be collected to change instruction, not just to be collected (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
Another important note is with any data collected, teachers need to understand how to
interpret it beyond the numbers to dig deeper into the root cause to make determinations
that will impact a student’s plan of action.
Within an integrated MTSS model, data are collected, analyzed, summarized,
and utilized for five main purposes: (1) assessing fidelity of implementation (i.e.,
Are we doing what we said we’d do?); (2) screening (i.e., Who needs additional
support?); (3) diagnostic assessment (i.e., Are the supports changing student
trajectories in a positive direction?); and (5) general outcomes measurement (i.e.,
Are students doing better overall?) (McIntosh, Reinke, & Herman, 2009;
Torgesen, 2006; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016, p. 39).
Foundational Components of Reading
The overarching goal in any primary reading program is to ensure that all learners
acquire the literacy skills needed to be able to read independently, at the appropriate rate,
and with comprehension (Bulat et. al., 2017). There are five identified components of
reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and
comprehension. Phonemic awareness is not the same as phonics, but it is defined as the
ability to hear sounds and identify individual sounds, or phonemes. This occurs prior to
being able to read. Phonemic awareness allows beginning readers to know and hear
sounds before they are able to read words in print. Phonics is defined as correlating
sounds of letters or groups of letters in the alphabet. Phonics instruction should be taught
in an explicit manner where students are able to identify a letter and correlate a sound.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

18

The first step to learning how to read is through phonics, then it expands into phonemic
awareness, then to fluency. Fluency is the art of being able to put all of the sounds
together to make a word and seamlessly piece it together to recognize words in a sentence
structure for meaning. Vocabulary is understanding the meaning of the word within the
context it is used. Comprehension is understanding the meaning of the story, analyzing it
and make meaning.
Although some learners can acquire foundational reading skills with less formal
and implicit instruction, many learners require explicit, systematic instruction and
practice with these foundational skills (Bulat et. al., 2017). The focus of this research is
based upon the impact of enhancing core reading instruction at Tier 1, 2 and 3 by the
implementation of interventions used during MTSS, or What I Need (WIN) time. Core
reading instruction is a critical element to building a successful foundation for literary
success in students. A core program builds upon the foundation started in prekindergarten through the primary grade levels. There have been many studies conducted
to research the best approach to core reading programs, supplemental resources, as well
as if too much phonics or phonemic awareness can hinder the academic growth of
students in becoming stronger readers. Duke and Mesmer (2018-2019) examined the
inadequacies of teachers spending too little time on phonics instruction. With the English
language having so many complexities between their letters and sounds, they claim that
English word reading requires a lot more effort to teach and learn than many other
languages (Duke & Mesmer, 2018-2019). While there is research to support both sides of
the argument, typical recommendations range from 30-60 minutes per day, on average in

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

19

a K-2 instructional setting, to be spent on various instructional methods infusing phonics,
phonemic awareness, and vocabulary (Duke & Mesmer, 2018-2019). As students
progress through their reading instruction between kindergarten and second grade, they
are working toward set benchmarks identified by the state standards and district
curriculum to reach certain phases in their language development. By the second grade, a
strong foundation should be in place to recognize all letters by their sound, blending
sounds together, becoming fluent in their reading, as well as have an increasing sense of
fluency. Through this instructional framework, students should be exposed to a print-rich
environment where they are able to interact and engage with the print to acquire the
alphabetic principles, concepts of the words, and other concepts of print (Duke &
Mesmer, 2018-2019). While there is much emphasis in the early literacy years on
students identifying their letters and sounds, at times, there is little transfer into
understanding and connecting those skills to the print words. Duke and Mesmer did note
that children who do know their letter names early are more likely to experience
improved literacy achievement in later years (2018-2019).
Literacy is a foundational skill developed from the bottom up. Children learn to
read out-loud at first by learning grapheme and phoneme correspondences. This requires
explicit instruction, repetition, and correction (Krashen, 2002). In 2000, the National
Reading Panel claimed that phonics-based classes outperformed those who were
integrated into whole language classes. The discrepancies exist through research between
the push for stronger phonics-based instruction and whole-language instruction. In 1966,

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

20

Clymer argued that basal series did not work very well, stating an over-teaching of
phonics at the early grades.
Phonics instruction should aim to teach only the most important and regular of
letter-to-sound relationships…once the basic relationships have been taught, the
best way to get children to refine and extend their knowledge of letter-sound
correspondences is through repeated opportunities to read. If this position is
correct, then much phonics instruction is overly subtle and probably
unproductive (Becoming a Nation of Readers, 1985, p. 38).
As the federal government pointed out, students should be able to read at grade
level or above by the end of third grade. This leaves second grade in a vulnerable
position to ensure students have acquired their foundational skills and are able to apply
the skills to practice. This application has extended from phonics and phonemic
awareness into having more emphasis on vocabulary and comprehension in the second
grade (Duke & Block, 2012). A disturbing study by Donaldson (2011) found that out of
325 K-3 classrooms observed over a 3-year period, fewer than 63 percent of teachers
taught vocabulary, and that vocabulary instruction consisted of less than 5 percent, on
average, of a typical teacher’s literacy instruction. To better improve the level of reading
instruction in the primary grades, teachers must look at all components of instruction in
building a student’s foundation for reading. This foundation will only strengthen the
skills that will transfer into other content areas. Promoting comprehension in earlier
primary level classrooms will allow for students to broaden their skill-base and expose
students to richer literacy. Jack Jennings and Diane Rentner, authors of a report written

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

21

for the Center on Education Policy, summarized that the mandate of No Child Left
Behind resulted in teachers spending more time on skill reinforcement in reading and
math instruction. Unfortunately, this largely took the place of content-area instruction
(Duke & Block, 2012). In 2014, the shift to the PA Core Standards broadened the scope
of comprehension expectations into the primary levels by setting standards for
informational text expectations outside of the English Language Arts classroom to
include subjects such as science and social studies. For many years, these content areas
were taught in silos, without any cross-reference for skills attained and transferred into
reading more complex texts in social studies. The text presented in social studies and
science expose students to a different style of reading and text-types, where they are
expected to understand how to navigate through graphs, richer vocabulary, diagrams,
maps and tables. Neglecting informational text in the primary grades has constituted a
missed opportunity to not only build social studies and science knowledge through text,
but also to build knowledge of a variety of text features (Duke & Block, 2012). The
National Reading Panel suggested many opportunities for change in how primary grades
teach reading (2000). Phonological awareness is beneficial to all types of learners and
backgrounds. This skill is most effective when paired with phonics instruction (Duke &
Block, 2012). It is recommended that through the instruction of phonics and
phonological-awareness, there would be more attainment of the skills if there is modeling
to show students how to decode words rather than merely blending and expecting
students to make the connection to decoding on their own (Duke & Block, 2012).
Another strong point suggested by the National Reading Panel is to deliberately

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

22

teach vocabulary in the primary grades (2000). Brabham and Brown (2002) determined
that when readers interact with students through read-aloud strategies and encourage
discussion of vocabulary terms, students demonstrate a higher vocabulary knowledge.
Defining the core reading components and strategically determining the appropriate
framework, resources and sequence in which they are taught will allow teachers to
strengthen their core reading instruction in the primary grades. Gaining an understanding
of what research says works, and how that can translate into the classroom, is part of the
process to develop a stronger core reading approach in Tier 1 instruction. Understanding
this piece will only help to develop and align the resources and interventions to support
the student acquisition of core reading skills through the primary grades.
Teachers and school leaders need to determine what approach will be most
effective in gaining long-term results for students to improve reading skills. Aiming to
target improvements over a short-period of time can lead instruction to focus on the
reading skills and foundations that can be assessed easily and with measurable results.
While this will show improvements, the long-term impact of merely emphasizing
foundational skills through phonics and phonemic awareness comes at the expense of
developing the comprehension, vocabulary, and conceptual knowledge (Duke & Block,
2012).
Skill development is not only needed at the student level, but also at the teacher
development level. For more than a decade, researchers have argued that to be effective,
early reading teachers need a relatively high level of knowledge about “the linguistic
foundations” of early reading (Moats, 2009; Carlisle et. al., 2011). Districts need to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

23

ensure that teachers in the primary grade levels are educated on the components of
reading, relevant instructional practices that support building the foundational skills, and
to understand the impact of their instructional planning and delivery. The preparation for
teachers and the level of understanding of core reading instruction will help to identify
effective teaching strategies, resources and tools in core reading instruction, as well as in
Tier 2 and 3 interventions.
Instructional Approaches to Early Literacy
Foomer and Al Ofaiba (2009) state that when students fall behind in developing
early literacy skills, literacy intervention in kindergarten through grade 2 can reduce the
number of students failing to reach grade-level benchmarks.
It may seem to be an overwhelming task to learn thousands of sound sequences
that make up words and to develop an unconscious awareness of all of the
complexities of oral language. Yet, every child, all over the world, at about the
same points in time, develops language with no apparent instruction. Many
scientists argue that our brains are “hardwired” to develop language, and that is a
very good thing (Pinnell & Scharer, 2018, p. 36).
While children’s brains may be hardwired to learn a new language, it will take
instructional supports to strengthen those skills for the language to become fluent over
time. Despite the tangible method of teaching reading, research supports that skills
targeted by effective early literacy interventions including explicit instruction on
phonological awareness, letter/sound correspondence, links from letters to sounds,
decoding, and word building. Additionally, students must practice reading for accuracy,

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

24

fluency and comprehension (Foorman et al., 2016; Foorman et. al,. 2017). Phonemes are
very important in the education of young readers and writers, in fact, the process of
becoming literate has added value in that it sharpens children’s listening and speaking
powers (Pinnell & Scharer, 2018).
Effective instructional practices are even more important than the resources used.
Teachers need to understand the complexities of implicit and explicit instruction when
teaching foundation reading skills to younger students. Much research has shown that no
aspect of literacy education is unimportant, and students that are immersed in a
responsive literacy classroom are more successful (Pinnell & Scharer, 2018). Pinnell
questions in her work with the Responsive Classroom, that a “quiet classroom is a good
classroom,” and argues instead, for intentional instructional decisions that foster
discussion and develop a literate environment in the classroom (2018). The most
powerful way to expand oral language in every area of the curriculum is to engage
children in text-based talk around a work of children’s literature (Pinnell & Scharer,
2018). There are many instructional strategies which support and promote reading in the
early grades. Some of the practices researched through the Responsive Literacy
Comprehensive Framework (2018) suggested interactive read-aloud, shared reading,
guided reading, writing workshops, phonics and word study. Pinnell stated in 2018, if we
have to identify one foundation for literacy learning, it must be oral language. A welldesigned literacy framework positions students in active thinking, engaging
conversations, and authentic reflections about texts that are purposefully chosen to meet
the variety of needs and interest of students (Schaub & Scharer, 2018). In addition to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

25

understanding the processing involved in acquiring literacy, a teacher must possess a
depth of knowledge about how children learn and ensure that the framework design
implemented in the classroom is grounded in a strong learning theory (Scharer & Schaub,
2018). Allowing students to be engaged in the instruction through multiple texts,
conversations, and collaboration with peers and teachers will only broaden their ability to
grasp the concepts.
Scaffolding instruction to the student’s abilities is one instructional strategy that
should be visible in tiered instruction. Effective scaffolding encourages the participation
of strategic behaviors in readers and writers (Scharer & Schaub, 2018). Scaffolding
allows the learner to have supports available, but as they become more comfortable with
the task, the supports are slowly pulled away where the learner can work on a task
independently with success. Being a responsive teacher means knowing the learners and
their needs. This style of teaching is crucial to the success of RtI in tiered instruction.
Responsive teachers notice student strengths and competencies and shift teaching to the
student’s level of learning, rather than the student trying to reach the level of the teaching
(Scharer & Schaub, 2018).
Tiered instruction is based upon meeting the students where they are. In most
cases, it would require small group instruction within a large group classroom in Tier 1.
In this environment, independent learning is encouraged. Managing the independent
work of students can be difficult when there are not additional supports available to assist
or monitor. The Responsive Classroom Comprehensive Framework (2018) suggests that
routines are established, the content is right for the students in the group and that students

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

26

are able to self-regulate their behavior during the independent work. The process of
establishing routines for student-led small-group or independent work can be introduced
in a scaffolded approach where basic tasks are assigned to set the guidelines for learning
to be effective. Once students are able to understand their expectations, the level of the
work within these smaller groups can be adjusted and the students can be challenged
according to their specific needs as outlined by performance data. Being able to manage
a classroom with multiple learning methods occurring at the same time, will only enable
teachers to provide the appropriate supports to students during their WIN time at the
multiple levels of need.
In a second grade classroom, students should be transitioning into a more fluent
level of reading. With this shift, different instructional practices can be introduced to
ensure that students are exposed to multiple types of rich texts, broader vocabulary
activities, writing workshops and opportunities to share their thinking. As second grade
continues to hone the skill of reading, emphasis should still be placed upon word
building.
Word study is aimed to developing children’s spelling, vocabulary, and phonicword recognition knowledge (as well as phonological awareness) through handson learning in ways that build on what students already know and foster word
consciousness - namely, appreciation and interest in word learning (Ganske,
2014; Scharer, 2018, p. 283).
Providing multiple opportunities for students to interact and engage with letters, words
and sounds is another great instructional approach during WIN time. Learning about how

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

27

words work makes an important contribution to students as both readers and writers
(Schaub, 2018).
Core and Supplemental Reading Programs
There are many purchased programming options for schools to choose to
implement as part of their reading instruction. The selection process of such tools and
resources come with much debate by many researchers. What is better, basal-series,
whole-language, supplemental resources or a combination of all? A strong
recommendation is to ensure that the materials used are research-based and evidencebased to support reading achievement and growth. An example of a core reading series
is McGraw Hill’s Wonders Reading which is a systematic language arts curriculum that
offers whole group reading, small group differentiated instruction, and whole group
language arts (Morin et. al,, 2013). Wonders is not presented as a scripted curriculum,
but rather as a framework to implement sound reading instructional practices and skills to
students. The series offers the traditional foundational reading instructional components
of phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, spelling, comprehension, vocabulary, and
writing. It also presents the learning materials in a way where teachers can expose
students to a variety of core, supplemental, independent, web-based and cultural
responsive material (Morin et. al,, 2013). A benefit from implementing a basal series
approach to early literacy instruction is the packaged resources and materials that are
vetted, broken down by concepts and topics and presented in a structured sequence to
ensure reading success across each grade level. Within Wonders, there are opportunities
for differentiation in whole and small group settings. The Systems of Language table

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

28

from page 43 of Stephen Kucer’s (2009) the “Dimension of Literacy," is used to describe
the Wonders Reading Program (Morin et. al., 2013).
The Reading Wonders program is based upon the Common Core State Standards

Figure 2
Dimensions of literacy. From Kucer, S. B., 2009

in English Language Arts where all of the language arts components are aligned with
each other to support growth in student learning; it is research-based, addresses the five
components of reading instruction and provides differentiated instruction (Morin, et al. ,
2013). Reading Wonders is the approved reading series of Mars Area School District,
located in Western Pennsylvania, which is the site for this action research study.
In addition to the core reading series of Mars Area School District has adopted,
Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum has been implemented since January 2019.
Literacy Resources Inc. claims that each level of the Heggerty curriculum provides thirtyfive weeks of daily lessons, focusing on eight phonemic awareness skills, along with two
additional activities to develop Letter and Sound recognition, and Language Awareness

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

29

(2019). The lessons are designed to deliver Tier 1 phonemic awareness instruction in a
whole group setting and only take 10–12 minutes. For students in need of extra support,
portions of lessons could be used in a small group and serve as a “second dose” of
phonemic awareness instruction. Heggerty lessons are easy to integrate into core
classroom instruction at Tier 1 by taking 10-15 minutes of explicit instruction and
direction dedicated to phonemic awareness. Instruction in phonemic awareness, when
connected to word decoding and spelling instruction, is a key component to preventing
reading deficiency in children who come to school without the required skill sets (Moats,
2012).
Phonemic awareness instruction helped children of all levels improve their
reading, including normally developing readers, children at risk for future reading
problems, disabled readers, preschoolers, kindergartners, 1st graders, children in
2nd through 6th grades (most of whom were disabled readers), children across
various SES levels, and children learning to read in English as well as other
languages (National Reading Panel, 2012, pp. 2-5).
Phonemic awareness is the understanding that spoken words are made up of
individual sounds, which are called phonemes. A child who is phonemically aware is able
to isolate sounds, manipulate the sounds, and blend and segment sounds into spoken and
written words. Phonemic awareness is an auditory training process (Heggerty, 2019).
The daily lessons focus on the sounds students hear in words only, not the letters in print.
In a phonemic awareness lesson there is an emphasis on the phonemes (sounds), where it
focuses on spoken language with auditory activities. Students work with manipulating

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

30

sounds, as well as sounds heard in a word. In a phonics lesson, the main focus is on the
graphemes, or letter, and it deals with written language and print. Student activities are
both auditory and visual and student activities include reading and writing letters
according to their sounds, spelling patterns, and phonological structure (Heggerty, 2019).
Early Literacy Instructional Materials
The logical place to start determining the evidence base for interventions is
having clear criteria for just what is evidence-based (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016).
McIntosh and Goodman categorized three levels of academic practices, 1. Researchbased practices, 2. Evidence-based practices and, 3. Unsupported practices (2016).
Research-based practices have not been evaluated through rigorous research, but they are
designed based upon research indicating that they are likely to work (McIntosh &
Goodman, 2016). Evidence-based practices have shown in multiple research studies to
improve student outcomes (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016), therefore considered to be a
good indicator of a tried and tested tool. Unsupported practices should be avoided in
classroom instruction because there is evidence to prove that they are ineffective and
even harmful to students (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Determining which
instructional tools are the best fit for effective and explicit classroom instruction is a
crucial step in assuring students will find success in their learning. Research and
classroom data is showing that there is an increasing need to provide a more rigorous
review and selection process when determining which instructional materials would be a
good fit for curriculum and instruction. Recently, the importance of instructional
materials has been overlooked, and the pedagogical connection between lesson objectives

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

31

and instructional materials is rarely coherent (Foorman et. al., 2004; Foorman et. al.,
2017). Specifically within the grade span of K-2, there should be a focus to support
reading foundational skills to develop competent readers and build student capacity to
comprehend a range of text types (Foorman et. al., 2017). As with many reviews and
decisions, developing a rubric to assess the value of multiple components and their
perceived effectiveness is one method to make a well thought-out decision. The rubric
created by the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Southeast provides a way to
evaluate reading/language arts instructional materials (including core reading programs
and reading intervention programs) with the scientific research on reading instruction
(Foorman et. al., 2017). Taking an in-depth look at instructional design, content and
pedagogy are three elements of design that support solid reading instructional materials.
The rubric can be used as a tool to assist decision-makers through the purchase process,
identifying gaps in existing materials, and to determine the effectiveness of the tools.
The REL Southeast tool identifies the effectiveness of K-2 foundational reading skills,
print concepts, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, reading
comprehension for both literary and informational text, writing development, speaking
and listening, and language development. To ensure inter-rater reliability, it is suggested
that 2-3 reviewers are assigned and that Krippendorff’s alpha be used to calculate the
inter-rater reliability for the rubric. In order to be considered reliable, it suggests that
reviewers reach a Kalpha greater than or equal to .80 to be considered reliable (Foorman
et. al., 2017). While this particular tool has yet to be utilized within the District, it would
be something to consider when determining which resources and materials are most

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

32

effective based upon the appropriate alignment to the curriculum and instructional
practices.
Reading Instruction in an Elementary Classroom
Deficits in reading achievement are associated with a host of negative outcomes,
including below grade-level performance across the curriculum, grade retention, and
failure to graduate (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). The overall purpose of MTSS
(under the academic umbrella) is to provide students with more specific instructional
support that meet his/her identified needs. Those needs could be either enrichment,
remediation, or just a bit more emphasis on core instruction. The most efficient way to
increase the intensity of instruction for struggling readers is to provide instruction in
small groups (Torgesen, 2006). The three tiered model allows students to be broken
down into smaller, intently focused groups based upon their ability level and area of
need. The tiered instruction can happen in multiple formats, but most often it is based
upon the skill area aligned with the similar level of needs for each student within the
small group. Tiered instruction is a well-designed framework to embed differentiated
instruction. Using assessment data to determine which tier students should be placed, as
well as what areas are defined as targeted instructional support areas, groups should
remain fluid for all students throughout the year. Within a Tier 1 group, there should be a
variety of instructional practices taking place: teacher-led small group, independent
work, and small group based upon skills. As an example, during independent work,
students who are weak in vocabulary can practice their skills with a partner or in a small
student-led group, while other students are assigned a different task (National Reading

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

33

Panel, 2000). All students should receive the core reading instruction, which is also
known as Tier 1. Tier 1 instruction is defined as the core, where at least 80% of students
would be placed. Classroom teachers should provide differentiated instruction in small
groups during the reading block designed to target skill deficiencies. However, it is
difficult to provide enough time for this type of instruction to meet the needs of the
students that are most at-risk (Torgesen, 2006). Those students who are not meeting
benchmark through their screening measures would be identified as needing additional
supports would then be placed in Tier 2. Tier 2 instruction applies to only those at risk in
key areas, and the lines between Tier 1 and 2 can become blurry unless data-driven
instruction clarifies the exact level of needs for the students (National Reading Panel,
2000). Multi-tiered interventions are most effective when they consist of Tier 1 reading
instruction and Tier 2 interventions that are aligned with the scope and sequence of Tier 1
instruction (Foorman, Herrera & Dombek, 2018).
Tier 2 typically has 15% of the student population per grade level receiving
intervention supports. Tier 2 instruction should take place in small groups, ranging from
three to four students, using curricula that addresses the homogeneous needs of the
students such as comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, phonics, and/or
vocabulary (National Reading Panel, 2000). Tier 2 instruction would occur during the
established WIN time, which is in addition to the core reading instruction, or 30 minutes
beyond the 90-minute core reading instruction. In this model, it is crucial that instruction
is well-coordinated with the instruction they are receiving in the core classroom to not
impose any more confusion to an already struggling student (Torgesen, 2006). In order to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

34

determine if a student is making growth, in 2000, the National Reading Panel suggested
that students be assessed, or progress monitored, at least monthly. If growth is shown
over a series of assessments, a student in Tier 2 can be reassigned to Tier 1; or if the
student is showing regression, they could be assigned to Tier 3. Students with the most
significant needs, and who have shown performance far below benchmark are eligible for
Tier 3 instruction.
Tier 3 provides the most intensive level of support, using research-based and
evidence-based intervention programs with fidelity. Student progress is monitored
frequently to determine the rate of improvement for the child, and requires explicit
instruction to support the child’s deficit in reading instruction. Students at Tier 3 should
have intensive interventions provided to them daily to promote the development of the
various components of reading proficiency (National Reading Panel, 2000). In addition
to the tiered levels of instruction, and using the proper data to make decisions regarding
student placement within the tiers, the selection of intervention materials and resources is
of the utmost importance. Tiered instruction is guided explicitly from data. Instruction is
differentiated based upon the student needs and should be concentrated on a focused, or
targeted set of reading skills (National Reading Panel, 2000). Struggling readers cannot
be subjected to too many instructional objectives. This makes it more difficult to learn
the necessary skills for reading proficiency (Blumsack, 1996; Foorman et al., 1998;
Gillon, 2000; IES Practical Guide, 2009). Despite the intervention level, all interventions
should be based upon what the data shows the students actually need. Not all students
who have difficulty reading are weak in phonics or decoding, they may be struggling with

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

35

their vocabulary or comprehension. Understanding what the data shows and knowing
how the students respond to the interventions in place will allow a teacher to make the
necessary adjustments to provide targeted support. If a student is receiving intervention
support multiple times a week, several sessions could be focused on phonemic awareness
and decoding in depth, but the other days could focus on comprehension and vocabulary
(National Reading Panel, 2000). While MTSS provides a framework for schools to
follow, it is definitely not a one-sized fits all boxed program. It takes time to collect
pertinent data, analyze and make decisions based upon the needs of every student. It also
requires teachers to have a solid understanding of the various components of reading and
instruction with reading. Another key component to the smaller group sizes in Tier 2 and
3 instruction is the direct feedback teachers can provide to students.
Instructional strategies and practices play a huge role in ensuring students are
exposed to well designed lessons. Understanding the needs, finding interventions that
align and support those needs, and delivering them with fidelity will improve the
opportunities for students to find success and grow. Another key component is teaching
to mastery. Students must demonstrate skill mastery before moving to the next skill or
lesson (National Reading Panel, 2000). Keeping record of student progress is critical to
knowing the smallest gains to largest gains over time. Student performance on different
reading tasks must be monitored and recorded by the teachers, for example; a teacher
could record the exact words a student practices while reading, the student’s word reading
accuracy, and the number of attempts it takes for students to practice a word before
reading it with accuracy (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995). Early reading provides critical

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

36

foundational skills; such skills and strategies need to be proficient before students enter
the upper elementary grades (National Reading Panel, 2000).
Regardless of the Tier level, reading instruction should focus on building and
sustaining the core components of reading. Instruction should be explicit and systematic
to produce positive effects in all areas of reading (National Reading Panel, 2000). Of the
five components of reading instruction, phonemic awareness is a potential predictor of
future success in reading and a critical foundational skill for becoming a reader (United
States Department of Education, 2009). Several reports claim that systematic and explicit
instruction in the area of decoding produces growth among students receiving targeted
instruction in this area (National Reading Panel, 2000). Complex comprehension
instruction appears to be glanced over in the grade 1-2 span, and should be embedded
into core instruction and interventions by promoting more oral reading and
comprehension strategies using Know-Want to Know-Learned (K-W-L), summarization
and retelling (Vaughn et al., 2006). When students practice reading fluently, on a daily
basis, studies show that there is improvement with their word reading accuracy (National
Reading Panel, 2000). Finally, vocabulary skill work is something that does not become
a prevalent part of reading instruction and skill acquisition until the upper elementary
grades, which also leads into less significant growth in the comprehension area for
students when reading non-fiction texts in other subject areas such as Social Studies and
Science. The goal of interventions should always be to accelerate reading development
(Torgesen, 2006). Research indicates that the 3-tier integrated model produces a larger
gain in literacy skills that the reading-only model (Stewart et. al., 2007).

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

37

Delivery of Interventions
When designing a MTSS framework, it will take the effort of everyone in the
school. The structure itself is complex in terms of logistical planning to align core
reading instruction, tiered reading instruction and the ability to pull-out intervention
groups to maximize a dedicated time for students to receive proper instructional support.
The core instruction is taught by the classroom teacher in a recommended 90-minute
uninterrupted reading block. Tiered instruction can occur in multiple, creative ways,
depending on the staffing availability, but effective interventions require skillful teaching
(Torgesen, 2006). Reading specialists, paraprofessionals and classroom teachers all play
an integral role in maintaining the flow of instruction on a daily basis. The building
principal plays a role in the support system to allow for common-planning time to occur
between teachers and reading specialists. The collaboration time is important to review,
analyze and discuss data, as well as to plan instructional lessons and strategies that are in
alignment with the students’ needs. While programs will run despite the level of
preparation each teacher has, it is known that in the absence of well-trained and
experienced interventionists, experienced teachers or qualified para-professionals, less
effective interventions could be delivered (Torgesen, 2006). In the event that you have an
inexperienced staff, Torgeson suggests that a more scripted intervention program be used
to ensure the validity of the program (2006).
If we have data showing that practices are implemented to criteria, we can better
assess other reasons for inadequate response (e.g., insufficient intensity, poor
match to student need) and change our plans accordingly. Without fidelity data,

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

38

we can not know whether our plan even has the potential to help support the
student to be successful or what aspects we need to change to make it
better (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016, p. 39).
Program fidelity should be monitored frequently by an administrator or person
responsible for the academic success of students within the MTSS framework.
Fidelity of Implementation
Fidelity of implementation refers to instructional delivery specifically designed
and intended to be taught. This requires teachers to provide explicit instruction and
accurate progress monitoring according to the prescribed research-based method (Bianco,
2009). Fidelity checks will allow all to see what tools and resources are being used, in
what manner, and then to be analyzed as a determining factor if there is growth or
regression shown amongst students. Even the very best research-based programs are
only as good as the level of fidelity in their implementation with children (Torgesen,
2006). With interventions, there are several approaches. The fidelity-focused and the
structured adaptive approaches to program implementation make different assumptions
and different demands on the practitioners implementing any given program (Quinn &
Kim, 2017). When teachers are using the program with fidelity, they are following step
by step instructions from how to deliver the lessons to how long the lessons should last.
By following these programs with fidelity, it is more likely that the intervention will work
as prescribed. Without this, the system becomes a hollow shell that produces
meaningless outcomes (Bianco, 2009). This causes teachers to lose their creativity and
ability to work directly in alignment with the student needs. This approach lends itself to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

39

the “control” approach to instructional management in which the teacher’s instructional
tasks are predetermined, well defined, and the school administrator’s role ensures that
teachers execute those tasks (Quinn & Kim, 2017). The control approach takes away the
need to collaborate and plan with other teachers since that level of the work has been
completed prior to implementation. In contrast, teachers under the structured adaptive
approach to program implementation must be able to recognize what is working and what
is not working about an intervention (Quinn & Kim, 2017). With this model, teachers
take the ownership and autonomy of instructional decision-making and planning into
their own hands. This is where teacher collaboration and communication is crucial to
ensure that the interventions and instructional strategies are properly aligned to the skills
and level of the students’ ability. While both systems have pros and cons, the most
effective approach is left up to the district’s vision of MTSS, as well as the ability level of
the staff who would be engaging in tier instruction. Another key factor would be the
results of the student progress and response to the interventions in place. Scaffolding
these two styles of teaching together is one way schools can meet in the middle. Rather
than choosing between the fidelity-focused and adaptive approach, scaffolding enables
teachers to see how the programs are designed to work together and then execute them
with more confidence (Quinn & Kim, 2017). Another rationale for ensuring fidelity of
implementation is that it paves the way for a more valid determination of the existence of
a disability, rather than a student in need of additional instruction in reading foundational
skills (Bianco, 2009).

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

40

Conclusion
MTSS is a complex framework that specifically focuses on improving student
achievement. Through a variety of research-based and evidence-based resources and
tools, teachers and specialists are able to identify, plan, and focus on what students need
to make instructional gains over time. Each component of the MTSS process is crucial to
ensuring student growth. Starting with a strong universal screening tool to determine the
appropriate level of ability a student has with foundational reading skills, analyzing the
data to determine what a student needs and aligning a research-based intervention or
evidence-based instruction to provide them what they need are all critical components
toward MTSS success. Most curricular adjustments should be focused on strengthening
the core and having a solid Tier 1 instructional program that will provide a stable
foundation for students to springboard their reading achievement. Resources and
materials must be consistent and support evidence-based success as a foundational
concept, as well as fidelity through a data-analysis process. These programatic
adjustments would be the crucial component for informed decision making with students
who need additional supports through Tier 2 and 3. Through all of these components,
there also needs to be a practical approach to professional development for all teachers so
that they understand the framework as a decision-making process to support students.
Reading has many facets that require explicit instruction in the foundational skills for
students to become fluent readers. Not all students learn at the same level, therefore,
understanding each component of building foundational reading skills and having the

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

ability to align resources based upon where the student’s needs are will only promote
growth and success through explicit instruction and data analysis.

41

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

42

CHAPTER III
Methodology
Introduction
In the District’s second year of MTSS implementation, the framework has
experienced uncertainties among the teaching staff. After the first year of
implementation, the students did not appear to make the gains that the District expected
to see with the level of intervention time and intensive support provided to students at
each tier. The question remained as to how WIN time could be beneficial and successful
for all students. Typically, students in the second grade are exposed to critical
foundational reading skills that have been building since pre-kindergarten. Students are
expected to be comprehending text with fluency. Phonics and phonemic awareness skills
should be developed and those skills should be providing the necessary background to
continually expand and apply their language acquisition skills. For some students, this is
not the case. The purpose of this research study is to determine the resources,
interventions, assessments and instruction in place and its impact on enhancing the core
instruction that promotes and supports student growth.
The research plan considered all aspects of a second grade classroom during WIN
time at Tier 1, 2 and 3 levels of intervention. The plan determined if there was fidelity
with the tools used during tiered instructional times, and if they were aligned to the level
of student need as determined by the available data. The research also showed how many
students were demonstrating movement between tiers due to the interventions in place.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

43

To fully understand the impact of the newly implemented MTSS framework
relative to any growth, academic reading data was collected using two years worth of
universal screening results from 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. In this research model, there
are two different cohorts of students, therefore eliminating the focus of specific student
academic achievement and shifting the emphasis of this study to the instructional
practices and resources in place. In addition to the two years worth of academic data,
teachers anonymously shared feedback through an online survey that allowed the
opportunity to respond based upon their level of experience and expertise as a second
grade teacher. The data received from the survey provided a quantitative look at the
model in place along with the successes, strengths and weaknesses of what the district
implemented.
Purpose
The purpose of the research study was to determine if the enhanced core reading
instructional strategies used in second grade made an impact on student achievement and
subsequent movement between MTSS Tiers 1, 2 and 3. Based upon the data available
through benchmark assessment tools administered between 2018-2020, an anonymous
second grade teacher questionnaire, and randomly conducted fidelity walkthrough
observations of WIN time, the action research identified trends shown to support student
growth.
The MTSS framework was newly implemented in the elementary school at the
start of the 2018-2019 school year. Teachers in the elementary setting were familiar with

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

44

a traditional approach to teaching in a self-contained setting, responsible for all core
content areas. Due in part to the Special Education audit of 2017, the district received
recommendations to provide tiered instruction to all students. Prior to the audit report,
the district was not providing adequate and appropriate levels of instructional
interventions to students before being recommended to an evaluation for Special
Education. The teaching of core content without intervention support was an engrained
practice for many years in the District. The audit action plan called for a MTSS
framework to be developed in the District’s K-6 buildings. The approach was to
implement MTSS in K-6 classrooms with reading, followed in year two with math and
behavioral interventions. A budget was set at $65,000 dedicated to purchasing reading
intervention programs and resources for K-6 schools. Two reading specialists were
already in place, but focused mainly on providing Title 1-Like services to students in
grades 2-4. Title I-Like is defined as a teacher who performs similar duties to Title I
funded teachers, but their position is not financially supported through Title 1 funding,
nor do they retain records for Title 1 Federal requirements. The Title I-Like teachers
eliminated the “reading lab” approach established several years ago, and became Tier 2
and 3 intervention specialists servicing the needs of all students whose benchmark
assessment scores, and other pertinent data, suggested they receive more intensive
intervention support.
Resources and materials were purchased to support intensive interventions for
Tier 2 and 3. Leveled Literacy Interventions (LLI) and Rave-O were added as
supplemental research-based reading interventions due to a lack of materials available to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

45

provide students with fluency and comprehension support. LLI is only used in Tier 2 or 3
in a small-group setting, delivered by the reading specialist to students demonstrating
difficulty with reading and writing. The LLI program is leveled and systematically
scripted for fidelity and more explicit instructional interventions to move students toward
success. LLI also has an embedded progress monitoring component that enables data to
be recorded based upon the student’s response to the interventions over time (Heineman,
Fountas & Pinnell, 2020). Rave-O is also presented in a small-group setting by the Tier 2
and 3 Reading Specialist, but focuses more on an evidence-based literacy interventions
for students to take a deeper dive into text through understanding and achievement
(Voyager Sopris, 2020).
As part of the MTSS process, a critical element to determining proper student
placement is administering a universal screening tool. In this district, over the two-year
period of time data was collected and analyzed, two different screening tools were used.
AIMSweb 1.0 was administered to K-4 grades in 2018-2019, and Acadience Reading was
administered in K-2 grades in 2019-2020. Both assessments have similar reading
components and are administered in the same one-on-one scripted format. Once data is
officially collected and recorded, teachers assigned to data-teams meet to analyze and
make instructional-based decisions.
The data-team in this elementary school has a two prong purpose. One team is
composed of all teachers involved in a grade level cluster with their assigned reading
specialist. The cluster grouping was based upon 3-4 teachers within the same grade level

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

46

with like-schedules. The purpose of the cluster is to allow for a small grouping of
teachers to work closely together to review and analyze student data within their
homerooms and also to plan for instruction that may include students working in fluid
groups with other teachers within that particular cluster.
The second data-team has a building focus to data and is composed of the
building principal, school psychologist, and any teacher assigned to the team. A data
meeting structure was created and led by the reading specialists on an eleven-day rotation
schedule to discuss progress of all students in each tier. The structure slowly evolved
throughout the first year of implementation with many hurdles and barriers in place.
Such barriers included, time to plan, time to meet, minimal professional development and
lack of understanding of analyzing data to make instructional decisions. A Google “Data
Wall” was created internally for the convenience of sharing data amongst teachers,
reading specialists, the building principal and school psychologists on a collaborative
platform that allowed for real-time data to be added and reviewed.
Over the two year time frame, the district provided professional development
opportunities to understand the concept of MTSS, which was met with some resistance
from both teachers and administrators. As the first year concluded, it was evident that
there were areas of improvement, which prompted a need and subsequently, the focus for
the research study. With one year completed, it became a natural focus to make shifts to
the framework, establish stronger policies and procedures, review the benchmark
assessment tool’s effectiveness, as well as to identify if the interventions and model in

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

47

place were effective. In the second year of implementation, a district-wide MTSS
handbook was created with the input of the district administrative team and supports from
the local intermediate unit and tools gleaned from participating in a state MTSS training
task force. Gains and movement between tiers were not clearly noted in ways that were
anticipated areas of growth, and therefore prompted a greater interest in conducting an
action research study to determine a deeper level of understanding of the framework, the
data’s representation and the effectiveness of the instructional interventions in place. The
development of the following research questions helped to streamline the approach to
digging deeper.
Q1: How is the movement between tiers (1, 2 and 3) reflective of the student
response to the core instruction and interventions in place?
The goal of this research question was to be able to determine how often students
were moving between each tier. Whether students were experiencing a rise in academic
performance based upon the interventions provided and moving out of Tier 2 into Tier 1.
Also, it would determine the amount of students who received core instruction in Tier 1
and, over time, were not finding success with the foundational skills through
differentiated instruction resulting in moving into Tier 2 throughout the course of the
school year. The data represents all of the second grade students desegregated between
Tier 1, 2 and 3 at the benchmark points of the year (September, January and May) for
both 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. A comparison will be outlined for the
different subgroups of second grade students dependent upon the year the data represents.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

48

Q2: Are the instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong
foundational reading skills for all students?
The goal of this research question is to identify the instructional interventions
used during Tier 1, 2 and 3 and determine if they are perceived as effective based upon
the students’ response through movement between tiers. A fidelity check of classroom
instruction at the different tiered levels would define what was used during randomly
selected visits to classrooms of second grade students, and also what interventions and/or
teaching materials were used during the assigned WIN time. While this will represent a
small sampling of data, it will show whether or not there was consistency with the type of
tool, or instructional practice, used during a set intervention period focused on reading
skill acquisition. Another factor with this question would be the type of tool and
instructional delivery approach implemented to determine if it was directly aligned to the
skill deficit demonstrated through the available data.
Q3: What is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to
reading achievement?
The third research question focuses on the perception of the MTSS structure
through the lens of the teachers who were planning, analyzing data, and implementing
instruction based upon what the students needed in Tier 1, 2 and 3. Data was collected
using the anonymous survey presented in an online format to the twelve teachers who
directly worked with second grade students. MTSS provides teachers and students with a
layered approach to learning in reading, math and behavior. The framework provides

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

49

purposeful levels of interventions that are designed to support the needs of each student
in three targeted groups. Tier 1 focuses on the core instruction of the defined content
area. During Tier 1 instruction, the classroom teacher is responsible for a continuation
and deeper emphasis on the skills taught during the core reading instructional time.
Students in Tier 1 are performing at or above benchmark as per the universal screening
tool, but may still present varied levels of ability and understanding of the concepts at
hand. Within Tier 1, the instruction should be differentiated and presented in small fluid
groups, where the teacher can work with one group of students while others are
independently completing a task. In this study, the Tier 1 core instructional material is
the Wonders 2014 reading series. Teachers present instruction almost verbatim to the
scope and sequence defined by McGraw Hill and utilize all anthology texts, practice
books and language components from the series without much deviation. In addition to
the Wonders series, teachers also implement the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness
Supplemental program during the core instruction, as well as in some intervention
periods.
MTSS is based upon reliable data collected through a variety of sources, but most
notably the progress reported via universal screening tools administered at three points in
a single academic year. Two different tools were implemented over the two year period
of time, due to District preference and a desired need to change programs based upon one
product retiring in June 2019. AIMSweb and Acadience have parallel modes of
assessments and categories, and the transition between the two was a matter of becoming
familiar with the new tool.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

50

AIMSweb is s a benchmark and progress monitoring system based in direct,
frequent and continuous student assessment. Oral reading fluency is a critical component
of measuring a student’s ability to read as they are assessed for their accuracy and speed
with leveled texts. Each student in this District was assessed individually by a teacher
and timed for a one-minute period of cold reading passages (passages never read by the
student). The test administrator marks a scoring sheet with the correct words read per
minute and records the amount and types of errors made per passage. The other
assessment component in AIMSweb is the Reading Maze, which is a comprehension
assessment tool where the test administrator presents the student with a single reading
passage where some words are replaced with a multiple-choice box that includes the
correct word and two distractors. The students are expected to make a selection of the
appropriate word choice that best fits the meaning of the sentence as they silently read the
passage (Pearson Education, Inc., 2011). The assessment is conducted in a paper-pencil
collection process, with each student independently assessed 1:1 by a teacher or reading
specialist (who may not have been their own teacher, nor a teacher with which they were
familiar). AIMSweb 1.0 assesses student’s ability in Reading Curriculum-Based
Measures (R-CBM) and Maze. R-CBM is a standardized test that allows students and
teachers to see reading progress. This test is taken individually and is quick and easy
format for the student and teacher. MAZE, on the other hand, is a tool used
to measure comprehension. Comprehension is a much more complex construct than
fluency. The following information is retrieved from the Pearson AIMSweb Training
workbook,

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

51

Maze is a multiple-choice cloze task that students complete while reading
silently. To determine the student’s oral reading fluency, the teacher administering
the assessment will time the student reading a cold passage and marking the
number of correct words read per minute (Pearson Education, Inc., 2011).
Accurate student placement is dependent upon the cut scores defined by
AIMSweb or Acadience for Tier 1, 2 or 3. For example, the cut scores for Aims Web for
Grade 2 R-CBM and Maze in Table 1 are:
Table 1
AIMSweb second grade cut-scores for R-CBM and Maze (Pearson Education,
Inc., 2011)

The cut scores shown in Table 1 are used to determine key benchmarks
throughout the year based upon students progress. Scores falling below the Tier 2
benchmark range would be in Tier 3 as they are not specifically defined within Pearson
Inc.’s AIMSweb Default Cut Scores Explained publication (2011). The Data-Team refers
to these scores and other curriculum assessment data to determine the most appropriate
Tier placement.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

52

Acadience Reading is the former Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS). Acadience Reading helps teachers identify children at-risk for reading
difficulty and determine skills to target for instruction and support. Acadience Reading is
designed to support the Response to Intervention (RtI) model, which is a part of the
MTSS framework. Acadience Reading is a standardized assessment that is reliable and
valid, delivered in a quick assessment format that focuses on early literacy skills
(Acadience Learning, 2020). With Acadience Reading, there are established benchmark
goals and cut points to indicate at-risk assessment results. The screener is used three
times per year as an indicator of growth per student using a similar assessment model for
the year. The Acadience assessment for second grade focuses on foundational reading
skills, such as phonics and word recognition, oral reading fluency and word use fluency.
As with AIMSweb, Acadience Reading also aligns with Lexile reading levels.
The reading composite score for Acadience Reading is outlined in Table 2:

Table 2
AIMSweb second grade cut scores for reading composite. (Pearson Education,
Inc., 2011)

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

53

Table 3
Acadience second grade cut scores for ORF

The Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Scores are outlined in Table 3. The top bold
number represents scoring at or above benchmark in which students would remain at Tier
1 for core support. The smaller number represents the cut point for at-risk students and
would unlikely result in students meeting their reading levels without supports. Anything
falling below the bottom number would place students in a Tier 3 category with the most
significant need for intervention.
The initial assessment administered in September is to provide a baseline to
determine student needs. The mid-year assessment is administered in January with an
end of year assessment in May both providing data to accurately depict student growth in
the areas of fluency and comprehension. The three assessment points in the school year
are encouraged by the assessment providers to ensure accurate and reliable growth data

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

54

for all students as a criterion-referenced assessment. In the district where the research
was conducted, the assessment timeframe was predetermined by the district
administrators and shared with the teachers within a window of testing dates for
completion by an assessment team. The team consisted of several teachers performing an
assessment sweep of all students in second grade, as well as other district classes between
kindergarten and first grade. During testing time, students are pulled from their
classroom to be individually assessed by the test administrator. Scores are then entered
into an online scoring portal and shared with the classroom teacher, as well as entered
into a joint data wall created in a district Google Sheets shared “data wall”. Data is
analyzed by the classroom teachers, reading specialists and any other teacher who would
work directly with the students. Data is used to make instructional decisions, in
particular, in determining the appropriate tier placement for MTSS reading intervention
support. The purpose of the data wall is for all teachers involved with a specific grade
level cluster (3-4 classroom teachers and assigned reading specialist for Tier 2 or 3
interventions) to be able to collaboratively look at a student’s profile of data and
accurately plan for instruction or intervention. The data wall is also shared with the
School Psychologist, Principal, Director of Curriculum and Instruction and Director of
Pupil Services. In the event a student progresses through the data team with additional
needs for intensive interventions, the external team members are connected to the portal
for easier review of data. Once data is collected and shared, teachers begin to make
instructional decisions based upon the needs of each individual student in their grade
level cluster and/or reading classroom. The use of the screening data sets the stage for

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

55

teachers to begin their instructional planning and delivery based upon the needs as they
fall within each specified tier.
Setting and Participants
The participants in this action research study include the second grade cohort
from eleven classrooms housed at the elementary school in one district. Second grade is
located in one elementary school, where 279 second grade students were enrolled in
2019-2020 (253 in 2018-2019) in a building with 768 total enrollment grades 2-4. In
addition to the eleven classroom teachers, there are two reading specialists assigned to
service Tier 2 and Tier 3 students in second to fourth grade. There are five special
education teachers providing services to all IEP students grade 2-4 in a supplemental,
autistic support and itinerant learning model. One English as a Second Language (ESL)
teacher services all English Learners K-6. One building principal oversees the operation
for the second-fourth grade elementary school. The Elementary School is located in
Butler County where it is academically ranked first among all Butler County schools
according to the Pittsburgh Business Times, and 10th in Western Pennsylvania. The
district is home to 3395 K-12 students, with five school buildings within a K-1, 2-4, 5-6,
7-8 and 9-12 grade configuration. According to data provided by the PA Future Ready
Index, students at the elementary school (grades 3-4) are performing on the PSSA with
87.3% proficiency in ELA, 74.4% proficiency in Math and 91.3% proficiency in Science.
There is 100% reported PVAAS growth in ELA for all students, with 77% within the
Special Education subgroup. There is 75% PVAAS growth among all students in Math,

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

56

and the special education subgroup representing 78% . The school’s attendance rate is
97.1%, which is above the 85.8% Pennsylvania statewide average and statewide 2030
goal of 94.1% (Future Ready PA Index, 2019).
The district encompasses 46.35 square miles and four communities, Adams
Township, Valencia Borough, Mars Borough and Middlesex Township. Within the full
3395 student population, 6.1% of the students are listed as economically disadvantaged
and 10.3% of the students are classified as special education. The district enrollment data
shows 95.5% white student population, 2% Asian, 1.1% Hispanic, 1.2% Black, and 0.2%
as two or more races (Future Ready PA Index, 2019).
At the elementary school, the second grade was specifically targeted for this
action research due to the newly implemented MTSS framework and critical foundational
year for reading skill acquisition. Second grade typically experiences a transitional
period from the core reading foundational skills into the third grade where students are
expected to demonstrate proficient or advanced performance on the Pennsylvania System
of School Assessment (PSSA). To best determine the findings of growth within this
research, two years of second grade data was analyzed. The first year of data is from the
2018-2019 year when second grade students were administered the AIMSweb
assessment. The student data groups are different, therefore the focus of the research is
specific to the curriculum and effectiveness of the instructional materials used during
core instruction, Tier 1 and response to interventions delivered in Tier 2 and 3. The
second component of student data is from the 2019-2020 school year using the Acadience

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

57

Reading Assessment. Both assessments target the same skill set and are assessed within
the same beginning, middle and end of year format.
In September 2019, the School Board of Directors were provided with an outline
of the IRB Application and guidelines for the scope of the action research plan. The
School Board of Directors approved the research plan as presented in a 9-0 vote in a
public session. As part of the action research, twelve-second grade teachers and reading
specialists who work directly with second grade students, were voluntarily asked to
provide feedback in an anonymous online survey that presented open-ended and rating
scale questions pertaining to MTSS instruction, resources, and successes. Each received
an invitation to participate along with an IRB approved disclosure statement (Appendix
A). Eight of twelve teachers participated in the anonymous survey. The survey was
designed by the researcher to include ten open-ended questions and ten rating scale
questions pertinent to the MTSS framework and delivery within their classroom and
school.
Randomly selected second grade teachers’ classrooms were subjects in MTSS
fidelity checks following an IRB approved checklist (Appendix B). The checklist
focused on the instruction occurring during WIN time and the resources utilized by the
individual teachers and small group of students. Six WIN time fidelity checks were
conducted throughout the course of the school year. In March 2020, the COVID-19
pandemic issued a government shut down of all public schools in the state of
Pennsylvania, therefore inhibiting the continued collection of data for fidelity checks to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

58

occur as part of the research study. Fidelity check data was collected from September
2019 - February 2020.
Intervention and Research Plan
Once the topic of research was identified to focus on the impact of enhancing core
reading instruction in a Tier 1, 2 and 3 MTSS framework, the researcher began to review
literature related to second grade reading instruction, intervention tools, and data analysis.
Core reading instruction is a critical element to building a successful foundation for
literacy success in students. Some learners can acquire foundational reading skills with
less formal and implicit instruction, many learners require explicit, systematic instruction
in and practice with these foundational skills (Bulat et. al., 2017). A core program builds
upon the foundation starting in pre-kindergarten and building through the primary grade
levels. There have been many studies conducted to research the best approach to core
reading programs, supplemental resources, as well as determining if too much phonics or
phonemic awareness can hinder the academic growth of students in becoming stronger
readers. Duke and Mesmer examined the inadequacies of teachers spending too little
time on phonics instruction. (2018-2019) While there is research to support arguments
on this topic, it is recommended that 30-60 minutes per day, on average in a K-2
instructional setting, is spent on various instructional methods infusing phonics,
phonemic awareness, and vocabulary (Duke & Mesmer, 2018-2019). While core reading
instruction can consist of a whole-language balanced literacy series, is that enough to
provide students with the appropriate level of skill-based instruction to become
successful and fluent readers by the time they enter third grade? With a structured

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

59

intervention system in place addressing all of the skills that students demonstrate a
deficiency, are teachers still able to meet student needs with appropriate levels of
supports to allow for growth? The MTSS framework is a fluid system of interventions
where students have the ability, based upon the data, to move between tiers. Within those
tiers, the same content is taught, but at varying levels of intensity, which brings the
researcher to the poignant question, does this work? In this District, the MTSS
framework allows for a set, structured time period during the instructional day to focus
on what students need. Typically, this instructional time would be available five days a
week for thirty to forty minutes each day. In this District, WIN time could only be
scheduled a maximum of three days a week for thirty minutes each day. In some random
cases, a cluster of second grade classrooms has a four day WIN time based upon their
schedule availability and the level of student need. The discrepancy in the time allotment
is due to the shared special area teachers between other elementary schools, and the shear
number of teachers and grade level sections in the building. The purpose of the in-depth
research study is to determine if there is a connection to the instructional materials in
place and the student’s response toward becoming a more fluent reader, or if the
resources are not digging deep enough into the core components of reading instruction to
provide a solid foundation of reading for all students. Another indicator to make note of
during this research analysis would be the consideration for time and its impact on any
level of success for instructional support for students.
The District has a unique configuration where one building houses all elevensecond grade classrooms. For purposes of the research, all eleven classes would be a part

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

60

of the research project. Determining the scope of the question, and identifying an issue to
be resolved through data analysis became evident. Several pieces of data were
disaggregated to make correlations with student movement between tiers in response to
the interventions in place indicative of the benchmark assessment scoring guidelines.
Another critical piece of data analysis within the research was to gather input from the
teachers working directly with the second grade students. Finally, a third data point was
the fidelity check-lists that represent what occurs during the natural setting of WIN time
instruction at Tier 1, 2 and 3. The intentional sampling of second grade data was based
upon the foundational reading skills needed within the early literacy years as students
prepared to become more independent readers with fluency and comprehension. The
selection of the second grade level was purposeful, in that this homogenous study would
reflect a core grade level where students had two prior years of building foundational
skills in reading, and the ability to transfer those skills into more mature reading fluency
and comprehension. The sample size consisted of 253 second grade students in
2018-2019 and 279 in 2019-2020 within one school using the same type of assessment
measures, same time for instruction in WIN, reading specialist support during MTSS, and
identical core reading materials.
What I Need, or otherwise referred to as WIN, has been the scheduled time period
dedicated to tiered interventions for MTSS. While there are other periods of time during
the day where students can receive intervention support, typically all movement occurs
during this 30-40 minute scheduled period. The eleven-second grade classrooms were
broken into clusters of 3-4 homerooms, creating a smaller group where teachers could

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

61

work together as a team collaborating instructional planning and delivery. The cluster
approach also supports scheduling with reading specialists attempting to meet with as
many Tier 2 and 3 students as possible during the structured intervention time. The
clusters were established based upon similar master schedules where the 3-4 homeroom
teachers were able to have a block of time for consecutive reading instruction at least 3
times per week. While most researchers recommend fidelity to intervention models
reflect 5 days per week at 30 minutes per intervention period, the elementary school’s
dynamic and staffing structure made that benchmark nearly impossible. The district
decided upon a maximum of three days for dedicated WIN time to occur. During WIN
time, students move to their appropriate tier for more personalized instruction. No new
material should be taught during WIN time period. Instruction is based upon data
collected from various sources, including benchmark assessments, formative classroom
assessments in reading, summative assessments from the reading series and teacher
observations. WIN time instruction for Tier 1 is based upon providing in-depth practice
on already taught and learned skills, in a center-based approach. In a typical Tier 1 WIN
time period, you may see a classroom with approximately 18 students (of the original 24
assigned students) working in smaller groups. Some independent work would consist of
language skill practice with workbooks, practice pages, and technology-based resources.
The classroom teacher works with small groups of students on more focused skills for
additional formative assessment data and support. You may also see students partnered
with others in the classroom to do shared reading, discussions and skill-based activities.
During the 30-minute time period, it is common to observe a rotation of the small groups

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

62

and activities after 15 minutes. Students are aware of their routine and their WIN time
expectations as they are an embedded part of the learning experience on a regular basis.
In the Tier 2 and 3 setting, you will see a reading specialist working with a small group of
6-8 students on scripted, research-based intervention programs, such as Leveled Literacy
Intervention (LLI). Students in these tiers are receiving a more intensive intervention
supports based upon the data presented through benchmark assessment decline,
performance in the classroom, as well as teacher observations. Students in Tier 2 have
progress monitoring completed each week so there is a running record of their
performance based upon the student’s individual response to the intervention. During
Tier 2, the teacher works with a group of students with very similar needs in an effort to
provide targeted instruction based upon the needs exhibited by all students in the group.
A student assigned to Tier 2 has the ability to move fluidly between the Tiers based upon
their performance and response to the interventions. Data analysis is a critical component
reviewed by all teachers on a routine basis to make additional data-informed instructional
decisions. Tier 3 students are engaged in a critical level of explicit, scripted
interventions, designed to develop key skills where students experience the most
significant deficit according to the data.
Teachers participate in grade level cluster meetings on an eleven day rotation.
The rotation is in place at the elementary school based upon the eleven different clusters
that exist between grades two and four. The data-team meetings are conducted by the
reading specialists, all teachers in the grade level cluster, school psychologist and oftentimes the building principal. During the data-team meeting, there is a format that is

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

63

followed to keep focused discussions, and data is recorded into the data wall based upon
the topics discussed. In a typical meeting, students performance is discussed with regard
to assessment data, WIN time performance, and if teachers have concerns with their
progression of skills. During these meetings, it is determined whether or not a student
would benefit from shifting to another tier for more or less support based upon their
appropriate level of need. The process is very fluid, but educators cautiously look at data
points within a six week timeframe to determine if trend lines demonstrate growth or
regression and require movement between the tiers. While the focus of all tiers is reading
instruction based upon the PA Core Standards and the approved district ELA curriculum,
materials and instructional approaches may vary based upon the needs demonstrated by
the students in each classroom and grade level cluster.
The reading materials used for core instruction include the McGraw Hill’s reading
series, Wonders 2014, and an additional supplemental tool for phonics instruction,
Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum . The Wonders Reading series is a traditional
whole language program with anthology texts, language practice books, and built in
phonics instruction. The district has been working strictly according to the Wonders
series since the textbook adoption occurred in 2014. Majority of the instruction occurring
at the second grade level is series based, in a traditional five-day instructional delivery
method with an introduction to a story on day 1 building up to an assessment on day 5.
As part of the initial review toward MTSS in the district, it was determined as part of the
PDE cohort that phonics and phonemic awareness was lacking depth. As part of the PDE
cohort, the district purchased materials and professional development for all K-2 teachers

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

64

to implement Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum to replace the Wonders
Phonemic Awareness component on a daily basis. Heggerty instruction takes place in
Tier 1 in a whole group setting for approximately 10-12 minutes daily. In some cases, the
Reading Specialists will reiterate the Heggerty components into their Tier 2 instruction
for additional reinforcement of skills. The Heggerty Curriculum focuses on eight
phonemic awareness skills in a scripted 10-12 minute burst of content delivery in a
repetitive format. The goal of Heggerty is to expose students to multiple opportunities to
respond orally to phonemic awareness cues in a fast-paced drill. Lessons continually
build upon each skill, which allows systematic growth and development of phonemic
awareness skills for students. During WIN time, teachers utilize practice pages of skills
and engage in activities from a variety of educational resources. One in particular (and
new in 2019 to second grade) is the Sadlier Progress workbooks for standards-aligned
practice in ELA content. The workbooks provide an additional skill-based practice for
students to independently show their level of understanding of the skill.
To determine a wider range of growth and supportive data analysis, the use of a
teacher survey was used to gain qualitative data with open-ended responses shared
anonymously and voluntarily. The benefit associated to teachers providing feedback with
this electronic questionnaire was to provide a voice in sharing perceptions of MTSS
through the use of instructional tools, instructional time, data, success and academic
growth for the model over the first two years of implementation. Additional quantitative
data was pulled from the questionnaire through attitudinal questions presented in a
Likert-Scale model to measure the responder’s perception of how components of MTSS

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

65

were working at the second grade level. A final piece of quantitative data was presented
as a check-list of what occurred during WIN time at randomly selected periods
throughout the course of the school year. Data represented the natural events of
instruction, materials used, type of instructional strategies, and determined if there was
fidelity in the approach to WIN time based upon those defined points.
All three data points were selected based upon their alignment and prospective
correlation in determining a definitive response to the articulated research questions:
Q1: How is the movement between tiers (1, 2 and 3) reflective of the student
response to the core instruction and interventions in place?
Q2: Are the instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong
foundational reading skills for all students?
Q3. What is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to
reading achievement?
Potential Financial Implications
Based upon the findings of the research, the following financial implications may
become a factor for the district to consider.
1. Is the core reading program providing the appropriate depth of instruction for
all foundational reading skills? Would new core instructional materials need to
be purchased? Would a core reading program be a best fit for delivering
foundational reading skills with success?

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

66

a. Purchasing a new core reading program would potentially cost the
district upwards of $250,000 pertaining to costs associated with a K-6
textbook adoption cycle for approximately 1100 students. If an updated
core reading program similar to the Wonders 2014 program in place
wouldn’t be the direction the district proceeded, the costs would
dramatically decrease when focusing only on purchasing supplemental
materials that highlighted areas of weakness. Such areas would be
phonics, fluency and comprehension.
2. Are the current intervention tools used aligned with the students’ needs? Will
additional research-based intervention tools need to be purchase to provide a
broader scope of support to students needing Tier 2 or 3 support?
a. Intervention programs range between $15,000 and $30,000 depending
on the program type. There are some programs that offer both online and
print resources with embedded progress monitoring tools. These items
would be based upon where the district sees a deficit with student reading
achievement.
3. Are the data points providing the teaching staff with enough information to
determine if a student is successfully responding to interventions and core
instruction in place? Would additional data tools be needed and purchased?
a. Universal screening tools, such as AIMSweb or Acadience Reading, can
typically cost $1.00 per student and then subsequent costs associated to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

67

operating an online data management system. Other comprehensive tools
used for benchmark assessments and progress monitoring could cost
upwards of $20,000 depending on the type of product and company
creating the tool. Currently, the district is implementing a new universal
screening tool, but the research would determine if the data available from
this particular tool truly helps determine the skills in which students
demonstrate a need for more support.
4. Are there enough teacher supports in place to effectively meet the needs of
students at each level? Are additional teachers and/or reading specialists needed
to make MTSS more successful and promote more student reading achievement?
a. Typically, a newly hired teacher costs upwards of $80,000 (including a
benefits package) dependent upon the amount of experience they bring to
the position. Considerations to increase the staffing support would be a
long-range budget projection based upon the evident need through
available data.
5. Do teachers fully understand the concept of MTSS and how to plan instruction
based upon data? Do more professional development opportunities need to
occur?
a. Professional development costs can range from bringing in professional
experts to assist in the training, or to provide additional time for staff to
meet as a team and plan for MTSS. Either way, there are costs associated

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

68

with providing effective and quality professional growth opportunities.
Substitute coverage costs per day in this district are $92.00 per day, and
the teacher curriculum rate defined by the collective bargaining agreement
is $34.00 per hour (if teaching staff were to be pulled for work outside of
their contractual day). Professional training support contracted outside of
the district could range between $800.00 to $2500.00 per day.
6. Do teachers have the opportunity to meet as a data-team within a reasonable
amount of time to discuss student growth or regression during the school day, or
does the district need to consider hiring a rotation of substitutes to provide
coverage for data-team meetings to occur? Does the district need to consider a
schedule adjustment to allow for time before or after-school without students once
a month to have professional development or WIN planning meetings to better
prepare for instruction?
a. The scheduling adjustment per building to allow for teachers to meet
during the school day would include the coverage of teachers pulled from
their class, therefore costing the district a substitute per teacher at $92.00
per day. Due to the nature of these meetings, this would be a recurring
cost scheduled at least 4-6 times per year utilizing multiple substitutes for
each scheduled meeting day.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

69

Regardless of the findings through this action research, the district should be
prepared to expand upon its resources and time management with staff to be able to
provide a more in-depth and increased quality program for all students.
Research Design, Methods and Data Collection
A mixed methods approach was used in this research study to analyze both
qualitative and quantitative measures. Student assessment data from two different
cohorts of students would determine the direct correlation between instructional
interventions in place at Tier 1, 2 and 3 in between benchmark assessment dates to
determine growth or regression rates for students. It would also determine the amount of
students moving between the tiered levels of instruction. The data would reflect two
years, or six data points, worth of benchmark scores administered after 18 weeks of
instruction and interventions delivered at Tier 1, 2 and 3. All data points represent
anonymous second grade students assessed under the same conditions using the same
measures as created through either the AIMSweb 1.0 or Acadience Reading tools. The
assessments were both delivered in a paper-pencil format where student responses were
recorded manually by a test administrator and then entered into a data management
platform within the software. An additional step finalizes the process for the district
teachers when a paraprofessional enters the data points into a district-created a shared
Google data wall tool and shares with groups of teachers working with clusters of
students. The data wall has the capability to color-code scores to determine the
appropriate tier of instruction based upon the cut-scores for the aforementioned

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

70

assessment. Data is reviewed throughout the year as a guide to determine appropriate
placement of students within the tier levels of intervention.
The second piece of data collected was an anonymous questionnaire created by
the researcher. The questionnaire consists of twenty questions, ten Likert-Scale and ten
open-ended prompts. The focus of the questionnaire was to gather input from teachers
who are planning, analyzing data, and implementing the interventions on a daily basis.
The feedback was reported in an anonymous format. Participants shared their reality of
the instructional environment and their beliefs that would potentially contribute to change
resulting from findings in the action research plan. While the open-ended questions
allow for more broad input, the validity of these results vary based upon their perspective
and opinion. As a way to disaggregate the themes from the responses, the researcher
looked to target threads and reoccurring responses in a numerical format to provide a
more quantitative approach.
As part of the research process, a formal request for approval from the IRB of
California University, documentation outlining the action research topic, research
questions, participants, methods and timeline were submitted in August 2019. Also
accompanying the IRB application, the questionnaire and fidelity checklist were
included. Volunteer participants in the survey were provided with a disclosure statement
(Appendix A). Research was conducted and analyzed between August 2019 and May
2020.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

71

Validity
The data collection process within this study had individual sets of responses
gathered from teachers voluntarily providing feedback based upon their personal
experiences within the classroom and WIN time setting. Internally, the structure allowed
for data to be collected during the natural classroom setting through observations using a
Fidelity Checklist tool (Appendix B). Also, reading skills were measured using the
criterion-referenced universal screening benchmark assessment tools three times a year
for each second grade student. The relationship between the assessment sores and
interventions used would be more perceived connections, but would provide data that
showed a series of weeks where instruction occurred based upon data provided and then
another assessment to measure if any growth was evident. The process would repeat
itself two times in the academic year. The assessment would indicate the level of reading
fluency each student demonstrated under the same testing criteria and environment. As a
consequence of administering the benchmark assessment tools, there is a realization by
the teachers where each student is placed upon their perceived level of performance on
specific tasks. A determination then would be made to see if that data correlated to their
performance in other similar classroom tasks, and their need for instructional
interventions, or if a shift back into core (Tier 1) instruction is warranted. The
consistency of the data used for the research allows for a reliable format to be followed
when determining the levels of student movement between the tiers.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

72

All data points are accurately represented based upon information generated
through AIMSweb and Acadience Reading assessment tools. The responses gathered in
the anonymous survey accurately reflected what was shared for each open-ended
questions and Likert-Scale prompts as they directly pertained to the survey questions.
All research data points and methods were designed based upon their correction to the
three defined research questions for this study. The researcher disaggregated data based
upon what was accurately represented from each form of data collection to determine its
correlation between instructional resources and academic growth movement between
tiers. The focus of the research was grounded in a newly implemented second grade
MTSS framework. The same study could be conducted with different grade level data,
using multiple buildings or across several different district locations.
Triangulate Data
Data collected was triangulated by the three methods: student data, teacher
feedback, and observation of instructional time. These three points represented a full
picture of the instructional choices of materials to appropriately implement as per the data
analysis from the universal screening tools. Within these points, the research would be
able to determine a probable connection, or direct impact, to how student performance is
affiliated to the type of instruction and focus toward skills not fully developed per student
or groups of students.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

73

Summary
In selecting these three types of data points, a broader scope of information could
be generated linking to systematic programming as being effective or ineffective, as well
as if the planning of instruction is providing the appropriate levels of support to apply
foundational reading skills. The data collected and analyzed would provide a solid
baseline to potentially answer the three defined research questions. As data is analyzed,
the research will look to determine if there are any additional areas of focus that could
potentially contribute to the perceived lack of success within the current MTSS
framework and shed light to a probable plan of action for the district to undertake as a
method of continuous improvement of instruction to support student academic
achievement.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

74

CHAPTER IV
Results
Introduction
This chapter contains the results of the action research conducted to determine the
impact of enhancing core reading instruction in a second grade classroom over a two year
period of implementing MTSS. Data was collected from three sources, utilizing
Universal Screening tools, AIMSweb and Acadience Reading for two cohorts of second
grade students, data from fidelity walkthrough classroom observations and a voluntary
second grade teacher survey. The data collected will provide a snapshot of instruction,
intervention and assessment occurring during the MTSS structured time within the
weekly schedule as a new method of providing support to all students. The data
represents the response to which students are receiving core instruction, intervention
support and applying their skills through benchmark assessments. The data collected in
this action research study was based upon three focus questions:
Q1: How is the movement between tiers (1 and 2) reflective of the student
response to the core instruction and interventions in place?
Q2: Are instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong
foundational reading skills for all students?
Q3: What is the perceived concern with the MTSS structure as it pertains to
reading achievement?
This chapter will provide more detailed information based upon the data
collection tools and the results presented to correlate to the research questions and

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

75

analysis of the findings. Data was collected as part of the Multi-Tiered Systems of
Support (MTSS) framework that was newly established in the District in 2018. As part of
that framework, teachers implemented specific interventions for core reading support
during a structured classroom period, What I Need (WIN), three times per week. During
this period, groups of students would work in small-groups or large-groups, depending
upon what the data showed their need to be. Reading specialists focused on more
intensive intervention support for students who fell in Tier 2 or 3, and the level of
instruction was adjusted according to their specific skill need in reading.
Throughout this chapter there will be graphs, charts and tables used to explain the
results of the student assessments, classroom observations and teacher input as they
pertain directly to the research questions.
Results
Typically, 80% of the student population would fall within the Tier 1 range of
instruction. In this case study for the fall assessment data points, 74% of the students fell
within the Tier 1 level for Reading in 2018-2019 based upon the AIMSweb 1.0 data, and
77% of the students fell within the Tier 1 level for Reading in 2019-2020 based upon the
September 2019 Acadience Reading data. Subsequently, Tier 2 should reflect 15% of the
student population according to their universal screening data. In the case of this study,
10% of the student population was in Tier in 2018-2019 and 11% of the student
population in 2019-2020 fell within the Tier 2 level for interventions at the first
benchmark assessment of the year. Lastly, Tier 3 would typically represent 5% of the
student population. The 2018-2019 data showed 16% and 2019-2020 data represented

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

76

12%. As the MTSS triangles in Figure 3 represent, the district shows discrepancy
between the appropriate range of tiered needs based upon their yearly baseline data. Two
universal screening tools were analyzed in this research study based upon the district’s
use and change of assessment tools within the two year time frame. Year one, AIMSweb
1.0 was used for all reading benchmark assessments. Although, as a result of district-wide
training through the state of Pennsylvania and the end of life status of the AIMSweb 1.0
tool, the district chose to move to a new screening tool. Acadience Reading was highly
recommended by the MTSS researchers from Michigan and Pennsylvania that the
District worked with through their state-wide training cohorts, therefore the district
purchased Acadience Reading and Math to be implemented in 2019-2020 for all K-2
students. Both assessment measures (AIMSweb and Acadience) focus on similar skills,
therefore the transition between the two assessments was a matter of learning the
administrative process of the new tool.
The data analyzed in this research study presented similar concepts within the two
different screening tools. AIMSweb measures Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), which
presents omitted words and substituted words. Another component is the ORF Accuracy,
which assesses the accuracy of how many words students can read per minute. In the
Acadience Reading assessment, the Reading-Curriculum Based Measures (R-CBM)
assess the reading progression of short passages (or probes) while measuring the reading
fluency of the student. The MAZE component assesses oral reading fluency and
comprehension from a three-minute timed reading passage of a cold read. Within both
assessment measures, these four items were included in the composite score as they were

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

77

the most similar areas of skill measurement to find a trend between cohorts and
assessment years. A composite score combines all assessment components and reflects
the total score of the entire cohort combined.
The data represented in the Figure 3 shows the composite scores, including both
analyzed components, where students were at the beginning of the year benchmark
assessment as compared to the researched MTSS Framework model.
Figure 3
Fall Composite Scores

5%

16%

12%

15%

10%

11%

80%

74%

77%

MTSS Framework

2018-2019

2019-2020

The data represented in Figure 3 demonstrates that the incoming second grade
students, over a two year time span, came in at relatively similar starting points with their
reading ability. Both cohorts are not far from the MTSS framework suggestion of tiers,
but both represent approximately 7%-11% or more students falling within the most
significant tier (3) needing intensive intervention supports. In addition, the Tier 1 group
falls between 3%-6% below the suggested 80%, and approximately 4%-5% falling in Tier
2. While these numbers, at first glance, seem to be on par with the set guidelines of
MTSS at the initial benchmark assessment, there seems to be a pattern emerging with the
incoming student preparation from their first grade curriculum and instruction. While the

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

78

core instruction appears to be sufficiently providing instruction to support students, it
appears that the students with the most need are not receiving the supports needed to be
successful. Figure 4 represents the same two cohorts at the mid-year benchmark
assessment composite score (including the AIMSweb R-CBM from MAZE and ORF
(Fluency) and ORF (Accuracy from Acadience) as they correlate with the MTSS
framework.
Figure 4
Winter Composite Scores

5%

9%

11%

15%

9%

5%

80%

82%

84%

MTSS Framework

2018-2019

2019-2020

Figure 4 demonstrates the most significant change evident between the two
cohorts and the benchmark assessment results. In the first cohort (2018-2019), the
teachers were implementing MTSS in its initial year. Two reading specialists were
implementing brand new interventions that they were learning along with the
students. Classroom teachers were implementing WIN time three days per week, and
creating instructional materials from scratch to meet the needs of their Tier 1 students.
The same core instruction was in place with no revisions or supplemental
programming embedded. In the second year (2019-2020), the data indicates that the

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

79

students made some significant improvements and there were 4% more students
placing in Tier 1 than suggested through the MTSS framework. The concern still lies
with the Tier 3 students, which are 6% higher than the MTSS triangle suggests. The
Tier 2 students fall 10% lower than what the triangle suggests, leaving me to believe
that there is a concern with the interventions presented to students at the Tier 2 level
that are not addressing the specific needs of students that they are regressing in their
attainment of reading skills.
The next graph represents the growth of students between the AimsWeb fall,
winter and spring benchmarks as a cohort in 2018-2019. While this graph does not
indicate the actual shift of students between tiers, it represents the movement of the
group as a whole according to their composite score of R-CBM and Maze concepts.
Figure 5
Growth Rate Between Tiers with AIMSweb
Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

90

67.5

45

22.5

0

Fall

Winter

Spring

The data in Figure 5 represents the scores produced by the 2018-2019 second

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

80

grade students on the AIMSweb assessment. The numbers indicate the percentage of
students tested in second grade per benchmark assessment window. Each tier has an
established benchmark score that indicates if benchmark was met or not. The graph
demonstrates the cohort movement between each assessment, as their response to the
interventions and instruction in place. During the initial second grade assessment in the
fall 2018-2019, 76% of the students performed above benchmark, while 9% were at
benchmark and 15% fell below benchmark. These scores represented a higher level of
students needing more significant intervention programming. At the winter benchmark,
there was an increase to 82% at Tier 1, no movement in Tier 2 steady at 9%, and a decline
from Tier 3 to 9%. In the final spring assessment, the Tier 1 percent of students increased
slightly to 83%, Tier 2 remained stagnant at 9%, but Tier 3 continued to decline to 8%.
Questions remain as to what is happening at the Tier 2 level. Are students moving in and
out of the tiers due to their response to the interventions? Are the students that are
progressing in Tier 3 shifting to Tier 2? The data does not show what caused the
movement, or why Tier 2 percentages remained the same. More data analysis would
need to occur to determine the root cause to the cohort movement between the tiers. The
positive results from this data is that there is movement and growth with students
receiving intensive interventions at the Tier 3 level, and slight growth in Tier 1, but it
does not indicate if there is growth within the Tier 1 students as they respond to the
enhanced core instruction.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

81

Figure 6
Growth Rate Between Tiers with Acadience Reading
Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

90
67.5
45
22.5
0
Fall

Winter

In Figure 6, the numbers represent the percentage of students in the second grade
tested cohort that scored at, above, or below benchmark. Of the 269-270 students
(enrollment increased between the fall and winter testing window) assessed between the
fall and winter benchmark assessments, in Tier 1, 77% of them were above benchmark,
or at Tier 1 in the fall and increased to 84% in the winter assessment. Of the 269 students
assessed at benchmark, 11% fell in the Tier 2 range in the fall assessment, but that
percentage declined to 5% for the winter assessment. Tier 3, or below benchmark
students, saw the most consistent movement between the fall and winter assessments with
12% of students in the fall and 11% in the winter. As indicated in this graph, there is a
significant gap in the number of students who fall within Tier 1 and Tiers 2-3. The
students performing above benchmark do represent a decline from the fall to winter
screening periods, which contributes to the growth of the students in Tier 2. The growth
in Tier 2 represents an increase of students needing intervention support, therefore not

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

82

representing a positive movement based upon the results of the assessment. The Tier 2
and 3 students appear to be transitioning between these two tiers based upon the rise and
decline of the numbers of students falling between each level. For a positive trend line to
occur, the data would need to show increases in Tier 1 over the course of each assessment
period, and a decline in the Tier 2 and 3 numbers to indicate more movement of students
requiring less intervention support. Tier 2 would expect a fluctuating trend line that
would indicate students transitioning from Tier 3 to 2 and then again from Tier 2 to 1.
Note: the spring benchmark did not occur due to COVID-19 pandemic school closures.
Again, this data provides similar results to the AIMSweb graph in Figure 5, where
there is a significant discrepancy in the growth levels of students falling within Tier 1 and
Tiers 2-3. The positive with this graph representation is that there is a steady growth line
for Tier 1 and a steady decline in Tier 2. There is a slight decline in the number of
students in Tier 3, which would indicate the interventions are working in all three tiers
over the course of the first semester of instruction and intervention. While there are signs
of expected positive trends, the concerns still lie with the amount of students who
continue needing intensive interventions, which is a higher percentage than the suggested
MTSS framework percentages.
Taking a closer look at the scoring components of AIMSweb and Acadience
Reading assessments, there are targeted scores for each benchmark window, which
indicate the appropriate tier level for students to be placed to receive correlated
interventions. Table 4 and 5 represent the target scores for each assessment window.
Students are placed in tiers depending upon how the target scores fall within the

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

83

above, at, or below benchmark standard defined by the assessment company.
Table 4
AIMSweb Benchmark Scores for R-CBM and Maze

R-CBM

MAZE

FALL
Tier 1 - Independent

55

4

Tier 2 - Instructional

21

1

Tier 1 - Independent

80

9

Tier 2 - Instructional

47

4

Tier 1 - Independent

92

14

Tier 2 - Instructional

61

8

WINTER

SPRING

The expected growth for R-CBM between benchmark assessments at Tier 1 is a
25 point increase from fall to winter and 12 points from winter to spring, with an overall
growth of 37 points. At the Tier 2 level, the expected growth rate is 26 points from fall to
winter, 14 points from winter to spring and an overall growth rate of 40 points. The
expectation of growth is greater in the Tier 2 level as students need to close the gap in
their reading skills with the appropriate level of instruction and interventions. Students
who are making progress as expected in the Tier 2 level will be within the Tier 1 level as
presented in the fall benchmark (with a score of 61). This will still leave students at a
level behind, but the growth is what gives the indication that students are finding success
with the intensive interventions in place. With the Maze assessment there is a much

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

84

smaller anticipated growth rate between benchmark assessments with a five point growth
margin between fall and winter, six points between winter and spring and a total growth
increase of ten points within 1-year.
In the 2018-2019 cohort of students, the range of student scores for the R-CBM
and Maze were distributed as shown in Table 5 as they align to the set scores for
AIMSweb. The scores in Table 5 represent how the second grade cohort performed,
within a range per tier, compared to the set scores for each assessment type (R-CBM and
Maze) per testing window.
Table 5
AIMSweb Benchmark Scores and Cohort Ranges
R-CBM

Cohort
Range

Maze

Cohort
Range

Tier 1 Independent

55

55-174

4

4-28

Tier 2 Instructional

21

10-54

1

3

Tier 1 Independent

80

80-167

9

9-29

Tier 2 Instructional

47

50-79

4

6-8

Tier 1 Independent

92

92-212

14

14-31

Tier 2 Instructional

61

83-91

8

11-13

Fall

Winter

Spring

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

85

As indicated in the chart, the score range for students in Tier 1 are significantly
higher than the benchmark scores of 55, 80 and 92. The Tier 2 students are showing a
lower score range in the fall, with 11 points below the benchmark range. There is a slight
improvement in the range of scores during the winter benchmark where the cohort range
all scored above the mark of 47 with a scoring range of 50-79. In the spring, the increase
was the highest with students performing on the R-CBM 22 points higher than the Tier 2
benchmark range and above. The same pattern of growth appears in the Maze assessment
throughout the three assessment windows where students are performing within the
suggested range or above. While these ranges in the assessment windows show there is
improvement made over the course of one instructional year, they do not represent where
the growth is and if students are transitioning between tiers as a response to the
interventions and core programming in place.

Table 6
Acadience Reading Benchmark Scores and Cohort Ranges
ORF Fluency

Cohort
Range

ORF Accuracy

Cohort
Range

Core Support-Tier 1

52-67+

52-168

16

16-57

Strategic Support Tier 2

37-51

37-50

8

8-15

Core Support - Tier 1

72-90+

72-188

21

21-70

Strategic Support Tier 2

55-71

56-71

13

13-20

Spring

87

N/A

27

N/A

Fall

Winter

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

86

The Acadience scores represent ranges for students to be above, at or below
benchmark during the three testing periods in a grade level. The scores represented in
Table 6 and 7 reflect second grade thresholds for students to meet as they are assessed in
their ORF (Fluency and Accuracy).
The first research question was designed to determine the effectiveness of the
interventions and instruction in place, and how students responded. How is the movement
between tiers (1, 2 and 3) reflective of the student response to the core instruction and
interventions in place? Analyzing the data with the research question in mind, the
researcher took a deeper look at the individual scores from the fall, winter and spring
benchmark assessments between Tier 1, 2 and 3 to determine the percentage of
movement between tiers in either direction to determine the response to the third research
question: What is the largest area of concern with skill acquisition in reading that is
addressed at each tier? This research questions hones in on the specific skill deficit area
represented through the various data points collected through the universal screening
data. Through AIMSweb and Acadience Reading assessments, and the parallel concepts
of data analyzed for this study, the focus was on reading fluency skills and
comprehension skills at a surface level of understanding. Through these two measures,
there were spikes in growth for almost all of the students.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

87

Table 7
AIMSweb Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for R-CBM
FALL to WINTER

WINTER to SPRING

TIER 1 to TIER 2

4 students or 1.59%

2 students or 0.79%

TIER 2 to TIER 1

14 students or 5.57%

15 students or 6.04%

TIER 3 to TIER 2

13 students or 5.17%

0 students or 0%

Table 7 represents the number of students who performed at each tier and made
movement between the benchmark assessment windows after receiving interventions in
their placed tier. There were no students who performed at Tier 3 that showed enough
growth to move directly into Tier 1 for core instruction.
Table 8
AIMSweb Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for Maze
FALL to WINTER

WINTER to SPRING

TIER 1 to TIER 2

1 student or 0.39%

10 students or 4.0%

TIER 2 to TIER 1

11 students or 4.38%

2 students or 0.80%

TIER 3 to TIER 2

8 students or 3.18%

1 student or 0.39%

TIER 3 to TIER 1

17 students or 6.77%

3 students or 1.19%

Table 8 represents the number of students in the second grade cohort that
performed at an individual tier level during the fall benchmark and made some type of
movement to another tier placement over the course of the year. An interesting find with
this data is that there was significant movement of students performing initially in the fall
benchmark with a below benchmark score than moving two tiers into Tier 1 over the

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

88

course of 18 weeks September to January.
The overall population in second grade in 2018-2019 was 251 students, although
there were increases and decreases within individual classes the movement balanced out
by the assessment window. Throughout the course of the school year, there were 219
students placed in Tier 1 after the fall benchmark. After a series of interventions in place,
occurring three times per week, only 5 of the 219 Tier 1 students did not exhibit enough
growth to meet benchmark and transitioned into a Tier 2 placement. After receiving
focused interventions from a reading specialist three times per week for approximately
sixteen weeks, 14 students demonstrated growth in their response to the skills taught at a
consistent level to meet benchmark and moved back into Tier 1 without intervention
supports. These findings are consistent with the limited experiences of providing
instruction and interventions in a tiered format. The surprising data was the movement
within the Maze assessment during the winter to spring benchmark when 10% of the
students did not grow enough to meet the benchmark to remain in a Tier 1 classroom.
After a closer review of the individual data, a significant portion of those students had
scores drop at least 5-8 points. This dramatic shift would prompt a response to the second
research question, are instructional interventions in place at each tier providing strong
foundational reading skills for all students? This data would present concerns as to how
effective the instruction is during the Tier 1 WIN time with a general education teacher,
and if materials or resources used provided all students with the support they need to be
successful. The year two cohort, 2019-2020, only provides data between the fall and
winter benchmarks due to the COVID-19 pandemic and school closure.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

89

Table 9
Acadience Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for ORF-Accuracy

FALL to WINTER
TIER 1 to TIER 2

2 students or 0.71%

TIER 2 to TIER 1

32 students or 11.46%

TIER 3 to TIER 2

7 students or 2.50%

TIER 3 to TIER 1

4 students or 1.43%

Table 9 represents the whole cohort of second grade students that tested in the fall
and winter benchmarks for ORF-Accuracy, and demonstrated tier movement as a total
percentage. The interesting data piece is that 1.43% of the students did make
significant enough gains to move two tiers into Tier 1 for core instruction with no
intervention support.
Table 10
Acadience Percentage of Movement Between Tiers for ORF-Fluency
FALL to WINTER
TIER 1 to TIER 2

13 students or 4.65%

TIER 2 to TIER 1

39 students or 13.97%

TIER 3 to TIER 2

8 students or 2.86%

TIER 3 to TIER 1

17 students or 6.09%

Table 10 has the greatest amount of movement reported for students. A
significance number of students moved between Tier 3 to Tier 1 with their fluency. In
some cases, students’ scores increased 30 points individually. The question remains as to

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

90

what caused such dramatic growth. The growth could be indicative of the second year of
MTSS, or a better understanding of the interventions and how to align them appropriately
with the individual student needs. There were 37 students that did not meet the
benchmark goal for ORF-Accuracy, where students had to read as many words correct
per minute in three cold passages in a three-minute time period. Of the 37 students, 13 of
them showed enough improvement within the first sixteen weeks of interventions to have
35% shift instructional tiers successfully. Students assessed for the ORF-Fluency/
comprehension assessment, or retell segment of the Acadience assessment, 48 students
fell below benchmark during the fall assessment. With the intensive intervention
programs in place during three days per week, 39 students showed enough growth to
move into Tier 1. This growth indicates an 81% success rate for students receiving the
proper intervention programs consistently for approximately 16 weeks. The concern still
lies within the core instruction and the support provided by the general education teachers
during WIN time to students who are at or above benchmark. A deeper data analysis for
the Tier 1 students' scores indicates that there was growth and regression within Tier 1,
but not significant enough for a shift to Tier 2 instructional supports. Tables 11-13 show
the total cohort of students and the percentage of growth made within Tier 1 between the
AIMSweb and Acadience fall and winter assessments, then winter and spring. It also
shows the percentage of students that regressed during that same timeframe.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

91

Table 11
AIMSweb Scores Within Tier 1 - R-CBM
FALL to WINTER

WINTER to
SPRING

TIER 1 GROWTH

247 students or
88.53%

275 students or
98.56%

TIER 1
REGRESSION

32 students or
11.46%

4 students or
1.43%

Table 12
AIMSweb Scores Within Tier 1 - Maze
FALL to WINTER

WINTER to
SPRING

TIER 1 GROWTH

271 students or
97.13%

264 students or
94.62%

TIER 1
REGRESSION

8 students or
2.86%

15 students or
5.37%

After further analysis of specific growth within Tier 1 students, using the
AIMSweb assessments, it appears that the majority of students are growing with the
core instruction in place. Although there is a small percentage of students that have
shown regression with the core instruction in a year. An interesting find indicated in
Table 11 with the growth rate for the R- CBM assessment as opposed to the Maze
growth indicated in Table 12.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

92

Table 13
Acadience Scores Within Tier 1 - ORF-Accuracy
FALL to
WINTER
TIER 1
GROWTH

266 students or
95.34%

TIER 1
REGRESSION

13 students or
4.65%

Table 14
Acadience Scores Within Tier 1 - ORF Retell
FALL to
WINTER
TIER 1 GROWTH

274 students or
98.20%

TIER 1
REGRESSION

5 students or
1.84%

In year two, with more experience delivering interventions and support to
Tier 1 core instruction, there was less regression for students retelling and reading
cold passages for accuracy, as indicated in Table 13. There is a similar percentage of
students who had success with their retell, or comprehension skills, between
2018-2019 and 2019-2020 cohorts. The data presents questions related to the
effectiveness of the core instructional materials and approach in place for second
grade students.
Introducing another data point into the analysis would provide insight into
the teacher viewpoint of how effective the core programming, resources, and
assessments are in their planning and delivery of instruction within a MTSS

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

93

framework. Of the twelve-second grade teachers and two reading specialists, eight
teachers voluntarily provided input into the online survey.
Of the twenty survey questions, ten were presented in a Likert-Scale model to rate
the perceived effectiveness of the District’s MTSS framework and ten were open-ended
responses allowing teachers to provide their input of the effectiveness of the MTSS
framework. The ten Likert-Scale questions asked the participants to respond on a scale of
1-5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest rating for the question. Figure 7
displays the survey questions and a graph representing their responses. The responses
were based upon a rating scale that listed 1-5 with 5 being the highest rating and 1 being
the lowest rating

Figure 7
Rating Scale Questions and Responses of Eight-Second Grade

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

94

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

95

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

96

The voluntary teacher responses to the survey provide an interesting sampling of
perceptions as they pertain to the effectiveness of MTSS in the classroom for Tier 1 and
via pull-out supports in Tiers 2 and 3. Some of the highlights of the data come with
majority of the responders believing that the core reading materials provide an average
amount of support to all students. A positive is that all teachers feel that WIN time has a
high level of effectiveness for instructional support with all 8 responses at a 3 or above.
One concerning data point is with the perception of time sufficiently provided to
understand WIN or MTSS expectations for teachers, with a wide array of responses,
where 3 teachers who felt they needed more support and 5 felt adequately supported. The
varying responses is a concern that the messages and communication for expectations of
WIN time are not clear or understood, possibly contributing to concerns exposed through
the student data in Tier 1 core instruction. While teachers do believe that the materials are
effective, 62.5% of the surveyed teachers feel that the materials dedicated to intervention
and instruction are not helping students improve at each tier level. In addition to having
the proper materials, the surveyed teachers were split almost evenly responding with
scores of 3-5 for having the proper amount of planning time dedicated within the clusters

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

97

for WIN time. In addition to the planning time, teachers responded with the widest range
of answers to believing that students are accurately placed in the appropriate tiers for
instruction. A lingering question remains as to what would determine how students are
placed higher or lower than classroom teachers expected? As an extension of the proper
tier placement, again, the teachers provided a wide array of responses, rating 1-4 for the
appropriate rate of movement between tiers. This particular question is reflected by the
data stating that there is movement between the tiers based upon their success with the
universal screener. As expected, some success is felt by the teachers who participated in
the survey, with 87.5% of the teachers rating as a 3 or above. Although not one teacher
believes WIN time is fully successful, it is encouraging to know that success is evident
which will lead to continuous enhancements and success in the future. Even though
MTSS is not perceived to be fully effective within its second year, 87.5% of the teachers
responded with a rating of a 3 or 4 to acknowledge that students are benefitting from
tiered instruction. From these scaled responses by eight-second grade teachers, it appears
that there is a general feeling of success, with much work left to be accomplished.
Teachers believe that the data sufficiently provides enough information regarding a
students’ academic status, but they are looking for the ability to plan and implement more
structured resources to assist the students’ needs moving forward.
In the second part of the online voluntary survey, questions were posed in an
open-ended format for the second grade teachers and reading specialists to provide a
narrative of their perceptions based upon the questions asked. Table 8 outlines the
open-ended responses from the voluntary survey.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

98

Figure 8
Open-ended response from voluntary second grade teacher survey

1

After one year of implementing WIN time, what instructional intervention do you feel
has the greatest impact on student growth? Why?
Trends

Of the eight (8) responses, the common themes within the responses stated that smaller
group instructional time, addition emphasis on fluency and comprehension instruction were
the most reported strengths.
In addition, three (3) of the eight responses stated that having reading specialists dedicated
to delivering intervention programs had the greatest impact.
Only one (1) person reported that the extra time and addition of the Heggerty program had
impact on student growth.

2

Have your students shown more academic growth with WIN time compared to previous
years without WIN? Explain why or why not.

Trends

Five (5) of the eight (8) responders reported that they have observed more academic growth
with the implementation of WIN time than when they taught a traditional schedule in
previous years.
In addition, one (1) of the responders could not report since this was their first year teaching
second grade.
The remaining responses reported that they did not feel any change was evident with or
without WIN time.

3
Trends

4
Trends

5

What has been most successful with WIN time?
The most successful component with WIN time was reported to be the addition of the reading
specialists and small group instruction that focused on particular skills students’ are
struggling with as stated in their data.
An interesting point made from one responder was that having the ability to work within their
own classroom of students to provide interventions and support to their own students was
most successful in the second year, after trying to switch for skill-based instruction during the
first year of MTSS.

What has been least successful with WIN time?
There were varying perceptions shared for this response, but the emerging themes were
surprising. Two (2) teachers reported that they felt that they were losing instructional time
teaching core subjects due to WIN time, and that they did not feel that the reading specialists
were servicing enough students with needs.
Other similarities with responses were with the lack of time to plan, minimal instructional
resources for comprehension and sporadic accessibility to technology tools.

Do you feel you have enough data points to make proper instructional decisions
according to students’ needs? Why or why not?

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

Trends

99

Overwhelmingly, there were seven (7) of the eight (8) participants who responded that
they felt they had enough data points to make proper instructional decisions.
One (1) outlier stated that they were hoping to have more information to glean from the
data to dig deeper into the student’s needs.

6

What additional data would be beneficial in determining the best aligned intervention
for your students?

Trends

Other than the assessments that they are currently using for WIN and other formative
assessment data, the teacher participants did not feel as though they would need any
additional data points.
One (1) responder reported that they felt they had too much data to analyze and that
there was too much testing.
There were two (2) outlier responses that stated that more specific skill data would be
useful in determining the accurate levels of instruction to support student need.

7

Do you feel the 2014 Wonders series AND Heggerty Phonics Awareness Curriculum
provides you with the best instructional resources to address student reading needs for
enrichment and remediation? Why or why not?

Trends

The responses were split for the participants. Three (3)of the eight (8) said that Wonders
provided quality materials, five (5) did not.
Of the five (5), the theme was that the materials were too challenging for the average or
below average student, or that there were too many options to present to the students.
There were four (4) responses regarding Heggerty’s impact as a split decision of two
(2)agreeing and two (2) disagreeing of its impact on student academic gains.

8
Trends

9
Trends

10

What do you feel is missing in your core reading program?
The common themes within these responses was that comprehension and writing were the
most critical components missing from the core reading program.
The participants did not feel that they had the proper amount of resources available through
core or supplemental materials to provide appropriate instruction.
As an outlier response, one (1) teacher reported that they felt fun was missing from their core
program.

What instructional planning and delivery changes do you make based upon
your student data?
Most responses stated that WIN time allows them to make the instructional planning and
delivery changes to meet the needs of students and determine the method of instruction
whether small group or whole group.
Other responses indicated that enrichment, remediation, differentiation, comprehension
and phonics were areas of instructional planning that are addressed based upon the data of
individual and class data.

What instructional changes do you need to make in Reading to see more
academic growth with your students?

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

Trends

100

Time management, reading instructional time and small group instructional practices
were the common themes within the responses.
Inclusion of a strong writing program was reported, as well as having more professional
development for MTSS, and having more aligned resources to select when trying to meet
the needs of various learners.

The open-ended responses shed light on interesting viewpoints of the teachers
who voluntarily responded. There were definite trends within the responses, but they also
did not provide explicit clarity to research question 3, what is the perceived concern with
the MTSS structure as it pertains to reading achievement? The concerns seem to stem
from a lack of time to plan with each other to properly group students into their tiers
based upon the sufficient data that has been collected and analyzed. There is a general
consensus that the 2014 Wonders series provides challenging materials to the at or above
level students, but overall it does not provide enough resources to support the varying
levels of student needs in second grade. WIN time is reported to be successful, but it
would be safe to assume that there is not a complete level of comfort, with all of the
teachers who responded as to how to effectively provide instructional interventions to
students.
The third data collection within this action research study was conducted
through Fidelity Checks (Appendix B) of classroom instruction during the set WIN
time. The Fidelity Checks were conducted during random times and days in visits to
second grade classrooms where students were engaged in WIN time through tiered
reading activities. In addition to Tier 1 classrooms, there were Tier 2 and 3 classrooms
observed with reading specialists conducting the instructional interventions. During
these random visits, by the researcher, to observe instruction, notes were recorded
based upon the type of instruction occurring, materials used, and the method of

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

101

delivering instruction (whole-group, small-group or independent work). The purpose
of the data was to determine the consistency of the instructional practices used during
the set WIN time, and to correlate the addition time to academic growth for students
with reading acquisition skills.
Figure 9
Fidelity Checks - Instructional Groups
September
November
January

October
December
February

17% 12%
21%

September
November
January

21%

20%

12% 18%

Small-Group Instruction

29%

October
December
February

29%
7%
14%

Large-Group Instruction

The graphs in Figure 9 represent the two different types of instruction observed
during WIN time within the six months visiting small-group and large-group
instruction. The percentages represent the cohort of 12 general classrooms in Tier as
well as the reading specialists delivering Tier 2 and 3 interventions for a total of 14
classrooms visited each month. The percentages represent a cumulative score gleaned
from the cohort Fidelity Checks. The graph on the right for large-group instruction in
Figure 9 represents an inconsistent observation between instructional delivery
presented to small-groups vs. large-groups. From the data, it appears that teachers are

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

102

continually providing consistent instructional support through a large-group model,
which would counteract the effectiveness of providing content-specific intervention
supports to students based upon their data. The Fidelity Checks were random visits
into classrooms, at a 10-15 minute interval of time within the scheduled 30 minutes of
WIN time. Therefore, instructional planning for the visit would not have been
possible.
A second observation through the Fidelity Checks was with the organization
and delivery of instructional materials used for instruction at Tier 1, 2 and 3. Figure
10 represents the use of the core reading Wonders series, and intervention resources,
or worksheet-type materials used over the course of the six Fidelity Checks within
the fourteen classroom settings.

Figure 10
Fidelity Checks - Organization and Delivery of Materials
Wonders

Heggerty

Worksheets

Other

12
9
6
3
0

September

October

November December

January

February

The data represents a strong usage of the Wonders reading series during WIN

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

103

time. While this represents consistency amongst the teachers, it also shows minimal
variance in the instructional support that students may need based upon what the data
represents. The rare usage of Heggerty in the classrooms during WIN time is another
surprising factor being that it is a supplemental component that was requested for
purchase by the teachers as a needed intervention resource due to the skills lacking in
the area of phonemic awareness. In Figures 9 and 10, the correlation to the use of
Wonders and the large-group instructional model remains consistent with the theory that
teachers have remained continually committed to their traditional approach to text-book
based instruction as it is designed to be implemented through a core reading program.
Although this data sheds light on patterns of instruction occurring during WIN time
during random classroom visits over a six-month period of time, it does not fully
present an accurate answer to the research question, are instructional interventions in
place at each tier providing strong foundational reading skills for all students.
Discussion
All three data points represent the response to the MTSS framework in place
at the second grade level after two years of implementation. There is a correlation
between each of the data methods where they are specifically targeting a triangulation
between instructional methods, materials and student achievement based upon
foundational reading skills. The Universal Screening tools, AIMSweb and Acadience
Reading represent the achievement of cohort students in two highlighted areas of skill
topics, R-CBM and Maze, or ORF-Accuracy and ORF-Fluency. The teacher survey
responses provide a perception of opinions based upon the effectiveness of MTSS in

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

104

terms of instructional materials, data and success of WIN time.
Finally, the Fidelity Checks portray glimpses of instructional consistency
among teachers delivering the WIN time interventions and instruction to students
based upon what they feel and believe to be appropriate for their individual needs. All
three data points connect the larger focus of the effectiveness of enhanced core
reading instruction at Tier 1, 2 and 3 MTSS. Each data point helps in determining the
overall effectiveness and aides in the creation of an action plan to enhance the current
MTSS structure in the second grade. Without the student data, the results would not
allow for a deeper understanding of the causes of student movement between tiers
based upon their response to the interventions and core programs in place. The teacher
input provides a perception of the daily performance, planning and thought process
behind making a shift from traditional whole-group instruction to more student-based,
data-driven small-group instruction to support specific needs. The Fidelity Checks
connect the final data component to determine what the process looks like in the
classroom and provides insight into systematic changes that could be made in the
future.
Summary
In a MTSS Framework, there are several key components to review to
determine its overall effectiveness for student academic growth. Data collection and
analysis is the driving factor to making informed instructional decisions based upon
student improvement and regression. Identifying and aligning research-based
interventions and instructional materials to the student’s needs is a driving factor

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

105

behind providing appropriate educational support. Understanding and developing a
process for teachers to collaborate, analyze data, plan for instruction and deliver
appropriate methods of interventions create a systematic approach to what multitiered system of supports can provide to all students. The primary goal of a fluid
MTSS academic structure is for all students to find success and continuously receive
support in closely aligned methods according to their needs. Through this analysis of
data, it became evident that the critical components were mostly in place and being
implemented with some level of fidelity, but there is still a disconnect with the full
functionality and success of the MTSS process within the second grade team.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

106

CHAPTER V

Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this research study was to determine how the effectiveness of
enhancing core reading instruction would impact the movement of students receiving Tier
1, 2 and 3 instructional supports within the MTSS framework. As a newly implemented
method of planning and delivering instruction, the second grade team of teachers
implemented What I Need (WIN) instructional period, three times per week for 40instructional minutes. During that time, students were grouped according to what the
reading data reflected as strengths and deficits in foundational reading skills. Teachers
and reading specialists utilized a universal screening tool to make benchmark growth
decisions as assessments were administered three times per year in September, January
and May.
Over the course of the initial two years of MTSS implementation, the second
grade team utilized the same core reading program, McGraw Hill 2014 Wonders. After
year one of MTSS and data analysis within the district, it was determined that more
instruction was warranted in the areas of phonemic awareness. Therefore, mid-way
through year one, teachers began to implement a supplemental phonics program,
Heggerty, to enhance students’ foundational skills. With this change, the district’s second
grade team was eager to see if the gap would close for students in their foundational
reading skills. In addition to the core and supplemental programs in Tier 1, other explicit
intervention programs were used in Tier 2 and 3 depending on the needs of the students as
determined by the available data. Skills addressed were fluency, phonics, comprehension

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

107

and in some cases, writing. Programs used by the reading specialists were LLI and RaveO. Both programs are research-based and designed to address specific instructional needs
for fluency and comprehension. During Tier 2 instruction, there were cases where the
Heggerty Phonemic Awareness supplemental program was used to reinforce students’
skills as needed. Throughout the course of the year, teachers met on a regular basis as a
team to discuss the data, progress and needs of students within their cohort. These
discussions played an integral role in the planning and instructional delivery based upon
the needs demonstrated by students from their response to the supports in place at their
respective tiers. The focus of the action research was to determine how all of these
components support growth of students between the tiers and where revisions to the
framework would be needed for more successful student outcomes.
Study Implications
In this research study, outcomes were potentially impacted by several factors that
presented themselves over the course of the data collection timeline. The data collected
through AIMSweb and Acadience were from two different sets of student cohorts, as well
as two different assessment tools. There are similarities with the assessment tools, as
they both take a closer look at oral reading fluency skills and how many words can be
read correctly in a cold read passage during a one-minute timeframe. The data does not
reflect the same students, but rather the effect of the core and supplemental instruction
provided to second grade students. Data determines if there was growth or direct
correlation to the instruction in place.
A more significant implication with the data collected was the incomplete

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

108

assessment data during 2019-2020 where the final spring benchmark assessment was not
administered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and school closure. Growth over the
course of a full school year could not be analyzed due to the missing data piece.
There are twelve teachers that are assigned to working with second grade students
in the elementary school including reading specialists. Of the twelve, eight provided
responses to the voluntary online survey, which would eliminate a full picture of the
grade level’s perceptions of MTSS. The responses provided were substantial enough to
see trends and identified areas of strength and weakness.
The final data component of Fidelity Checks were scheduled to be conducted
randomly, each month, to all second grade classrooms during WIN time. These visits
included the reading specialists for Tier 2 and 3. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Fidelity Checks were only conducted 6 of the 9 months. This presented another gap in
the data collection, but again, this did not have a direct impact on the overall results of
the action research and recommendations. The data collected during the random Fidelity
Checks provided a good glimpse into the planning and delivery of instruction in all
second grade classrooms over the six month period to make a determination of
effectiveness.
Research Question 1
Q1: How does the benchmark data identify areas of strength or weakness per skill at
each tier?
A critical component of the MTSS framework is having data to make instructional
decisions and place students in their appropriate levels of instruction. To effectively make

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

109

those decisions, data was collected using universal screening tools which are
administered three times per year focusing on the same skill set with increasing
benchmarks to indicate growth within a 1-year timeframe. The District used AIMSweb in
year one of MTSS implementation. Due to the discontinued production of the assessment
program in June 2019, the District took the advice of the MTSS researchers from
Michigan and Pennsylvania, through their participation in a state-wide MTSS training
cohort, and purchased Acadience Reading as the benchmark assessment tool to use
during the 2019-2020 school year. Data teams were formed and a rotating schedule of
meetings was integrated as part of the school day with teachers, reading specialists,
school psychologists and other administrators. The teams analyzed data of the cohort
students every eleventh day and made decisions to move students between tiers after at
least six weeks of intervention support.
The action research study focused on second grade, examining data from two
year’s worth of benchmark assessments in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, which pulled from
two different test administration tools. For the most consistent analysis in the data, the
two major assessment components reviewed were R-CBM and Maze from AIMSweb and
ORF Fluency and Accuracy from Acadience Reading.
Once students were placed into their appropriate tier, instruction could be planned
to meet their individual or small-group needs. During this time, a classroom may have
upwards of 18-20 students who have varying levels of need even performing above
benchmark. Recalling the data presented in Table 4 , students performed above
benchmark with their oral reading fluency skills within a range of 52 to 162 words read

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

110

correct per minute. While all were considered above benchmark, this gap in ability
presents a challenging instructional environment for a teacher planning for small-group
instruction. A large, whole-group instructional method will not effectively reach each
student, therefore leading to additional regression from students performing at the lower
level of the above benchmark scores and risking a slide into needing Tier 2 supports. The
same is true for the higher performing students who are not continually exposed to
challenging reading materials when they may become stagnant in their growth, causing
minimal gains in their oral reading fluency and accuracy in their universal screening data.
After the introductory year of WIN time, the first cohort composite scores showed
adequate movement and increase of skills with students who met benchmark or above.
Tier 3 students made gains enough to transition to a Tier 2 intervention setting, but Tier 2
students appeared to slightly increase. The explanation of the Tier 2 increase could have
been students responding to the intensive Tier 3 interventions and adding to the total
number of Tier 2 students, but it also could mean that the Tier 2 students were not making
significant progress to transition back into the Tier 1 core instruction. The composite
growth rate exposed a potential concern with the Tier 2 level of interventions. From this
finding, a question of intervention effectiveness was raised. Did the interventions meet
the specific skill needs of all students in Tier 2, or were the interventions not fully
meeting the level of fidelity needed to be successful for students?
In year two, there were adjustments made within the MTSS structure, which
included the addition of a phonemic awareness supplemental program, Heggerty, as well
as a different approach to second grade WIN time where all Tier 1 students remained with

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

111

their homeroom teacher for interventions and instructional support instead of moving
within the cluster for skill-based centers. The WIN time schedule still remained with 30minutes of interventions for reading three days a week. With these minimal adjustments,
along with a new benchmark assessment tools, the composite growth between the
beginning and mid-year assessment windows showed a much more dramatic movement
than in year one as demonstrated with AIMSweb data. Again, there is a significant gap
between the number of students who are in Tier 1, then are in Tier 2 ,with 74% in Tier 1
and 9% in Tier 2. These percentages are in alignment to the expectation set forth by
MTSS guidelines of 80%, 15% and 5%, which present a perception that the curriculum
and instruction is effective. Once the layers of data are pulled back, it is clear that the
concern remains with the effectiveness of the core curriculum program in place and if
they are providing a quality foundational skill level for students. According to the data
reported in Acadience in Table 10, students appear to have the greatest strength and
growth with their oral reading fluency skills which represent the largest movement of
students from Tier 2 interventions into Tier 1 with 13.97% of students showing growth to
score above benchmark between the fall and winter screenings. This growth is presumed
to be contributed to the increased attention to the data and alignment of appropriate
intervention tools at the Tier 2 level. A question remains as to how many more students
would have this positive response to the interventions in place if WIN time was allotted
for the suggested five days per week to implement the program with fidelity. The concern
remains as to what is happening in Tier 1 where 13 students regressed with their core
skills to be placed in Tier 2 interventions. The data indicates that the core program is not

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

112

providing a strong enough foundational program for each skill-set. Therefore the need
exists for supplemental supports, or a newly designed program that addresses skill
application in all fundamental areas of reading.
Research Question 2
Q2: Are the interventions, resources, and tools in place at each tier providing strong
foundational reading skills for all students?
In addition to the benchmark assessments administered between 2018-2020, data
was collected during 2019-2020 with a voluntary online survey of second grade teachers
and reading specialists to provide insight to ten open-ended questions and ten rating scale
questions. The survey provided insight into teacher perceptions of how effective MTSS is
in their school or classroom.
As a third data point, Fidelity Checks were conducted on a monthly basis during
the assigned WIN period for all second grade classrooms. The classroom observations
were conducted randomly, but during the same instructional period designed as WIN
time, where students were receiving specific instruction based upon their tier and
pertinent data. As data was collected between 2018-2020, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, the final benchmark assessment was not administered and Fidelity Checks
from March to May were not conducted due to the school closure. This insufficient data
collection did not impact the research study significantly, yet it will not provide a final
determination of growth or regression of students after a full year of implementing
interventions and providing core instructional support to students at each tier level.
While teachers are in their second year of implementation, there still seems to be

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

113

a disconnect and lack of fully understanding the purpose and value of MTSS
implementation. Through the survey results, it was evident that some teachers felt that
the additional instructional period was taking away from other subject areas or
eliminating time from their ability to teach students other content. There does not seem to
be a unified understanding of the value of the dedicated time to support individual, or
small-groups of students based upon their available data to provide instruction that is
aligned specifically to their needs. Through that explicit instruction, at any tier, students
will be able to make gains to close any existing gap and place them on track to be
successful moving forward through other grade levels. Dedicated time to focus
specifically on these targeted areas with students should occur five days a week with
fidelity for success to be observed on a more consistent basis with faster results. Having
three days dedicated is a positive, however, the district would need to plan a schedule to
allot for more flexibility within their schedule to allow for WIN time to occur as a
defined component of their day, rather than an additional sporadic times per week.
Increasing the WIN time periods from three to four days a week would potentially create
a need for more reading specialists or interventionists to provide supports to more
classrooms. It would also create a need for more specific intervention programs and
resources for teachers to utilize during that time. These resources could be research-based
programs in either a paper-pencil or online format.
Explicit intervention programs are taught with fidelity to the model during the
Tier 2 and 3 instructional times. As stated by the intervention’s guidelines for success, the
programs are designed to be taught for a set amount of minutes per day, per week to show

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

114

the most effective results. Most intervention programs state their program goals to be
thirty minutes per day, five days per week. In the current configuration of WIN time, the
reading specialist’s schedule is not conducive to providing the most effective
implementation of the intervention programs. While they are implementing their program
with fidelity, the results will naturally be skewed due to the limited time available to
successfully implement the intervention. With the program designed to provide 180 days
of instruction or 5,400 hours of intensive intervention support, the district is
only capable of providing 108 days of instruction with 3,240 hours of support. With this
limited time, students in Tier 2 and 3 are put at a disadvantage toward their maximum
opportunity for growth.
Fidelity Checks conducted on a monthly, random basis allowed for observations to
occur as a third data point. The items observed ranged from the instructional tools to the
instructional method. The goal of the Fidelity Check was to determine if there was a
pattern of how instruction was planned and delivered during Tier 1, 2 and 3 classrooms
during the scheduled WIN time for reading. In most cases, the classroom visits proved
that teachers still heavily relied upon the use of their textbook series in a large-group
instructional format. As some classrooms adopted the concept of center-based teaching
with students in small-groups, it was not apparent through the monthly visits if this
method was effective for the students participating in the small-groups. Additional data,
specifying which students were a part of the small-groups as compared to their available
benchmark data, would provide a clear indication if the instructional methods were
effective or not. That type of data was not collected, but would be a suggested format for

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

115

the district to entertain in the future if looking to make more significant changes and
provide opportunities for student growth during WIN time. Another potential fiscal
implication would be to assign a dedicated staff member to data analysis. This position
could be building-specific, or district-specific. It may not necessarily indicate a need for a
new hire, but to reassign the task to an existing staff member to analyze student data to
make larger-scale instructional changes for the district.
The composite of data analyzed for this research study demonstrates that the
overall assumption is the district has many tools in place, but there does not seem to be a
unified understanding of the most effective way to plan and deliver interventions at the
Tier 1 level, or how to present a stronger core reading program that would provide a solid
foundation of reading skills for all students. It would be prudent to review the reading
curriculum, the resources and materials available, provide professional development
specific to appropriate instructional strategies to support WIN time, and to review the
master schedule to allow for more intervention time to be allotted each day. There is not a
dire need to revamp the entire MTSS framework, but there is a need to solidify the
elements in place to enhance what is currently effective.
Research Question 3
Q3: What is the largest area of concern with skill acquisition in reading that is
addressed at each tier?
Based upon the data collected and analyzed from the voluntary survey, teachers
reported that the core reading program provided sufficient materials to teach the
foundational reading concepts, with some even stating that the materials were too

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

116

advanced for the students. The teachers provided responses that led to the belief that what
they had, in terms of core materials, were sufficient tools for teaching, even providing too
many options to choose. With that in mind, the teachers also reported that they felt they
needed more materials and resources to effectively teach some foundational skills such as
phonics, writing and comprehension. In terms of data being available to make sound
instructional decisions for each child, each survey participant stated that there was
enough data to make decisions. The information provided through the open-ended
responses allowed the researcher to understand the mindset of the teachers who are
providing the direct instruction and intervention to all second grade students. The
responses also provided additional questions as to whether or not the implementation of
MTSS was fully understood and a priority for the teachers. The responses were
thoughtful and thorough, yet provided some concern as to how effective the two year
MTSS framework was adequately providing foundational instruction and support to
students where needed. There seemed to be limited adjustments made to the Tier 1
teaching day, with some responders stating that WIN time was taking away from
instruction in other content areas. That particular response led the researcher to believe
that the staff did not have a solid understanding of the value of MTSS, and providing
explicit instruction to students in specific areas of need.
The MTSS framework is in the second year of implementation. Prior to tiering
instruction, students were receiving core instruction in a traditional instructional format
based upon the guidelines set forth by a reading anthology and worksheets created by
McGraw Hill Wonders. Although there is a differentiated component included in the

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

117

Wonders reading series, teachers did not utilize those resources within their instructional
day. The materials were available for the special education teachers to provide instruction
to students with identified learning needs in reading.
The problem identified through the action research was to determine if enhancing
the core instruction would support the movement of students between Tier 1, 2 and 3. The
core program alone does not support total skill acquisition for all students at an
appropriate level of growth. Although the percentage of students not meeting benchmark
is low, it has remained consistent over the past two school years and cohorts of second
grade students. The MTSS process relies upon data analysis to determine appropriate
student placement, but in this research it is hard to make a determination of the
effectiveness of the assessment tool when over the two years, there were two different
screening tools used. While the data represents more growth in year two, there are two
factors that could play a role in that increase. First, it could be the composition of
students and their level of academic foundation coming into second grade. Secondly, the
testing components could provide different results. The assessment data does allow for
the most significant interpretation of the effectiveness of instructional practices and
interventions and how the student cohorts responded in year one as compared to year
two. The results of the survey provided insight into the newly implemented MTSS
framework. The responses were candid and voluntarily provided through an online
survey template. In the ten open-ended questions, it allowed for the respondents to give
more information based upon their perception and beliefs. While some of their responses
coincided with information already known, it was interesting to find that despite the

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

118

initial groundwork, there were still some obvious gaps and misunderstandings of the
importance of providing interventions to students. These perceptions, provided by eight
of twelve-second grade teachers and reading specialists, would lead the researcher to
believe that the professional development needs are critical to move forward with any
potential success with the framework.
Research Conclusions
The overall findings indicate that there is some level of success over the first two
years of MTSS implementation. There are small groups of students within the second
grade cohort that were provided with effective interventions resulting in positive growth
and movement from Tier 2 to Tier1. Even though there was an indication of positive
movement, it is still undetermined that it was directly a result of the interventions in place
or the foundational skills built from prior years of instruction. There is evidence that the
year two implementation of MTSS was more successful than the first, but there is
insufficient data to represent the total growth over the course of a second grade
instructional year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and closure of schools in
March 2020.
The conclusions are in direct correlation to the results outlined from the available
data sources. MTSS is an effective use of instructional time for students to receive
additional reading foundational supports outside of the core instructional period. Students
receiving intensive research-based interventions showed the most significant
improvement, and had the ability to shift to Tier 1, meaning they were no longer in need
of receiving specific interventions for skills. The undetermined aspect of the research

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

119

study was if the core reading program was sufficient in providing a strong core for
reading skills. The benchmark data was fairly similar to the expectations outlined in the
MTSS framework, where nearly 80% of students assessed at benchmark during the three
assessment windows in both years. While this may seem like a success, the concern lies
with the larger amount of students who are assessing at below benchmark, and not
finding success with the interventions in place.
Throughout the research process, it became evident that the MTSS framework had
minimal success in its early stages of implementation. There was an obvious disconnect
between the district’s expectation of the program and teachers’ understanding of its
importance. Teachers shared that they felt as though they needed more support and
resources to be successful. Beyond those identified needs, it is apparent through the
fidelity checks that there was a discrepancy between how they perceived WIN time to be
implemented compared to how they were implementing the intervention supports to their
students in Tier 1. Teachers in the core tier could benefit from learning more about
effective grouping strategies, integrating skill support for students based upon their data
and conducting formative assessments during WIN time to continually assess student
progress with skill acquisition. Tier 2 teachers seemed to have a better understanding of
the framework and found the implementation of explicit interventions to be more
successful in year two as the data suggested more significant movement between the
testing windows. The information known after the research study concluded will be used
to continually enhance the MTSS framework within the district. The information will be
a baseline for teachers to see how data analysis can make a bigger impact on instructional

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

120

and programmatic decisions by digging deeper into each category to determine its overall
effectiveness.
For the district to build upon the growth found between year one and year two, a
more specific focus will need to occur with the teachers. Research-based interventions
will need to be evaluated and purchased to support students to fill in the existing gaps of
instruction at the core level. Continued fidelity checks will need to occur to expand upon
the support of the teachers and growth of the MTSS framework. Additional staffing
should be in place to support the significant needs of students not finding success
attaining the core reading foundational skills within the grade level.
Growth rates for students meeting benchmark during each assessment will require
a closer look at the available data and then aligning the appropriate resources to support
student need. These interventions must occur at each tier level, and then be a part of the
data-team discussions when the grade level clusters meet as a team on the eleven day
rotation. Teachers will need to fully understand the assessment tool, what the data
represents in each assessed category, as well as how to analyze student data. There will
also need to be an understanding of what the benchmarks are, and provide instructional
supports to students to have repeated practice and exposure to a variety of text to increase
their ability for growth between each assessment window. Progress monitoring is another
critical component of knowing what the projected improvement rates are, where students
are struggling and how to provide adjustments to instruction when a gap presents itself.
Financial Implications
As a response to the action research findings, there is great probability that there

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

121

will be significant financial implications if the district chooses to invest in strengthening
the MTSS supports. Although the study focused on grade two, the MTSS framework
encompasses Kindergarten through sixth grade in this specific district. The amount of
supports across the grade level varies, therefore will require more consistent support of
both human resources and instructional resources to be completely successful. There are a
few different components that will need to be addressed within the MTSS framework and
WIN time to allow for all students to have the supports needed to be successful and
experience growth at an acceptable rate.
Costs associated with the improvements will encompass professional
development services for teachers for a deeper understanding of instructional practices,
data analysis, interventions and determining plans for students to be placed in their
appropriate tier. In addition to training in understanding the systemic process, new
interventions materials will need to be purchased, thus requiring training for proper
implementation and fidelity of the tool. As part of purchasing new research-based
intervention tools to meet the needs of the students, it would be prudent for the district to
consider hiring additional reading specialists to support the Tier 2 and 3 intervention
needs 5 days per week. The elementary school houses 750 students, and currently there
are two reading specialists servicing students grades 2-4. The recommendation will be for
one reading specialist to service each grade level, which will allow for more one-on-one
support and include a potential for program expansion to provide classroom push-in
support.
As outlined in chapter three, to sustain an effective and successful system for

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

122

students there will need to be consistent supports available and implemented. The most
effective implementation strategy is to have fidelity to the model in place, which means
having the time built in to provide quality interventions to students according to what
their level of need is based upon data. Scheduling a consistent period of time with 30-40
minutes of uninterrupted instruction will allow reteaching of core concepts previously
taught, pre-teaching upcoming core concepts, providing intensive interventions through
research-based intervention programs, or conducting progress monitoring to collect
additional data points for adjustments in instruction per student. Within that daily WIN
time, there should be instructional supports provided by reading specialists, special
education teachers and any other available teachers to provide the explicit instruction for
all students in smaller group settings. Ideally, one reading specialist will be assigned to
each grade level to provide the maximum amount of supports in a pull-out and push-in
model. Classroom teachers should be arranged in clusters, or groups, where they can
collaborate with each other and plan for instruction. In some models, the classroom
teachers within the cluster could provide skill-based instruction to rotating groups of
students at various levels on a schedule pre-determined by the teacher team. This
approach will allow for more teacher-student contact and support, rather than rotating
small-groups of students held within their general classroom receiving supports from one
teacher. To accomplish this model, the staffing and scheduling need to be conducive to the
framework’s goals.
Additionally, resources that are research-based and allow for students to apply
their skills in practice will be the final layer of support needed to have a successful

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

123

framework. The types of resources would be determined by the team of teachers and
reading specialists to create a library of aligned and relevant materials to aide in the
application and practice of reading foundational skills. Teachers should have access to
quality classroom libraries that are full of literature of varied levels and genres. Students
should have access to a variety of texts to increase their fluency and comprehension skills
through independent practice. WIN time would be most successful if teachers had the
accessibility to technology tools to be used in a center-style setting for students to access
formative assessment tools online as part of their WIN time center. All of these
components would lead to a more comprehensive program.
Reflective Planning
Reflecting upon the initial implementation of MTSS within the district, there was
a lack of buy-in at the administrative and teacher level in some cases as well as minimal
professional development shared with teachers prior to providing instruction in a 3-tiered
intervention model. The district’s immediate need to establish the MTSS framework was
driven by the results and concerns associated with the special education audit that
reported deficits in several areas of instructional support. The rushed nature of beginning
a systemic initiative created a culture of uncertainty, and these components potentially
compounded the ability to establish critical aspects of WIN time, data-teaming and
analysis, as well as to successfully report academic growth with students. After
identifying this potential root cause, a more targeted approach to planning and
communicating expectations with the administrators and staff occurred between the first
and second year of MTSS. Thus, potentially resulting in more effectively aligned and

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

124

implemented interventions and support for students based upon their individual needs
resulting in greater academic growth, as indicated by the data.
As part of the district stance toward MTSS implementation, budgetary restrictions
imposed hurdles to overcome with regard to properly staffing supports in all buildings
with reading specialists and contributing to the purchase of aligned resources and
materials. As part of the MTSS professional development cohort with PDE, the district
chose to purchase ECRI as a supplemental instructional support to enhance the core
instruction. Through the grant participation, half of the supplemental materials were
provided, but the professional training piece critical to successful use was not able to be
funded by the district. The lack of available funding, and inability to secure training
inhibited the district from utilizing the instructional practice enhancements designed to
strengthen the core reading instruction at Tier 1, therefore impeding the growth of
students with foundational reading skills.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in March 2020, and its subsequent
school closures, the research study faced minimal disruptions resulting in two restricted
data points. First, the monthly Fidelity Checks were only completed during September
through February collecting only 6 of the projected 9 observations. Secondly, the spring
benchmark assessment was not conducted utilizing the Acadience Reading tool, which
eliminated the ability to analyze a full-year’s growth for the second grade students during
the 2019-2020 school year.
Having a seamless flow of instruction, both small-group and independent, will
allow for more specific instructional needs to be met and observed by the teacher. Beyond

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

125

the tangible components, there needs to be district-level and building level administrative
support for the framework to be successful and sustainable. A commitment to student
growth and success in each tier, grade level and content area, it is critical to the long-term
success of MTSS. The research provided an insight into the beginning stages of a largescale systemic initiative based upon an identified need of a lack of instructional support.
There are many successes with the framework in its second year, but with the lack of
consistency and fidelity the framework’s purpose is concerning for its future development
and progress. To gain a full understanding of the district’s implementation, it would be
suggested to conduct a similar level of research in each of the grade levels K-6. The
expanded data analysis will provide a broader scope of program effectiveness to make
more significant district-level decisions. The expansion of research will contribute to the
fiscal implications and would identify the specific areas of need per building and grade
level to effectively implement MTSS.
Implications for Future Research
The research focused solely on second grade reading skills, but MTSS also
includes math and behavior components. A fully supportive tiered intervention system
works in conjunction with each other to determine how the academic needs play a role in
the behavior of students and vice versa. Additional areas of investigation would be to
determine the relationship between displayed behaviors and students receiving Tier 2 and
3 academic interventions. Do the behaviors supersede the academic needs and present an
escape from a lack of understanding or skill-set, or do the academic needs present a level
of frustration for the student that creates behavior disruption? When addressing the

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

126

behavior and academic pieces, it is important to note that students will not be able to fully
focus on new instruction when the behaviors present a barrier to their success.
Another area to address would be the impact of instructional methods within Tier
1. Are heterogenous classroom groupings the best approach to providing Tier 1 supports?
Would it be more effective to have groups of homogenous groups, based upon their
academic data and needs, rotating through the cluster teachers to receive focused
instruction based upon skills? How much teacher-student interaction in a direct
instruction format is needed for growth to occur?
Implications for Practice
As evident through the data collected, it was concluded that there was positive
growth made with students receiving intensive interventions in Tier 2 and 3 with three
days of interventions from a scripted research-based program. A future research question
would be to determine if there is significant change in the growth of students when a Tier
2 or 3 scripted, research-based intervention is implemented for five days with fidelity?
The biggest impact of having five days of intervention time, compared to three days, will
drastically impact students falling within Tier 2 and 3. With the district performing close
to the recommended MTSS framework of 80% in Tier 1, 15% in Tier 2 and 5% in Tier 3,
increasing and sustaining amount of students in Tier 1 closer to the 90% threshold could
occur due to the increased instructional support time.
Adding a reading specialist per grade will level impact the student growth rate for
reading foundational skills due to the extra time dedicated to providing supports to
students in a pull-out and push-in model. The additional position will positively impact

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

127

the sustainability of MTSS within the school. The reading specialist will be able to
provide teachers with data, instructional resources and intervention support in a coaching
model. The addition of professional development supports and resources will allow for a
deeper appreciation of the purpose of MTSS. As a determining factor of value, teachers
and administrators need to look at a year with two reading specialists for three grade
levels, compared to a year with three for three grade levels, and determine if there are
significant signs of improvement in program fidelity and student success.
The research skimmed the topic of the effectiveness of the Wonders reading
series. It was implemented as a core component and tool used for instruction at Tier 1.
The question remains if the program provides a comprehensive instructional approach to
foundational skills for students. Is the integration of Heggerty making the difference with
the increase in assessment scores between 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, or was the increase
due to it being the second year of implementation, different cohort of students, or change
in benchmark assessment? Heggerty supplemental program provides an overlay to
Wonders, and the curriculum should be revised to address the gaps left open by a
complete packaged series to determine where the adjustments would be best applied. The
district should revisit the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) supplemental
program, not fully purchased by the District. ECRI provides the instructional overlay of
resources to infuse more instructional support to core reading instruction, and that
program may be the instructional resource needed to strengthen the core.
Summary
In conclusion, having a strong core foundation for reading is critical to the future

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

128

growth and success of students throughout the elementary grades. Second grade is a
critical turning point where students fine tune their early literacy skills and begin
applying them in context through literature. When students fall behind in their skill
acquisition, the gaps begin to emerge. Without a structured approach to catching students
before the gap becomes too wide, students are at-risk of a continued downward spiral of
regression and academic struggle. Establishing a strong program to support students
based upon data, tiered instruction and specific skill-based interventions will allow for
students to receive the appropriate academic attention. The MTSS framework was created
with a support system in mind. To fully implement with success and fidelity, core
components must be in place to ensure success for all students. Having an assessment
tool in place where teachers can analyze the data at least three times a year to make
informed instructional decisions is at the root of the MTSS structure. Beyond the data,
there is a significant need for teachers to have time to collaborate, plan, analyze data,
implement materials and resources to support learning and monitoring the progress of
students in between benchmark screenings. All components play a critical role in the
programmatic success. Without one of these items, the framework is at risk of failing
students. Through this research process, it became evident that in this district, most of the
components are in place, yet there is room to continually improve all areas. The research
will be a vehicle to start conversations of where the success and areas of need exist. The
primary goal and focus should always remain on the academic success of all students,
and developing programs that will provide the most appropriate levels of instructional
growth and progress for all.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

129

References
Anderson, R. C. (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission
on Reading [Pdf]. Washington, D.C.: National Inst. of Education.
Bianco, S. D. (2010, June). Improving student outcomes: Data-driven instruction and
fidelity of implementation in a response to intervention (RtI) model. TEACHING
Exceptional Children Plus, 6(5), 2-11. Retrieved from https://
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9932/899e796a1fe495de25a38f67bfc6a427945c.pdf
Bulat, J., Dubeck, M., Green, P., Harden, K., Henny, C., Mattos,…Sitabkhan, Y. (2017).
What works in early grade literary instruction (knowledge and practice in
international development, 1). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press.
doi:10.3768/rtipress.2017.op0039.1702
Carlisle, J. F., Kelcey, B., Rowan, B., & Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers’ knowledge about
early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading achievement. Journal of
Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(4),
289-321.doi:10.1080/19345747.2010.539297
Coughlin, C., Sorrelle, P., Harms, A., Russell, C., Huth, E., & LeVesseur, C. (2015).
Using Curriculum-based measures to predict reading test scores on the Michigan
educational assessment program: technical report. Michigan Department of
Education, Michigan’s integrated behavior and learning support initiative.
Retrieved from https://miblsi.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Research/
Evaluation/MIBLSI%20Reading%20CBMMEAP%20Research%20Technical%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

130

Duke, N. K., & Block, M. K. (2012). Improving reading in the primary grades. Future of
Children, 22(2), 55-72. Retrieved from https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/
sites/futureofchildren/files/media/literacy_challenges_for_the_twentyfirst_century_22_02_fulljournal.pdf
Duke, N. K., & Messmer, H. E. (2019). Phonics Faux Pas: Avoiding Instructional
Missteps in Teaching Letter-Sound Relationships. [PDF]. American Educator.
Engaging Small-Group Literacy Instruction. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://
www.voyagersopris.com/literacy/rave-o/overview
Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., & Dombek, J. (2018, January 17). The relative
impact of aligning tier 2 intervention materials with classroom core reading
materials in grads k-2 [PDF]. The Elementary School Journal.
Foorman, B., Herrera, S., Dombek, J., Schatschneider, C., & Petscher, Y. (2017). The
relative effectiveness of two approaches to early literacy intervention in grades
k-2. (REL 2017-251). 1-15. Washington, DC: Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Foorman, B. R., Smith, K. G., & Kosanovich, M. L. (2017). Rubric for evaluating
reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5. (REL
2017-219). 1-18. Washington, DC: Department of Education Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

131

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Future Ready PA Index. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://futurereadypa.org/
Ikeda, M., J., Neessen, E., & Witt, J. C. (2008). Best practices in universal screening. Best
practices in school psychology, V, 1-13. Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.joewitt.org/
Downloads/IkedaBPV60.pdf
Johns Hopkins University Center for Research and Reform in Education. (n.d.). Wonders
executive summary 2014-2015 quasi-experimental study. Retrieved from https://
s3.amazonaws.com/ecommerce-prod.mheducation.com/unitas/school/

explore/sites/west-virginia/wonders-reviewers-guide.pdf
Kaminski, R. A., Good III, R. H., Smith-Powell, K. A., Stollar, S., Wallin, J., Aboott, M.,
& Wheeler, C. E. (2019). Position paper on use of acadience reading k-6 for
student-level accountability decisions. Dynamic Measures Group. Retrieved
from https://acadiencelearning.org
Kosanovich, M., Ladinsky, K., Nelson, L., & Torgesen, J. (2007). Differentiated reading
instruction: Small group alternative lesson structures for all students. Guidance
Document for Florida “Reading First” Schools. Florida Center For Reading
Research. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498777.pdf
Krashen, S., (2002). Defending whole language: The limits of phonics instruction and
the efficacy of whole language instruction. Reading Instruction, 39(1), 32-42.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

132

Retrieved from http://sdkrashen.com/content/articles/
2002_defending_whole_language.pdf
Leveled Literacy Intervention Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://
www.fountasandpinnell.com/intervention/
McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support:
Blending RtI and PBIS. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Morin, M., Dorsey, A., Bell, C., & Welsh, A. (2013). Reed 601 reading program
evaluation assignment: McGraw Hill reading wonders grade one. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/search? client=safari&rls=en&q=REED+
601+Reading+Program+Evaluation+Assignment:+
+McGraw+Hill+Reading+Wonders+Grade+One&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
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. Reports of the subgroups. (2) 1-45. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/
nrp/Documents/report.pdf
AIMSweb. (2011). AIMSweb Default Cut Scores Explained [PDF]. Pearson Education,
Inc.
Quinn, D. M., & Kim, J. (2017). Scaffolding fidelity and adaptation in educational
program implementation: Experimental evidence from a literacy intervention.
American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1187-1217. doi:
10.3102/002831217717692

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

133

Roland, G. H., III, & Kaminski, R. A. (2018, October 15). Acadience Reading
Assessment Manual [PDF]. Dynamic Measurements Group, Inc.
Scharer, P. L. (2018). Responsive literacy: A comprehensive framework. New York,
NY: Scholastic, Incorporated.
Snyder, E., & Golightly, A. F. (2017). The effectiveness of a balanced approach to
reading intervention in a second grade student: A case study. Education, 138(1),
53-67. Retrieved from https://www.projectinnovation.com/education.html
Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2007). Threetier models or reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 9, 239-253. https://doi.org
10.1177%2F10983007070090040601
Tackett, K. K., Roberts, G., Baker, S., & Scammacca, N., (2009). Implementing response
to intervention: Practices and perspectives from five schools-frequently asked
questions. Center on Instruction. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED521572.pdf
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Torgesen, J. K. (2006). Intensive reading interventions for struggling readers in early
elementary school: A principal guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Corporation,
Center on Instruction.
United States Department of Education. (2009). Assisting students struggling with
reading: response to intervention (RtI) and multi-tier intervention in the primary

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

grades. IES Practice Guide. NCEE, 2009-4045. What Works Clearinghouse.
Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/
rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf
Wolfe, M. (n.d.). Engaging small-group instruction fourth edition proven to increase
reading achievement [Pdf]. Voyager Sopris Learning.

134

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

APPENDICES

135

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

136

Appendix A
TO: Second Grade Classroom Teachers and Reading Specialists
FR: Kara Eckert
RE: Anonymous Survey of Second Grade Teachers for Doctoral Action Research –
MTSS Implementation
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I, Kara Eckert, am conducting a study to investigate the reading achievement for students
in second grade and its impact of enhancing core reading instruction in Tier 1, 2 and 3
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). The research is part of my Doctoral Action
Research Capstone Project and Defense.
Through this research, you will be asked to voluntarily provide feedback two times
(February 2020 and May 2020) to share your personal perception of the effectiveness of
MTSS implementation in your classroom as it pertains to student growth, resources, and
materials.
You have been invited to voluntarily participate in the electronic survey due to your role
as a teacher, and/or reading specialist, who works directly with second grade students.
The survey will ask a series of questions related to the research topic pertaining to the
strengths and weaknesses of MTSS implementation for Reading using instructional tools,
data analysis and instructional delivery methods. If you agree to participate, the survey
responses will be collected electronically and will not include any participant identifying
information. All responses will be kept in my possession as part of my research. Your
responses will be used only for feedback directly associated to the research. There is no
potential harm to those who volunteer to provide responses in the electronic survey as the
data will be kept confidential.
The potential benefits to you from volunteering your feedback in this study will allow for
curriculum alignment and instructional changes to occur or improve the level of
instructional support and planning for MTSS in second grade and other elementary grade
levels.
Your privacy is important, and I will protect all information I collect through this survey
in a confidential manner. Data will be reported in a way that will not identify any
individual. I plan to present the overall study results as part of the California University
of Pennsylvania Doctoral Capstone Research requirement, and as a publication in an
educational journal and/or periodical.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

137

You do not have to participate in the voluntary survey. If you do not wish to participate,
you do not need to inform me, and I will not have a way of identifying who participated
by their anonymous responses.
If you have questions about this research project, please contact Mrs. Kara Eckert at
724-625-1518 ext. 1524 - keckert@marsk12.org, or California University of PA Assistant
Professor, Dr. Mary Wolf at wolf@calu.edu.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board and
the Mars Area School Board. Effective September 1, 2019 with expiration date of July 31,
2020.

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

Appendix B

138

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

139

Appendix C

VOLUNTARY TEACHER SURVEY

Please provide short answers to the following questions:
Share your responses based upon your actual experiences as a 2nd
grade teacher and/or reading specialist servicing 2nd grade students.
1. After one year of implementing WIN time, what instructional intervention do you feel
has the greatest impact on student growth? Explain.
2. Have your students shown more academic growth with WIN time compared to
previous years without WIN? Explain why or why not.
3. What has been most successful with WIN time?
4. What has been least successful with WIN time?
5. Do you feel you have enough data points to make proper instructional decisions
according to students' needs? Why or why not?
6. What additional data would be beneficial in determining the best aligned intervention
for your students?
7. Do you feel the 2014 Wonders series AND Heggerty Phonemic Awareness
Curriculum provides you with the best instructional resources to address student
reading needs for enrichment and remediation? Why or why not?
8. What do you feel is missing in your core reading program?
9. What instructional planning and delivery changes do you make based upon your
student data?

RUNNING HEAD: Impact of Tiered Reading Instruction

140

10. What instructional changes do you need to make in Reading to see more academic
growth with your students?

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest), please rate
the following statements:
11. Data tools provide enough detailed information to understand student reading needs?
12. Core reading materials are able to provide support to all students with success?
13. Is WIN an effective use of instructional support time for students at Tier 1, 2 and/or
3?
14. Is sufficient time provided to understand WIN or MTSS expectations as a teacher?
15. Are the academic supports and resources effectively helping students improve at Tier
1, 2 and/or 3?
16. Is instructional planning for Tier 1 revolved around individual student needs?
17. Are the students accurately placed in Tiers to receive the intervention supports they
need based upon the available data?
18. Are students moving between Tiers at an appropriate rate?
19. Is WIN time successful?
20. Are students benefitting from Tiered instruction?