Abstract
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the literature on the promise of the Wilson Reading System (WRS) for students with disabilities. School professionals monitored the growth of students over time using curriculum-based measurements. Participants included 51 students (53% male, 47% female) from six schools (five elementary, one middle school); the vast majority (80%) qualified for free or reduced lunches. All students were receiving special education and related services, and most had either a learning disability or a language impairment (62%). Certified teachers implemented the WRS. Results demonstrated students had significant growth in their reading over time. Directions for future research and practical implications are discussed.
References
1. Snow C. Reading for understanding: toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Randall Corporation, 2002.Search in Google Scholar
2. Daane MC, Campbell JR, Grigg WS, Goodman MJ, Oranje A. Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2005.Search in Google Scholar
3. National Center for Education Statistics. The nation’s report card: reading 2013. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
4. Bramlett RK, Murphy JJ, Johnson J, Wallingsford L, Hall JD. Contemporary practice in school psychology: a national survey of roles and referral problems. Psychol Schools 2002;39:327–35.10.1002/pits.10022Search in Google Scholar
5. Lyon GR, Fletcher JM, Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA, Torgesen JK, Wood RB, et al. Rethinking learning disabilities. In: Finn CE, Rotherham AJ, Kokanson CR, editors. Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2001:259–88.Search in Google Scholar
6. Gill D, Kozloff M. Introduction to reading first. Wilmington: University of North Carolina 2004. Available at: http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Introduction_to_Reading_First.htm. Accessed: 26 Sep 2011.Search in Google Scholar
7. Honig B, Diamond L, Gutlohn L. Teaching reading sourcebook, 2nd ed. Novato: Arena Press, 2008.Search in Google Scholar
8. Carnine DW, Silbert J, Kame’enui EJ, Tarver SG, Jungjohann K. Teaching struggling and at-risk readings: a direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2006.Search in Google Scholar
9. Ritchey KD, Goeke JL. Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading instruction: a review of the literature. J Spec Educ 2006;40:171–83.10.1177/00224669060400030501Search in Google Scholar
10. Johnson T. Florida center for reading research: Wilson reading system. Available at: http://www.fcrr.org/reports.html. Accessed: 26 Sep 2011.Search in Google Scholar
11. O’Connor J, Wilson B. Effectiveness of the Wilson reading system used in public school training. In: McIntyre C, Pickering J, editors. Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education. Salem, OR: International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council, 1995:247–54.Search in Google Scholar
12. Torgensen J, Meyers D, Schirm A, Stuart E, Vartivarian S, Mansfield W, et al. National assessment of title I interim report. Volume II: closing the reading gap: first year findings form a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2006.Search in Google Scholar
13. Stebbins MS, Stormont M, Lembke ES, Clippard D, Wilson DJ. Monitoring the effectiveness of the Wilson Reading System for students with disabilities: one district’s example. Exceptionality 2012;20:58–70.10.1080/09362835.2012.640908Search in Google Scholar
14. Deno SL. Curriculum-based measurement: the emerging alternative. Except Child 1985;52:219–32.10.1177/001440298505200303Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Palincsar AS, Brown AL. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition Instruct 1984;1:117–75.10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1Search in Google Scholar
16. Stecker PM, Fuchs LS, Fuchs D. Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: review of research. Psychol Schools 2005;42:795–819.10.1002/pits.20113Search in Google Scholar
17. Shinn RM, Shinn MM. Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. AIMSweb Training Workbook. Bloomington, MN: NSC Pearson, Inc., 2002.Search in Google Scholar
18. Shinn RM, Shinn MM. Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. AIMSweb Training Workbook. Bloomington, MN: NSC Pearson, Inc, 2002.Search in Google Scholar
19. US Department of Education. What works clearinghouse: WWC intervention report: beginning reading. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
20. US Department of Education. What works intervention report for students with learning disabilities: Wilson Reading System. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
21. National Center on Response to Intervention. Essential Components of RTI – a closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
22. Wilson B. Wilson reading system. Millbury, MA: Wilson Language Training Center, 1988.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter
