Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE #2

Research Article Critique #2

The Effectiveness of Technologically Facilitated Classroom-Based Early Reading Intervention
Alison Lessard
University of Calgary
EDPS 612.03

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #2

Research Article Critique #2

Children who experience difficulties developing early literacy skills in kindergarten and
grade 1 are more likely to fall behind their peers in reading and other academic areas (Amendum,
Vernon-Feagans, & Ginsberg, 2011). Research has shown children who are most at-risk are
those with phonological difficulties and less developed oral language skills. Increased risk
factors exist for children from lower socioeconomic environments with limited early learning
experiences. Early reading intervention is a well-documented and recommended means for
children who do not respond to traditional reading instruction (Amendum et al., 2011).
Typically, this form of intervention has often occurred outside of the regular classroom in a
pullout situation. According to Amendum, Vernon-Feagans, and Ginsberg (2011), recent reports
have suggested struggling readers can and should be supported within a regular classroom
setting. Amendum et als (2011) article titled The Effectiveness of Technologically Facilitated
Classroom-based Early Reading Intervention studied the efficacy of a reading intervention called
the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI). TRI was designed for rural kindergarten and grade 1
students from impoverished areas, where teachers had limited access to professional
development. An additional goal of TRI was to provide reading intervention as well as long
distance coaching for teachers via webcam. Amendum et al. (2011) hypothesized 1) struggling
students from TRI schools would out-perform students from control schools on all reading
measures, 2) all students from TRI classrooms would perform at a higher level on reading
outcomes than students from control schools and 3) the baseline fall vocabulary scores would not
negatively impact the influence of TRI intervention.

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #2

The study was a cluster-randomized design where schools were randomly assigned to
experimental and control conditions. The study consisted of 350 kindergarten and grade 1
children from seven rural schools in the southwestern United States. There were 43 classrooms
involved in the study, including 26 experimental and 17 controls. In all, nineteen kindergarten
and 24 grade 1 classrooms participated. All intervention classrooms received the same
professional development, resources, and TRI instruction. Children with existing severe
disabilities were excluded from the study.
Methods: Measures and Procedures
A TRI screening instrument was used to determine 5 focal students (those struggling
learning to read) and 5 non-focal students (those benefiting from regular instruction) from each
control and experimental classroom. In experimental classrooms the focal groups received TRI
instruction from October to May. All others students received regular classroom instruction.
Distance technology was utilized to provide professional development and real-time literacy
coaching to teachers. Every experimental classroom received the appropriate technology and
software necessary to participate fully in the study. Three TRI coaches, with masters degrees,
significant primary school experience, as well as state literacy specialist certification, supported
teachers in weekly and bi-weekly coaching sessions.
A battery of standardized assessments was administered before and after the study and
assessors were blind to the whether the students belonged focal or non-focal groups. Four
subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Diagnostic Reading Battery III (Word Attack, Letter/Word
Recognition, Passage Comprehension, and Spelling of Sounds) were administered. The Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test Third Edition, was used to assess receptive vocabulary.

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #2

Results and Conclusions

Struggling kindergarten and grade 1 students included in the focal TRI group
significantly outperformed focal control group participants, with large effect sizes ranging from .
40 to .72. All students in the TRI experimental schools had higher overall reading scores than
students from control classrooms. Also, there was no differential effect of TRI on the focal
groups reading achievement based on their fall vocabulary scores.
Strengths and Limitations
Amendum et al.s (2011) cluster-randomized designed study demonstrated regular
classroom teachers are successfully able to deliver reading intervention for struggling readers.
Focal and non-focal groups were large and intervention was provided long term for seven
months. This study offered valuable insight into how coaching of regular classroom teachers can
be delivered using web-conferencing. Which provided students who live in isolated, rural
settings with high quality, intensive reading intervention. Amendum et al. (2011) also
successfully demonstrated how intensive coaching of regular classroom teachers regarding
reading instruction positively influenced the achievement of all students. These findings have
important implications for schools with limited access and resources for professional
development of teachers regarding best practices in reading instruction. While students in
experimental classrooms received obvious benefits of their teachers reading instruction
strategies, there was no evidence that children in control classrooms suffered any negative
consequences.
While web-cam technology was an important focus of this study, Amendum et al. (2011)
did not test the efficacy of technology in comparison to typical face-to-face delivery. Although
there were significant gains in reading skills overall, more information is needed as to which

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #2

specific component of TRI contributed to the greatest gains in reading. It is also not known if
these results were specific to TRI or if similar results could be achieved using another evidencebased reading intervention method. This study involved intensive coaching of teachers in using
the TRI process. The authors did not study effect sizes for TRI instruction without the coaching
component. Amendum et al. (2011) did not provide information regarding which strategies
would be most beneficial for teachers to generalize to their regular classroom instruction. It
would be important to study the long-term effects of TRI and whether effects are maintained
over time.

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #2
References
Amendum, S. J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M. C. (2011). The
effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based early
reading intervention: The targeted reading intervention. The
Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 107-131. doi:10.1086/660684

ARTICLE CRITIQUE #2