Lauren Rhue

ECI 540 Reading Intervention Research Analysis

For the Research Based Reading Program, Practice or Intervention project, I have

selected to research Leveled Literacy Intervention. Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) was

created by Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell in 2009. This intervention program is distributed by

Heinemann. This intervention program provides multiple levels of intervention for students in

Kindergarten through 12th grade. Each system that is used for each range of reading levels, is

named after a color. This program is intended to be used as a short-term intervention for students

who are not meeting reading grade level expectations. Students receive the intervention in a

small group, daily, with intense instruction. It is key that this intervention is given in small

groups of readers that are struggling with similar concepts in order to maximize growth and meet

their needs. LLI should be supplemental reading instruction in addition to the general education

classroom reading instruction. LLI provides students with specific instruction in phonological

awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, oral language skills, and

writing. As students progress through this program by mastering skills, the texts’ difficulty

increases and the lessons are systematically targeted to students’ reading ability. LLI intends to

deepen and expand comprehension with close reading as well as engage students in large

amounts of successful daily reading. By using LLI, the goal is for the engagement of students to

increase as well as knowledge that is built by books being read. Along with using LLI, it is also

part of the program’s design to elevate the expertise of teachers and monitor students progress in

order to progress the student back to grade level expectations.

 I chose to select this program because it was created by Fountas and Pinnell. Many

resources that we use in the district that I teach in come from Fountas and Pinnell; therefore, I

thought it would be interesting to see how this intervention program compared to other resources

that we were using in general education classrooms. Through conversation with our district’s

literacy coach, whom I do curriculum work with, I learned that this is the actual program that our

Title 1 Reading Specialist uses at our school and throughout the county. Knowing this made me

more curious as to what resources and procedures she uses to help our readers that are struggling.

Since time is precious in the classroom and I have never been able to observe how she teaches

her reading groups daily and throughout the week, I can’t wait to learn more about this

intervention program through this research project.

Being a teacher in a Title 1 school, I encounter these struggling readers daily. There are

many factors that attribute to students not meeting reading grade level expectations and

unfortunately many of these factors are beyond my control as a teacher. It is our job as teachers

to give students all that we can through instruction daily in the environment that we can control. I

want to be sure that the program that we are using at our school is benefitting the students that

are receiving extra reading group instruction. Through mCLASS, first grade students must grow

the largest amount of reading levels in elementary schools (reading from a level C to level I/J),

therefore, it is imperative that the methods that are being used in the classroom and in

interventions is the most efficient and beneficial. Since mCLASS is a state mandated assessment,

this puts even more of an importance on helping students be successful and perform on grade

level.
Analysis of Reading Programs and Interventions

READING PROGRAM OR INTERVENTION:​ Leveled Literacy Intervention

SOURCE/CITATION: ​Ransford-Kaldon, C., Flynt, E. S., & Ross, C. (2011). A Randomized

Controlled Trial of a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Tier 2 Literacy Program: Leveled Literacy
Intervention (LLI). ​Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.​

Criteria and Questions to Analysis Implications/Responses

Consider
RESEARCH TYPE or
EVIDENCE BASE: ​What
type of research was used
(e.g., descriptive,
quantitative, qualitative,
correlational, experimental,
mixed methods, research
synthesis, review of the
literature, etc.)?
If there was no clear
research base, what
evidence was used to
demonstrate the
effectiveness of the focus
reading program or
intervention?
RESEARCH BASE: ​Is the
reading program, practice,
or intervention
research-related,
research-based, or
research-proven? A
combination? None of
these?
Quantitative data—LLI The study used quantitative data and
benchmarks and DIBELS statistical analysis to determine the
were individually efficacy of the LLI in increasing
administered. Students reading achievement for K-2
scored on an A-Z gradient students, as well as the fidelity of
of text difficulty for the giving the intervention.
LLI benchmark test.
DIBELS scores were used
as a broader pre/post
indicator of literacy
achievement to corroborate
the benchmark scores.
Mixed methods—two
groups were formed from
the LLI benchmark test and
the DIBELS scores.
Treatment group received
LLI intervention and the
control group did not
receive LLI intervention or
any other type of
intervention.
This reading intervention is LLI improves students reading
research-based and achievement by multiple reading
research-proven. This levels when combined with regular
study is based on research classroom instruction.
that has proven the ability
to improve students’
reading skills when
compared to students who
do not receive the
intervention.
DURATION: ​What was the
duration of the research on
the focus program or
intervention?
Criteria and Questions to
Consider
SOCIAL OR FACE
VALIDITY: ​Are the results
of this research meaningful
in terms of students’ overall
reading achievement?
RESEARCH RESULTS:
What EXACLTY did the
research find? What
measures were used?
ATTRIBUTION: ​Is
students’ reading
performance or
achievement due ONLY to
their exposure to or
experiences with the focus
reading program or
intervention?
The treatment group
received LLI by meeting in
groups, made up of 3
students, daily for 30
minute lessons, for 18
weeks.
Analysis
This study does provide
results that are meaningful
because it investigates
students reading level
before receiving the
intervention and after, as
well as their growth in
reading levels.
This research study found
that students in LLI
achieved between 1 ½
benchmark levels up to
almost 5 ½ benchmark
levels while those that did
not receive LLI achieved
between less than 1
benchmark level up to
about 3 benchmark levels.
Also students in LLI
finished on grade level
expectations.
For this intervention,
students’ reading
achievement was measured
through LLI benchmark
testing and DIBELS. It
should be taken in to
account that students’
regular classroom
instruction could attribute
to their ability growth as
well as the involvement
and reinforcement at home.
This study was conducted for half of
a school year, which is an average of
what my students receive when
getting Title 1 pull out. I wonder if
continuing LLI for the students that
still didn’t perform on grade level
would help them show growth or if
they were “stuck.”
Implications/Responses
The results are meaningful to show
that students who received the
intervention grew multiple levels.
We know based on the difference in
the control and treatment groups
that LLI has an impact on students’
overall achievement.
When combining LLI and regular
classroom instruction, students’
literacy achievement can be
positively impacted more than
classroom instruction alone.
We do not know if the difference of
classroom instruction and home
involvement attributes to any of the
achievement gains along with LLI
intervention.
RELIABILITY: ​Has the
research on this reading
program or intervention
been conducted multiple
times by different people?
Were the results similar?
GENERALIZABILITY AND
TRANSFERABILITY:
Describe the students with
whom this research was
conducted. Is this
population similar to the
population with whom the
reading program or
intervention is being
implemented?
Criteria and Questions to
Consider
PUBLICATION SOURCE:
Where was this research
published? Was this
research published in a
peer-reviewed journal?
POTENTIAL BIAS: ​Who
conducted the research on
the program or
intervention? Did the people doesn’t appear that they
who conducted the research gained any benefit or profit
stand to benefit or profit
based on the results of this research. The authors
research?
TRUSTWORTHINESS: ​To
what extent do you “trust”
the results of this research? seem to be valid and
Are the results believable?
OTHER CRITERIA AND
QUESTIONS:
The research on this
intervention has been
conducted through multiple
studies. In the studies, the
results were similar and
students showed
achievement gains with
their reading ability.
This study was completed
with 427 students amongst
5 schools in one county
and 4 schools in another
county. 146 students were
Kindergarten, 130 were in
first grade, and 151 were in
2​nd​ grade. The students
were from rural and
suburban populations, as
well as economically
disadvantaged.
Analysis
This research was
published in ​Society for
Research on Educational
Effectiveness.​ This article
is Non Journal Research
Report.
The study was conducted
by Ransford-Kaldon,
Sutton Flynt, and Ross. It
based on the results of the
provided feedback for
future related studies.
This was a non-journal
article. The test conducted
reliable. Therefore, the
results are trustworthy and
believable.
The results are reliable. Information
from other research studies show
similar results.
The sample seems to represent an
average of students in two different
rural and suburban areas of Georgia
and New York. There were statistics
provided based on race. It is hard to
determine a generalizability for
students as a whole because urban
areas and students with an
economical advantage were not
included. This study generalizes low
income students from suburban and
rural areas.
Implications/Responses
The article does not state that it has
been peer-reviewed. However, there
are multiple authors that created this
journal.
These authors seemed to only give
information of the intervention
program and reference to past
research. It doesn’t seem that there
was any bias to the intervention
program that was used.
The result appear believable and
trusted because the authors didn’t
show bias. This study was also done
amongst many schools in different
areas.
Analysis of Reading Programs and Interventions

READING PROGRAM OR INTERVENTION: ​Leveled Literacy Intervention

SOURCE/CITATION: ​Leveled Literacy Intervention. (2017, September). Retrieved November

15, 2018, from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Intervention/1287

Criteria and Questions to Analysis Implications/Responses

Consider
RESEARCH TYPE or This article analyzed The studies use quantitative data and
EVIDENCE BASE: W ​ hat multiple research studies statistical analysis to determine the
type of research was used that used qualitative and efficiency of LLI to increase students
(e.g., descriptive, statistical research to reading achievement.
quantitative, qualitative, show the effectiveness of
correlational, experimental, LLI. Some of these
mixed methods, research research studies that
synthesis, review of the were included used
literature, etc.)? mixed methods research.
Two studies are
If there was no clear research randomized controlled
base, what evidence was used trials that met What
to demonstrate the Works Clearninghouse
effectiveness of the focus group design standards
reading program or without reservations. The
intervention? remaining eight studies
do not meet the WWC
group design standards.
RESEARCH BASE: I​ s the LLI is research-based This study is research based and
reading program, practice, or and research has proven provides evidence to prove that LLI,
intervention research-related, that this intervention when paired with classroom
research-based, or program positively instruction, increases students
research-proven? A impacts students reading reading acheivement.
combination? None of these? achievement.
DURATION: W ​ hat was the One research study These studies were conducted over
duration of the research on served 72.9-30 minute an extensive amount of time.
the focus program or daily sessions with 1st Therefore, I would say the duration
intervention? and 2nd grade students, of intervention program provided
and 37.5-30 minute daily reliable data to prove it’s positive
sessions with effects.
kindergarten students.
The other research study
included served 62-30
minute daily small group
sessions over 18 weeks

Criteria and Questions to
Consider
SOCIAL OR FACE
VALIDITY: A ​ re the results of
this research meaningful in
terms of students’ overall
reading achievement?
RESEARCH RESULTS: ​What
EXACLTY did the research
find? What measures were
used?
to 1st and 2nd grade
students. and 45-30
minute sessions over 12
weeks for kindergarten
students.
Analysis Implications/Responses
This article is The results are meaningful to help
meaningful in that the understand how LLI improves
results show students’ students’ reading achievement
overall reading growth when paired with classroom
achievement growth. instruction. The results compare
students’ reading achievement
growth for received intervention to
students who did not.
This article measured The results show that when students
four different domains: receive LLI along with classroom
general reading instruction, their reading
achievement, reading achievement scores increase more
fluency, alphabetics, and than when receiving only classroom
comprehension. WWC instruction.
reported findings in
general reading
achievement, reading
fluency, and alphabetics.
Overall the summary of
effectiveness for general
reading achievement
domain showed positive
effects with no
overriding contrary
evidence. The overall
summary of
effectiveness for the
reading fluency domain
showed potentially
positive effects with no
overriding contrary
evidence. The
effectiveness for
alphabetics domain
showed no discernible
effects but was neither
statistically significant or
 large enough to be
substantively important.
DIBELS and Fountas &
Pinnell Benchmark
Assessment System were
used to measure
students’ results.
ATTRIBUTION: I​ s students’ In this study, it does not We know the impact of LLI in
reading performance or clarify if these students’ helping students’ reading
achievement due ONLY to that we used as treatment achievement, however, we do not
their exposure to or and control groups know what other external factors
experiences with the focus received support at home could be influencing the research
reading program or or outside of school. results.
intervention? Along with receiving
LLI and/or classroom
instruction at schools,
this would be important
to consider as well.
RELIABILITY: ​Has the This research has been Since this intervention program has
research on this reading conducted multiple times been researched multiple times, we
program or intervention been in multiple classrooms, are able to call the results reliable
conducted multiple times by schools, and districts. because all results have been similar
different people? Were the The results all showed in showing that LLI can positively
results similar? similar findings which impact students’ reading
makes the results achievement.
reliable.
GENERALIZABILITY AND This research was This sample represents many
TRANSFERABILITY: included 747 students students cross multiple schools,
Describe the students with with a variety of districts, and states. Since there is no
whom this research was ethnicity backgrounds, statistics about individual schools or
conducted. Is this population coming from 22 schools students stated in the article, it is
similar to the population with across 3 school districts hard to determine generalizability.
whom the reading program or in 3 states. The research
intervention is being was implemented in low
implemented? income areas where this
intervention program
will likely be used. The
results to not include
individual schools or
students, therefore these
result are not
generalizable.
Criteria and Questions to Analysis Implications/Responses
Consider
PUBLICATION SOURCE: This article was This is a well-known website that
Where was this research published on What provides a summary of findings from
published? Was this research Works Clearinghouse a systematic review of evidence.
published in a peer-reviewed website. This website is WWC is not confined to only literacy
journal? an investment of the programs that are review, but many
Institute of Education types of education programs and
Sciences through the interventions.
Department of
Education. This article
combined multiple
different research studies
to provide an overall
intervention report.
Some of the articles
considered in this review
were not used in the
overall results because
they did not meet WWC
group design standards.
POTENTIAL BIAS: ​Who The two studies that Since the authors of the studies used
conducted the research on the were considered because in the WWC review did not benefit
program or intervention? Did they met the WWC from the results or state their
the people who conducted the group design standards opinion, there is no bias involved.
research stand to benefit or were conducted by
profit based on the results of Ransford-Kaldon and
this research? others in 2010 and 2013.
These authors did not
benefit from the results
of this research. They
also did not state their
personal opinions in any
of the articles included.
TRUSTWORTHINESS: ​To The results were posted WWC’s group design standards
what extent do you “trust” the on a well known website show that they consider multiple
results of this research? Are where multiple studies aspects before considering research
the results believable? were considered in the studies and results. This makes the
overall summary of the results from the studies more reliable
intervention. Since in knowing that they do not publish
WWC has group design just any type of research study. Also
standards and not all since multiple studies and results are
studies met these used in an overall conclusion, we can
standards, this makes trust WWC and the results even
WWC more reliable. more.
OTHER CRITERIA AND
QUESTIONS:
Analysis of Reading Programs and Interventions

READING PROGRAM OR INTERVENTION: ​Leveled Literacy Intervention

SOURCE/CITATION:​ ​Majewski, J. (2018). The effects of a leveled literacy intervention (LLI)

on elementary-age students reading below grade level.

Criteria and Questions to Analysis Implications/Responses

Consider
RESEARCH TYPE or Quantitative data--Pre The study uses quantitative data and
EVIDENCE BASE: W ​ hat and post test of data statistical analysis to determine if
type of research was used using STAR test, LLI improves students’ ability to
(e.g., descriptive, assessment of sight read and write by giving them the
quantitative, qualitative, words, and examining necessary tools and strategies.
correlational, experimental, Instructional Guided
mixed methods, research Reading Level.
synthesis, review of the
literature, etc.)? Experimental-control
group design was used
If there was no clear research between the two groups
base, what evidence was used to see if the effects of
to demonstrate the using a leveled literacy
effectiveness of the focus program as a
reading program or supplemental program
intervention? will give students the
tools and strategies to
help improve their
reading skills.
RESEARCH BASE: I​ s the LLI is a research based This study is research-based and
reading program, practice, or intervention program. provides more evidence to the
intervention research-related, There are many articles positive effects that LLI on
research-based, or showing the positive strengthening students’ reading
research-proven? A effect that LLI has in ability. This research study also
combination? None of these? helping support students summarizes past studies using LLI
who are not performing and the results that were concluded.
on grade level. This
research has shown that
LLI is effective for ELL
students, Special
Education students,
economically
disadvantaged students,
and minority students.
DURATION: W ​ hat was the The duration of this This study was conducted over a 6
duration of the research on intervention was 24 month period. I wonder if the results
the focus program or weeks. During the 24 would have been more significant
intervention? weeks, treatment over an entire school year or
students received LLI following the same students from
instruction 3-4 times a one school year, over the summer,
week and control and during the following school year.
students received Wilson
Fundations 3-4 times a
week along with both
receiving regular
classroom instruction.

Criteria and Questions to Analysis Implications/Responses

Consider
SOCIAL OR FACE The study does give The results are meaningful in that
VALIDITY: A ​ re the results of
results based on the they show the impact that LLI had
this research meaningful in
growth of students’ on students’ improvement of reading
terms of students’ overall
overall reading achievement, also including the sight
reading achievement? achievement using their word identification and STAR test.
instructional Guided
Reading Level, as well as
sight word identification
and STAR test scores.
RESEARCH RESULTS: ​What The percentage of sight LLI has a positive impact on
EXACLTY did the research word recognition for the students’ overall reading
find? What measures were treatment group achievement and mastering skills
used? increased more than the needed to read.
control group. With the
pre-primer word list the
difference in the
treatment group and
control group was 4.9%.
For the primer word list:
11.3%, for the 1st grade
word list: 15.1%, and for
the 2nd grade word list:
14.6%. Using the STAR
test, the treatment group
showed a greater increase
in this measure of
reading skill. Lastly,
using the instructional
guided reading level all
students began on a
 Level D. Treatment
group students receiving
LLI improved 3-4 levels
and control group
students receiving
Wilson Fundations
improved 1-2 levels.
ATTRIBUTION: I​ s students’ This research article does We know that in-class reading time
reading performance or not state or explain does not skew data since it was the
achievement due ONLY to exposure to reading same with both sets of students.
their exposure to or outside of the school However, we do not know if any of
experiences with the focus setting. It does state that the students used in the research
reading program or both the treatment and study received reading support or no
intervention? control group received reading support at home.
the same amount of
in-class reading time.
RELIABILITY: ​Has the Research on LLI has The research is reliable. Information
research on this reading been conducted multiple was included in explaining the
program or intervention been times by multiple setting and results from multiple
conducted multiple times by different people. This other studies. All of these studies
different people? Were the article references some of resulted in positive results when
results similar? the other research studies using LLI and classroom instruction.
on this intervention and
briefly explains the
difference in the setting
of the research study.
However, for all studies,
there was a positive
correlation between
receiving LLI and
increasing students’
reading ability more than
students receiving other
intervention programs or
only regular classroom
instruction.
GENERALIZABILITY AND This research was The research does show the statistics
TRANSFERABILITY: conducted in a about each individual students using
Describe the students with population where a baseline, weekly and monthly data
whom this research was students were performing assessments and a post assessment.
conducted. Is this population below grade level and However, it is hard to determine
similar to the population with were needing RTI generalizability since there were
whom the reading program or interventions. All only 8 students included in this
intervention is being students used in this study.
implemented? research study began on

Criteria and Questions to
Consider
PUBLICATION SOURCE:
Where was this research
published? Was this research
published in a peer-reviewed
journal?
POTENTIAL BIAS: ​Who
conducted the research on the
program or intervention? Did
the people who conducted the
research stand to benefit or
profit based on the results of
this research?
TRUSTWORTHINESS: ​To
what extent do you “trust”
the results of this research?
Are the results believable?
OTHER CRITERIA AND
QUESTIONS:
the same reading level.
Both groups included
students that were part of
an inclusion classroom.
In the treatment group
there were 5 students,
one student was
receiving special
education services as
“visually handicapped”
and the other 4 students
were receiving LLI as
additional instruction
under RTI. The control
group was made up of 3
students who were
receiving instruction
under RTI using Wilson
Fundations.
Analysis Implications/Responses
This research was This is a university that published
published on Rowan theses and dissertations. The results
Digital Works. This from this study are similar to the
research was part of a other research studies that are
Theses and Dissertation. referenced.
Jennifer Majewski The authors had no viewpoint about
conducted the research LLI, therefore there was no bias
on the intervention. She involved.
did not benefit from the
results and did not share
her opinion about the
program and its use.
Since the results from If the results from this study did not
this research study are align with the result from the other
similar to results using study, I would be concerned about
the same intervention how small the treatment and control
from other studies, the groups were. However, since the
results are trustworthy. results were similar in showing the
positive effects of LLI, I believe that
this research is trustworthy.
 After reviewing the three research articles above, my recommendation to schools and

districts would be that the Leveled Literacy Intervention Program would have a positive impact

and would be beneficial to students that are performing below grade level. This program has

proven in multiple research studies that when used with fidelity, students’ reading ability almost

doubles when compared to the reading levels of students who only receive classroom instruction.

With that being said, I believe that implementation of this program should be a single person’s

job in order to be most effective. In the district that I teach in, our Title 1 Reading Specialist

Teacher uses the Leveled Literacy Intervention program by Fountas and Pinnell. I have found it

very interesting to learn more about how the program that she uses works. Not only have I

learned what content is taught, but I have also previewed how the content is taught and its impact

on children's ability to apply reading strategies to be a successful reader. Because of the amount

of time that each lesson should be, it would not be realistic for a regular classroom teacher to be

able to use it with fidelity. I would especially recommend the use of the Leveled Literacy

Intervention in low socioeconomic areas and areas with a large amount of ELL learners that are

performing below grade level in reading and writing. I am so glad that this program is being used

within my school and district, and I will continue to support it in any way that I can as a

classroom teacher. I find it even more comforting because the teacher that uses this program at

my school tries her hardest to not miss days of instruction. After reading through these research

articles included, I understand even more why these day of instruction are so important and am

so thankful for her dedication to the program. I also support my county and their choice for

choosing this small group intervention program that is research based and proven to have

positive effects on improving students’ reading proficiency, as seen in my own classroom!

 References

Leveled Literacy Intervention. (2017, September). Retrieved November 15, 2018, from

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Intervention/1287

Majewski, J. (2018). The effects of a leveled literacy intervention (LLI) on elementary-age

students reading below grade level.

Ransford-Kaldon, C., Flynt, E. S., & Ross, C. (2011). A Randomized Controlled Trial of a

Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Tier 2 Literacy Program: Leveled Literacy Intervention

(LLI). ​Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.​

What is Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) and how is LLI used. (n.d.). Retrieved November

13, 2018, from http://www.fountasandpinnell.com/lli/