Can reading practitioners and researchers improve intensive reading support systems in a large urban school system

Bibliographic Data

ID21444754
AuthorsDevin M Kearns (0000-0001-9703-0932, University of Connecticut Storrs Connecticut USA, corresponding author), Melodee A Walker (0000-0003-1510-7241, University of Chicago Laboratory Schools Chicago Illinois USA), Jason C Borges (New York City Department of Education New York New York USA), Meghan E Duffy (New York City Department of Education New York New York USA)
Year2022
Volume45
Issue3
Pages488-516
Publication date2022-08-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Research in Reading (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0141-0423 • E-ISSN: 1467-9817
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/1467-9817.12406
OpenAlexW4289333617
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited25

One way to provide intensive intervention for students with severe and persistent reading difficulties is to use a systematic data‐based decision‐making process called data‐based individualisation (DBI). DBI is a process for identifying needs and aligning them with specialist support. Meta‐analyses of DBI studies by university‐based researchers have shown positive effects, but university research studies do not involve many of the implementation science‐related factors that affect success. This study addresses the dearth of data from practice‐based studies that incorporate DBI and was done as a researcher–practitioner collaboration, developed with based on the theory that the collaborators' combined knowledge and skills could produce positive outcomes. Mixed methods were used to examine whether there was evidence of success in implementation DBI conducted through a researcher–practitioner partnership in New York City Public Schools, the largest public school system in the United States. Specifically, data were collected concerning the quality of DBI implementation and changes in teachers' and administrators' perspectives about the value of implementing intensive intervention. Results indicated that district‐level implementation met many criteria for effective DBI, that school teams ( N = 6) implemented DBI with an overall high level of fidelity (mean score of 4.1 on a 5‐point scale) and that teachers and school administrators changed their thinking about intensive intervention as a result of participation in DBI. Stakeholder interview data indicated a high level of social acceptability for DBI implementation. Features of the research–practice partnership thought to have contributed to the success of the project are discussed

Fidelity · General partnership · Intervention (counseling) · Medical education · Political science · Process (computing) · Public relations · Reading (process) · Scale (ratio) · Stakeholder · Computer Science · Down syndrome and intellectual disability research · Educational Assessment and Improvement · Medicine · Psychology

Tools

Open DOI