Revision2

https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870520914281

Rural Special Education Quarterly 2020, Vol. 39(3) 116 –127 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/8756870520914281 journals.sagepub.com/home/rsq

Research Report

Reading literacy in the earlier grades is an essential prereq- uisite for later academic success (Slavin et al., 2009). Students who display reading difficulties/disabilities at the end of third grade are less likely than their reading-profi- cient peers to succeed in content areas and graduate from high school (Mather et al., 2001). Reading literacy involves two essential subskills: word recognition and comprehen- sion (Scarborough, 2001). Word recognition involves mas- tery of sound–symbol correspondence and phonic word attack strategies. During elementary grades, students transi- tion from learning letter–sound correspondence to recog- nizing words automatically and reading text fluently (Slavin et al., 2009). Difficulties with fluent word recognition adversely affect oral reading fluency and comprehension (Macaruso et al., 2006). Recent data indicate that many stu- dents in today’s schools do not become skilled readers. For example, the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results indicate that 65% of the fourth- and eighth-grade students performed below the “proficient” level in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Furthermore, the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicated that 19% of the 15-year-old students (one in five

U.S. students) scored below the proficiency level on the reading measure (Carr, 2016).

During the last two decades, there has been an increased understanding and focus on literacy instruction. The most influential evidence came from the report of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000). This report called for explicit instruction in the areas of phonemic awareness and phonics along with instruction in the areas of vocabu- lary, fluency, and comprehension to facilitate reading liter- acy. The National Reading Panel’s recommendations led to an increased emphasis on explicit instruction in the areas of phonemic awareness and phonics to promote early literacy skills of all children including children with reading dis- abilities or at-risk for reading difficulties. Lyon (2001) esti- mated that through appropriate, explicit, comprehensive, and intensive early instruction that the current number of

914281 RSQXXX10.1177/8756870520914281Rural Special Education QuarterlyPindiprolu and Marks research-article2020

1The University of Toledo, OH, USA 2East Tennessee State University, TN, USA

Corresponding Author: Sekhar S. Pindiprolu, Department of Teacher Education, The University of Toledo, MS 954, Toledo, OH 43606, USA. Email: Sekhar.pindiprolu@utoledo.edu

Preventing Summer Reading Slide: Examining the Effects of Two Computer-Assisted Reading Programs

Sekhar S. Pindiprolu, PhD1 and Lori J. Marks, PhD2

Abstract Students who display reading difficulties/disabilities at the end of third grade are less likely to succeed in content areas and graduate from high school than their reading-proficient peers. Literature suggests that students in rural school districts lag behind their suburban peers in terms of their reading levels and accessibility to resources. Furthermore, students from low socioeconomic status (SES) households and those who have disabilities exhibit greater learning loss during the summer break. This exploratory study examined the effects of two parent-implemented computer-based reading programs on the reading skills of 20 students at-risk for reading failure during a summer break. Parental and students’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness and desirability of the programs were elicited. Results suggested that both programs facilitated gains in phonemic awareness and phonics. Furthermore, students in the Funnix group exhibited large gains in vocabulary and oral reading fluency, and the students in the PLATO group exhibited large gains in comprehension. Most of the students indicated they liked the programs and the programs helped them read. Similarly, most of the parents agreed that the programs were useful, and they were comfortable using the programs. A description of the computer programs, results, implications, and limitations of the study are discussed.

Keywords computer-based reading programs, parent-implemented interventions, summer reading loss, rural special education

Pindiprolu and Marks 117

20-million children with reading failures in the United States can be reduced by approximately two thirds. Some researchers suggest that 25 to 173 hr of preventive instruc- tion is essential to successfully accelerate early reading development of at-risk students (Scammaca et al., 2007; Torgensen et al., 2010).

Students in rural school districts lag behind their peers in their reading achievement levels (Graham & Teague, 2011; Provasnik et al., 2007). The average third-grade rural stu- dent’s score is 8 points lower (approximately one third of a standard deviation) than the score of an average suburban student and 2 points lower than the score of an average urban student (Graham & Teague, 2011). Students who struggle in reading during the earlier years tend to make fewer gains across grades than students who do not (Sandberg-Patton & Reschly, 2013). This learning loss is compounded during the summer months. According to a recent study by Sandberg-Patton and Reschly (2013), stu- dents in lower elementary grades (second and third) demon- strated a greater summer learning loss in oral reading fluency than students in the upper elementary grades. Furthermore, the learning loss was higher for students in special education and/or students from lower socioeco- nomic backgrounds (Sandberg-Patton & Reschly, 2013). This loss of reading skills when compounded over multiple years creates an estimated 2- to 3-year reading deficit in students (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003).

Given the magnitude of the problem, yearlong instruction, both at home and at school, is essential to meet the literacy needs of students with reading difficulties/deficits. Parents are good at reading to their children or hearing their children read, but they are not skilled at teaching phonemic awareness and phonics skills in an explicit manner (Pindiprolu & Forbush, 2009; Watson & Hempenstall, 2008). As the teach- ing of phonemic awareness and phonics in an explicit and systematic way is fundamental to addressing the learning needs of students with reading difficulties or at-risk for read- ing disabilities, it is essential to identify intervention pro- grams that can provide the necessary structure and support for parents to teach literacy skills to their children with read- ing difficulties. Direct Instruction (DI) programs, which are carefully sequenced and explicit, are one way to provide the needed explicit structure and support to overcome limited parental skills in teaching phonemic awareness and phonics (Watson & Hempenstall, 2008). The efficacy of DI programs is supported by research conducted over a half century (see Coughlin, 2011; Hattie, 2009; Stockard et al., 2018; Stockard & Wood, 2017). Another avenue is to support parents’ utiliza- tion of technology such as computer-based reading programs (CBRPs) that have been shown effective in developing pho- nological skills in beginning readers (MacArthur et al., 2001; Macaruso et al., 2006).

In recent years, a few studies have examined the effec- tiveness of CBRPs in facilitating basic literacy skills when

implemented by adults. Huffstetter et al. (2010) examined the effects of Headsprout program on the early literacy skills of at-risk preschool children. Based on the results, the authors concluded that Headsprout facilitated early literacy skills of at-risk preschool children and the teachers/teacher assistants were positive regarding Headsprout effective- ness. The authors called for additional studies with multiple conditions, including a literacy program condition, to eval- uate the comparative effectiveness of the Headsprout pro- gram. Similarly, Regvoort and Leji (2007) examined the effects of a parent implemented CBRP on the phonemic awareness and letter knowledge of students identified as at- risk for reading difficulty due to a familial history of read- ing impairments. The researcher-created intervention focused on three types of computerized exercises: letters, segmenting and blending, and word decoding. At-risk stu- dents who received computer-based instruction made greater gains on letter knowledge than their at-risk counter- parts in a control group. The trained at-risk students were able to keep up with the phonemic awareness skills of stu- dents in a comparison group comprised of students who did not have a familial history of reading impairments. At-risk students who did not receive the computer-based training exhibited a lower rate of development. A common finding between the two studies is that adult-implemented CBRPs facilitate early literacy skills of preschool and kindergarten (KG) students with reading difficulties.

Two studies examined the effectiveness of a CBRP, PLATO Beginning Reading for the Real World, that targets beginning reading skills in K–3 grades. Bauserman et al. (2005) examined the effectiveness of PLATO’s Beginning Reading for Real World (Level A) on the emergent skills of KG students using a quasi-experimental design. After 8 weeks of intervention, the authors concluded that students showed measurable growth in the areas of phonological awareness, knowledge of print concepts, and listening com- prehension. The authors also reported that accessing the software was difficult for KG students as PLATO’s login procedures were complicated. Similarly, Carter (n.d.) con- ducted an action research project that examined the effec- tiveness of PLATO on the reading skills of eight students with learning/reading disabilities. The results indicated that PLATO was effective in increasing the reading skills of seven of the eight students with disabilities. Despite 28% of the students experiencing technical and navigational diffi- culties, students had positive attitudes toward the program and were motivated to learn using the PLATO program. The teachers also had positive attitudes regarding the program and wanted to continue implementing the program after the project was completed.

Watson and Hempenstall (2008) examined the effective- ness of a DI computer program, Funnix, on the early liter- acy skills of students in KG and first grade. Results of the study indicated that KG students in the intervention group

118 Rural Special Education Quarterly 39(3)

had statistically significant gains when compared with the control group students on the (a) phonemic awareness, (b) letter–sound fluency, (c) oral reading fluency, and (d) non- word decoding measures. First-grade students who received the Funnix intervention had significant pre–post increases on the (a) letter–sound fluency, (b) letter–name knowledge, (c) non-word decoding, and (d) oral reading fluency mea- sures, but these gains were not significant when compared with the gains made by the students in the control group. In view of the positive findings, the authors called for future studies examining the effectiveness of Funnix with at-risk beginning readers.

Given the need for explicit instruction in the areas of phonemic awareness and phonics, which are essential for fluent oral reading, and to prevent the loss of reading skills during the summer break, it is essential to support parental ability to teach phonemic awareness and phonics skills to their children who are at-risk for reading disabilities. One way to address parents’ ability is to utilize CBRPs. However, there is very limited literature on the effectiveness of CBRPs in facilitating the development of reading skills and moti- vating struggling readers (Cheung & Slavin, 2013; Escueta et al., 2017; Hansen, 2014; NICHD, 2000; Regan et al., 2014; Stetter & Hughes, 2010). Consequently, this study was undertaken as there is a significant dearth in rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of CBRPs in ameliorating the reading deficits of students (Agodini et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2017; Rouse & Krueger, 2004). Specifically, the study evaluated the comparative effects of the CBRPs on the acquisition of basic early literacy skills of K–2 grades stu- dents with reading difficulties when implemented by par- ents during a summer break. Furthermore, (a) parental perceptions regarding the effectiveness, ease of implemen- tation, and desirability of the program and (b) students’ per- ceptions on the effectiveness and desirability of the programs were examined.

Method

Participants and Recruitment

Participants for the study consisted of students with reading difficulties in K–2 grades and their parents. The researchers met with district supervisors of schools located in East Tennessee to share the study objectives and to obtain feed- back on the procedures, measures, and CRBPs used in the study. During initial discussions with the district supervi- sors, a pre–post randomized controlled trial (RCT) study with a control group was proposed. Based on the feedback from the district supervisors, who requested that all at-risk students be provided a reading intervention and the limited time frame for conducting a summer study, the proposed study objective was modified to evaluate the effectiveness of two CBRPs, when implemented by parents, on the

reading skills of elementary students in K–2 grades with reading difficulties/disabilities. After obtaining institutional review board approval, flyers were developed and distrib- uted with the assistance of classroom teachers working in KG, first, and second grades in two rural counties in East Tennessee. The teachers were asked to (a) identify students scoring below the 15th percentile on a local, state, or national test of reading achievement and (b) send the flyers home with students. Two informational sessions were con- ducted for the parents who expressed an interest in partici- pating in the study. Among the parents who expressed an interest, 27 parents signed the consent and participated in the study. At the end of the study, each parent received a US$50 honorarium for his or her participation.

Setting

Participants in the study primarily resided in two rural school districts in East Tennessee. At the beginning of the study, project personnel contacted parents and tested their children at a place of their convenience (i.e., at the child’s home, at a school, or at the University) and collected com- puter systems information to ensure that the basic system requirements for the CBRPs were met. Parents in both groups implemented the CBRPs at their homes on their per- sonal home computers during the summer break; three par- ents in the PLATO group who did not have internet access at home implemented the PLATO program at a school com- puter lab.

Independent Variables

Criteria used to identify the CBRP included (a) the pro- gram-addressed instructional targets identified by the National Reading Panel Report (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension); (b) curriculum targeted in the programs was appropriate for K–2 grades students; and (c) the program enabled similar lengths of time to complete a computer-based lesson/epi- sode (i.e., 30 min). Based on the above criteria, two CBRPs, Funnix and PLATO, were selected for the study.

Funnix. Funnix is a CD-based DI reading program designed for home use. It consists of two levels: Funnix Beginning Reading and Funnix 2. Funnix Beginning Reading comes with a parent CD, an instructional guide on how to use the program, 120 lessons, and a consumable workbook for the student to complete after each lesson. Funnix 2 contains les- sons on CDs and a reading book (Pindiprolu & Forbush, 2009). Funnix provides for a placement test to determine the entry points into the program for students (see http:// www.funnix.com/ for more details). Funnix has a built-in narrator that models reading skills and requires an adult to navigate the program and make appropriate choices (pause,

Pindiprolu and Marks 119

repeat, continue, exit, etc.) to deliver the instruction based on students’ responses (Pindiprolu & Forbush, 2009). For example, an adult can repeat the instructions of the narrator or repeat the exercises if the student is making multiple errors. Instructions for parents are also provided in the Fun- nix parent training CD on correct sound pronunciations, when to repeat exercises, how to navigate through lessons and exercises in a lesson, and how to praise students for the correct responses so the parent can review them when needed (Pindiprolu & Forbush, 2009). The program pro- vides explicit training in the areas of phonological aware- ness, alphabetic principle, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Each lesson begins with a narrated intro- duction and cues the student to produce oral responses to stimuli presented on the screen, complete workbook exer- cises, or read from a hardback reader. Funnix program (both Beginning Reading and 2) with workbooks costs about 53 dollars per student (without shipping).

PLATO. PLATO Beginning Reading for the Real World is a web-based program that employs a variety of instructional strategies, including DI, and provides numerous practice opportunities to facilitate the acquisition and use of pho- netic and comprehension skills. The reading curriculum is organized into four leveled modules progressing from K–3 grades. Each module has a thematic focus and includes four to five lessons. A student begins the module by completing a skill assessment that determines the needed skills-based lessons. The student works independently at his or her level and pace, under the supervision of an adult. Each lesson consists of informational and interactive activities that pres- ent tasks and/or asks questions. The interactive nature of the program requires a student to make frequent choices on each screen. A variety of question types (e.g., label place- ment, fill in the blank, selection options) and formats (e.g., matching games, cloze tasks) are used in the program, and each activity ends with an information screen, which pro- vides information on the percent of questions correctly answered with a recommendation to proceed to the next activity or to redo the activity (score of 80% or higher). Stu- dents can go back and forth between screens and exit an activity or resume from the point where they left off. The courseware also provides a workroom that enables students to play games and use tools to practice and extend their learning (see Quinn et al., 2003 for more information). PLATO costs vary depending on the package (e.g., K–3 Reading or K–6 Elementary Package) and the number of student licenses purchased (e.g., US$387 each for 100 licenses, US$288 each for 500 licenses) by a school.

Dependent Measures

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). DIBELS progress monitoring (PM) probes were used to

measure the effectiveness of the CBRPs on the students’ reading skills. DIBELS probes can be individually adminis- tered in 1-min time intervals and consist of seven subtests: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), Word Use Fluency (WUF), Phoneme Segmentation Flu- ency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), and Retell Fluency (RF; Good et al., 2001). For the purposes of this study, PM probe 19 (except for LNF) was used as the pretest and PM probe 20 was used as the posttest. For LNF measure, the K–3 grades benchmark assessment was used as the pretest and the first benchmark at the first grade was used as the posttest as progress moni- toring probes are not available for this subtest. As there was no ORF PM probe for KG, the first-grade PM probes were used with KG students. The DIBELS measures are reliable and valid indicators of students’ early literacy skills (see Good et al., 2004). For the LNF measure, the median crite- rion-related validity with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- Educational Battery–Revised (WJ-R) Readiness Cluster standard score is .70 in KG and the predictive validity of KG LNF with first-grade WJ-R Reading Cluster standard score is .65 (Good et al., 2004). For the ISF measure, crite- rion-related validity with the WJ-R is .36 and predictive validity is .36 (Good et al., 2004). For the PSF measure, the criterion-related validity with the WJ-R Readiness Cluster is .54 and predictive validity with WJ-R Total Reading Cluster is .62 (Good et al., 2004). For the NWF measure, criterion-related validity with the WJ-R Readiness Cluster is .59 and predictive validity with WJ-R Total Reading Cluster is .66 (Good et al., 2004). For the ORF measure, test–retest reliabilities range from .92 to .97 and criterion- related validity coefficients range from .52 to .91 (Good et al., 2004).

Interobserver agreement. All individual paper–pencil admin- istrations of the DIBELS measures were recorded on an audiotape and subsequently used for calculating interob- server agreement. A graduate student in special education, trained in the administration of DIBELS assessments, per- formed interobserver agreement by listening to the audio- tapes and independently scoring the responses on the DIBELS scoring sheets for LNF, PSF, NWF, WUF, ORF, and RF measures. Interobserver agreement was undertaken for 20% of all pretest and posttest administered.

The average interobserver agreement (IOA) and range for the pretests were as follows: 99.26% for the LNF mea- sure (98.41%–100%), 91.07% (80%–100%) for the PSF measure, 89.58% (83.67%–100%) for the NWF measure, 97.34% (92.69%–100%) for the WUF measure, 87.55% (77.27%–98.93%) for the ORF measure, and 93.61% (80%–100%) for the RF measure. The average IOA and range for the posttest were as follows: 97.29% (95.5%– 100%) for the LNF measure, 90.75% (85.29%–94.7%) for the PSF measure, 88.57% (80%–96.55%) for the NWF

120 Rural Special Education Quarterly 39(3)

measure, 90.99% (83.33%–97.67) for the WUF measure, 92.09% (82.6%–100%) for the ORF measure, and 82.43% (78.95%–88.88%) for the RF measure.

Social validity measures. Collecting social validity data on the (a) effectiveness, (b) efficiency/ease to use, and (c) desirableness is very important for the sustainability of a program in practice (Pindiprolu & Forbush, 2009). Such information, especially for parent-implemented interven- tions, provides both practitioners and parents a comprehen- sive picture of the programs and will aid in their selection of programs. Hence, researchers developed social validity questionnaires for parents and students before the study commenced. These questionnaires were reviewed by a focus group consisting of faculty and school administrators. At the completion of the study, the social validity question- naire was administered to elicit participants’ perceptions. Students were orally asked about their satisfaction with the program, their perception of specific elements (e.g., stories, graphics, activities), and their perceived effectiveness of the program in teaching them how to read. The researchers recorded the responses on the questionnaire. Parents responded to questions such as the ease of navigating the program, their perceived effectiveness of the program, whether they would recommend the program to other par- ents, and if they would use the program in the future.

Procedures

Assignment of the participants. After the initial consent for participation was obtained, parents completed a demo- graphic questionnaire that asked for (a) family demo- graphics, (b) information on summer services for their child, and (c) home computer information (i.e., operating system, availability of internet). The students were ran- domly assigned to one of the two CBRPs.

The initial sample consisted of 27 parent–child dyads. Out of the 27, seven did not complete all the requirements of the study (five in the PLATO group and two in the Funnix group). Out of the 20 dyads who completed the study, seven were from the PLATO group and 13 were from the Funnix group. Eight of the students were from KG (three PLATO and five Funnix) and first grade (three PLATO and five Funnix) and four were second-grade students (one PLATO and three Funnix). Seventeen of the children were from a two-parent household and three were from a single parent household. Most of the parents had some university-level education. Eight parents completed high school, two com- pleted an associate degree, four completed a bachelor’s degree, two completed a master’s degree, and four indicated that they had completed some college. Six of the families indicated a presence of a familial reading disability, and six of the students were receiving some form of summer ser- vices from their school district.

Parent training. Project personnel met with each parent to train the parent on how to use the CBRP. A handout was developed for each CBRP to assist with the training. Train- ing consisted of (a) reviewing CBRP-related materials, (b) instructions for logging into the CRBP, (c) instructions on the role of assessments, (d) modeling overall use of pro- grams (e.g., repeating an exercise or activity, reviewing and practicing procedures for properly correcting reading errors for Funnix), (e) discussing child and parental roles during instructional sessions, and (f) discussing weekly progress reporting procedures. After the orientation and training, par- ents were asked to deliver reading instruction 5 days a week, for 8 weeks (i.e., for 20 hr). Each parent was provided with self-addressed envelopes and progress sheets and instructed to send daily log sheets to the researchers on a weekly basis.

Testing. DIBELS pretests were administered to the student in a quiet location either at the student’s home, at a school, or at the university. The entire session (training and pretest) lasted approximately 90 min, with 1 hr for the overview and training of parent and approximately 30 min for the admin- istration of DIBELS measures. After 8 weeks of interven- tion, the students were tested again using DIBELS. At this time, parents were asked to complete the social validity questionnaire and a form for receiving their honorarium. Furthermore, students were orally asked the questions on the social validity forms and their responses were recorded on the form by the researchers.

Results

Effectiveness of CBRPs

To evaluate the effects of the programs on the basic early reading skills of the students, three types of statistical anal- yses were undertaken. First, a one-way analysis of covari- ance (ANCOVA) was undertaken to compare the groups. The ANCOVA was conducted with the CBRP as the inde- pendent variable, posttests as the dependent variable, and pretests as the covariate. The homogeneity-of-slopes assumption to evaluate the interaction between the pretest and the independent variable in the prediction of the post- test score was undertaken. A preliminary analysis of the evaluation of the homogeneity-of-slopes assumption indi- cated that the relationship between the covariate (pretest) and the dependent measure (posttest) did not differ signifi- cantly as a function of the independent variable for LNF, ISF, PSF, NWF, and WUF measures. However, two of the seven tests, ORF and RF, did not meet the homogeneity-of- slopes assumption. Furthermore, all seven analyses testing population-adjusted means between the two groups are equal were not rejected. Means on the posttests, standard deviations, and estimated marginal means are provided in Table 1.

Pindiprolu and Marks 121

Second, paired samples t-tests were undertaken to explore if there were statistically significant differences between the pre- and posttest scores across the seven measures for the whole sample (i.e., both groups combined; n = 20). The paired samples t-tests indicated statistically significant dif- ferences on the ISF (p = .00), RF (p = .02), WUF (p = .02), ORF (p = .02), and PSF (p = .03). No statistically signifi- cant effects were found on the LNF and NWF measures. The effect sizes were medium for the ISF (.68), RF (.56), WUF (.55), ORF (.53), and PSF (.50) measure. The effect size was small for the NWF (.30) measure.

Third, paired samples t-tests were undertaken to exam- ine pre–post gains for each group. Means and standard deviations on the pre- and posttest are provided in Table 2. The students in the PLATO group had statistically signifi- cant gains at the .05 significance level on the RF measure. The students in the Funnix group had statistically signifi- cant gains on three DIBELS measures: ISF, WUF, and ORF. As the sample sizes were small (n = 7 for PLATO and n = 13 for Funnix), standardized effects size index d was calcu- lated. For the students in the PLATO group, the effect size was large for the RF measure (1.07); medium for the PSF (.74), LNF (.61), and ISF measures (.53); and small for the NWF (.27) measure. For the students in the Funnix group, the effect size was large for the WUF (.89) and ORF (.86) measures; medium for the ISF (.74) measure; and small for the PSF (.37), RF (.35), and NWF (.31) measures (Good et al., 2004; Good & Kaminski, 2002). Given that effect size is an estimate calculated from statistical inference and is less likely to be accurate when estimated from a small sample size, calculation of 95% confidence interval for the

effect size is essential to understand the magnitude of the effect (Lee, 2016). Assuming normal distribution of data, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. For the PLATO group, the 95% CI for the effect size ranged from .82 to 1.32 on the RF measure, .26 to 1.22 on the PSF mea- sure, .13 to 1.09 on the LNF measure, .05 to 1.01 on the ISF measure, and −.2 to .74 on the NWF measure. For the Funnix group, the 95% CI for the effect size ranged from .4 to .138 on the WUF measure, .37 to 1.35 on the ORF mea- sure, .26 to 1.22 on the ISF measure, −.1 to .84 on the PSF measure, −.12 to .82 on the RF measure, and −.16 to .78 on the NWF measure. As the 95% CI for the effect size con- tains “0” on the NWF measure for the PLATO group and on the PSF, RF, and NWF measures for Funnix group, these effects sizes should be considered as nonsignificant.

Parental Perceptions

The social validity questionnaire was completed by 11 par- ents in the Funnix group. Five parents indicated they used Funnix Beginning Reading, three indicated they had used the Funnix 2 program, two indicated they had used both the programs, and one did not answer. Eight parents indicated they had previous experiences using a computer-based instruction software and similar number indicated they had previous experience with teaching reading. All 11 parents indicated they were comfortable using the Funnix program but only eight agreed that it was useful in facilitating the reading skills of their child (one was neutral and the other two disagreed). Ten parents agreed (a) the overall quality of

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviation, and Adjusted Means on the Posttests for the Two Groups.

Posttest Group n M SD Adjusted means

LNF PLATO 7 47.85 19.43 45.71 Funnix 13 37.92 21.97 39.06

ISF PLATO 7 19.05 13.67 19.06 Funnix 13 25.33 10.55 25.32

PSF PLATO 7 26.28 15.53 28.40 Funnix 3 25.69 15.60 24.55

NWF PLATO 7 31.71 25.79 32.01 Funnix 13 34.07 32.86 33.91

WUF PLATO 7 34.28 19.98 27.67 Funnix 13 31.38 17.70 34.92

ORF PLATO 7 19.85 18.70 19.52 Funnix 13 23.92 31.02 24.10

RF PLATO 7 6.85 6.38 8.50 Funnix 14 7.00 9.16 6.11

Note. LNF = Letter Naming Fluency; ISF = Initial Sound Fluency; PSF = Phoneme Segmentation Fluency; NWF = Nonsense Word Fluency; WUF = Word Use Fluency; ORF = Oral Reading Fluency; RF = Retell Fluency.

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations on the Pre- and Posttests for the Two Groups.

Group

DIBELS Pretest Posttest

Measure M SD M SD

PLATO LNF 42.00 24.12 47.85 19.43 ISF 12.55 9.47 19.05 13.67 PSF 17.42 13.30 26.28 15.53 NWF 27.85 31.18 31.71 25.79 WUF 33.42 21.54 34.28 19.98 ORF 18.00 25.76 19.85 18.70 RF 0.00 0.00 6.85 6.38

Funnix LNF 37.53 24.07 37.92 21.97 ISF 12.84 11.68 25.33 10.55 PSF 21.30 11.82 25.69 15.60 NWF 28.46 36.25 34.07 32.86 WUF 19.15 16.35 31.38 17.70 ORF 17.46 28.16 23.92 31.02 RF 4.23 10.52 7.00 9.16

Note. DIBELS = Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; LNF = Letter Naming Fluency; ISF = Initial Sound Fluency; PSF = Phoneme Segmentation Fluency; NWF = Nonsense Word Fluency; WUF = Word Use Fluency; ORF = Oral Reading Fluency; RF = Retell Fluency.

122 Rural Special Education Quarterly 39(3)

the program was very good (one disagreed), (b) they would recommend the program to a friend, (c) they would use it to help another child, and (d) they would use the Funnix pro- gram over other materials for teaching reading skills (see Table 3). Regarding the ease of use of the Funnix program, most of the parents agreed that starting a lesson (10 par- ents), moving between exercises (nine parents), repeating a lesson (10 parents), and stopping the program to provide error correction were easy (10 parents). Three parents were neutral regarding their child’s ability to follow the instruc- tions of the narrator. Regarding the appropriateness of the Funnix program, all parents agreed that the activities for teaching sounds and reading words were appropriate and only one disagreed on the appropriateness of activities for teaching comprehension. Eight parents agreed with a state- ment the computer graphics/animation helped maintain their child’s attention and their feedback helped their child’s reading skills (two were neutral and one disagreed). Regarding workbook activities, nine parents agreed the activities were useful in practicing reading skills (one was neutral and another disagreed), and eight parents agreed the assessment activities for placing the child in the program were appropriate. Some of the positive responses to “com- ments and concerns” questions included the following: (a) “We loved the workbook sections!” (b) “I really thought the program helped my son with recognizing and using letters correctly. I saw major improvement from beginning to end.” and (c) “This program helped my child advance to a grade level that at the end of the previous school year he was not at.” The concern of one parent was that “It really has to be monitored (parents sit down with child). If you have other small kids, that makes it tough to do.”

All seven parents in the PLATO group completed the social validity questionnaire. The results indicated that four parents had previous experience with computer-based soft- ware and a similar number had some previous experience with teaching reading. Only two of the seven parents were able to identify the levels/modules their child accessed. All parents indicated (a) PLATO program is a very good pro- gram, (b) they would recommend the program to a friend,

(c) they would use it to help another child, and (d) they would use the program over other materials for teaching reading skills. Similarly, all the respondents felt the pro- gram helped facilitate the reading skills of their child. Regarding the ease of using the PLATO program, all seven indicated that logging onto the PLATO website and access- ing a lesson/activity was easy. Four of the seven agreed their child was able to follow the narrator’s instructions (three were neutral). All seven parents indicated their child was comfortable using the program and that the PLATO program was useful in facilitating the reading skills of their child (see Table 3). Regarding appropriateness of the cur- riculum, all parents indicated activities for teaching sounds of letters and words were appropriate. All seven parents agreed that the graphics/animation helped maintain their child’s attention (see Table 3). Six parents agreed that activ- ities for teaching comprehension were appropriate (one was neutral) and five parents thought the assessment placement activities were appropriate (one neutral and one disagreed). Regarding “comments and concerns,” parents reported the following: (a) “There were few areas that confused me, especially choosing the moral of the story.” (b) “It was sometimes hard to hear the narrator no matter how loud the volume, just sounded like it all ran together at times.” and (c) “I had to assist my child most of the lessons.” One par- ent reported concerns regarding the accessibility of the school labs during summer.

Students’ Perceptions

The results from the social validity questionnaire adminis- tered with the students in the Funnix group indicated nine of the respondents agreed they liked the Funnix program (two indicated they did not like it, and two did not answer). Regarding specific components, (a) 12 students liked the visual/animations, (b) nine students liked the activities, and (c) 11 students liked the stories (some did not answer). On their overall perception of the program, 10 students indi- cated Funnix helped them learn to read (one said “no”), and five students indicated their friends would like the Funnix

Table 3. Parental Perceptions of Computer-Based Reading Programs.

Questions

Funnix PLATO

% (n) % (n)

1. Did you have any previous experience with reading software before this study? 72.7 (8) 57.1 (4) 2. Did you have any previous experience helping others with reading instruction? 72.7 (8) 57.1 (4) 3. Overall quality of the program was very good. 90.9 (10) 100 (7) 4. If you were to help another child with reading, would you use this program? 90.9 (10) 100 (7) 5. Would you recommend this program to a friend helping his/her child with reading? 90.9 (10) 100 (7) 6. Would you use the program over other materials for teaching reading skills? 90.9 (10) 100 (7) 7. Program was useful in facilitating the reading skills of the student. 72.7 (8) 100 (7) 8. Program helped maintain child’s attention. 72.7 (8) 100 (7)

Pindiprolu and Marks 123

program (see Table 4). Some of the students’ responses to an open-ended question on what helped them to read included (a) “Funnix,” (b) “all the words,” (c) “stories,” (d) “reading,” and (e) “pretty much everything.”

The results from the social validity questionnaire admin- istered with the students in the PLATO group indicated six of the students liked the program (one did not answer). Regarding specific components, five students liked the visual/animations and activities, and six students liked the stories (see Table 4). Regarding their overall perception of the program, (a) six students indicated PLATO helped them learn to read (one said “no”), (b) five indicated the program was easy to use, and (c) five students indicated their friends would like the program (one said “no”). The students’ responses to an open-ended question on what helped them to read included (a) “stories,” (b) “sentences,” (c) “sounds,” (d) “reading parts,” and (e) “practicing and reading.” The students’ responses on what they liked about the PLATO program included (a) “I like everything,” (b) “I like to play games on the computer,” (c) “Playing the matching games,” (d) “Match,” (e) “tell the ___what,” and (f) “when you give the answers, matching game.”

Discussion

Learning to read by the end of third grade is essential for later academic success and is critical for students in rural school districts as literature indicates that they lag behind their peers in terms of their reading achievement levels (Graham & Teague, 2011; Provasnik et al., 2007). This investigation examined the effects of two CBRPs, Funnix and PLATO, on the basic early literacy skills of rural stu- dents at-risk for reading failure after 8 weeks (20 hr) of intervention. The overall ANCOVA results indicated there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups on the seven measures. Results from the overall paired samples t-tests suggested that the students made pre– post skill level gains in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Furthermore, pre– post gains for each group indicated students in both groups exhibited gains in the areas of phonemic awareness and

phonics, which are crucial early reading skills, when imple- mented by the parents. Furthermore, the students in the Funnix group had large gains in the areas of vocabulary and oral reading fluency. The students in the PLATO group had large gains in comprehension.

These findings support and extend the findings of Watson and Hempenstall (2008) and Bauserman et al., (2005) that the CBRPs, Funnix and PLATO, facilitate the basic early literacy skills of at-risk beginning readers. Another signifi- cant finding is the effectiveness of the programs in facilitat- ing the development of early literacy skills during the summer break. This is critical because the literature sug- gests an average of a month of reading learning loss during the summer because of the absence of instruction (Cooper, 2003). As children with reading difficulties do not have necessary basic early literacy skills, instruction in phone- mic awareness and phonics by parents is critical during summer months. This could potentially prevent summer learning loss and subsequent academic difficulties in the later years.

Parent Perceptions

Regarding the parent perceptions of technology, in general, most of the parents (more in the PLATO group) agreed regarding the usefulness of the programs, and all parents in both groups indicated they were comfortable using the pro- grams. All parents in the PLATO group agreed that the pro- gram helped maintain the attention of their child, facilitated the reading skills of their child, and they would use the pro- gram to help another child or would recommend it to a friend. One explanation for the very positive opinions of the program could be that parents who liked the program com- pleted the study and parents who did not like the programs may have dropped out of the study (seven dropped out of the study; five were from the PLATO group). The numbers were slightly lower for the Funnix group. This lower per- centage could have been due to the nature of the Funnix program, which is more adult-directed and is not internet dependent. Regarding Funnix, one parent commented that it was difficult for her to work one-on-one with her having

Table 4. Students’ Perceptions of Computer-Based Reading Programs.

Questions

Funnix PLATO

% (n) % (n)

1. Did you like the CBRP? 69.2 (9) 85.7 (6) 2. Did you like the activities in the CBRP? 69.2 (9) 71.4 (5) 3. Did you like the stories in the CBRP? 84.6 (11) 85.7 (6) 4. Did the CRBP help you learn to read? 76.9 (10) 85.7 (6) 5. Do you think your friends will like the CBRP? 38.5 (5) 71.4 (5)

Note. CBRP = computer-based reading programs.

124 Rural Special Education Quarterly 39(3)

other children. From the demographic questionnaire, only three of the parents had one child, and a majority had two children (11 parents). The remaining six parents had three children or more; this could have influenced the perceptions of parents who used the Funnix program. Despite the over- all positive ratings of the programs, two responses were lower for two of the program components (for both pro- grams): the clarity of narrator’s instructions and the appro- priateness of placement assessments. One of the parents also indicated in her response to an open-ended question that narrator’s voice was unclear despite her adjusting the volume level. These two factors could have affected the overall rating of the programs and are suggested areas for examination in future studies.

Students’ Perceptions

Most of the students liked the programs, thought the pro- grams helped them read, and they liked the stories in the programs. A higher percentage of the students in the Funnix group indicated they liked the graphics/visuals but less than half of the students thought their friends would like the pro- gram. A greater percentage of the students in the PLATO group liked the program, thought the program helped them learn to read, and indicated their friends might like the pro- gram. This positive rating could be due to the program being student-directed. Given these are parent-implemented the programs during summer break, the nature of the par- ent–child interactions could have influenced the students’ perceptions. For example, we visited 14 of the 20 parents to observe their implementation of the program, and our observations indicated that most parents had minimal praise rate when implementing the programs, but they provided many directions. Existing literature indicates that positive praise can facilitate (a) faster task completion, (b) intrinsic motivation, (c) students’ preference for challenging tasks, (d) students relating their success to effort, and (e) increased on-task behaviors (Droe, 2013; Gambino, 2016; Gunderson et al., 2013; Royer et al., 2019). Parent’s delivery of praise while providing summer computer-based reading interven- tion is a suggested area for examination in future studies.

Limitations of the Study and Future Research

There are some limitations to the study, and the results should be interpreted as tentative due to these limitations. These limitations include (a) small sample size and multiple comparisons, (b) disproportionate “n” across groups and grade levels, (c) the lack of treatment fidelity measures, (d) lack of a control group, and (e) nonrandom selection and attrition of the participants.

First, the sample size for the study was small (less than 15 students for each group); hence, the power of the statisti- cal tests in rejecting the null hypotheses was weak. Despite

conducting multiple tests, the null hypothesis was tested at the .05 significance level (two-tailed test) to increase the power of the test. Furthermore, effect sizes were undertaken to overcome the limited power of the statistical tests. The effect sizes computed did indicate that the results of this preliminary investigation are promising. However, the results should be considered as tentative as the students were not equally distributed across grades and groups and this could have resulted in some variance in the effect sizes computed for each group, and some of the students in both groups were also receiving summer services. Because all gains may not be attributed to the CBRPs, second-genera- tion replication studies are needed to validate the findings of this study; identify program components such as parental praise rate and intervention intensity that are likely to improve student achievement; and examine the role of moderator variables such as previous experience with read- ing software and family demographics on the findings.

Second, even though the effect sizes indicate growth in basic early literacy skills, the lack of a control group makes it difficult to understand the relative significance of the results. A control group would have provided data in under- standing the true effectiveness of the programs and the extent of summer learning loss (i.e., lack of opportunities to practice). Furthermore, a control group receiving traditional summer services would have helped examine the relative effects of the computer-based programs over summer ser- vices. Replication studies that include a control group con- dition are essential to validate the findings.

Third, this study did not employ a random selection of the participants and thus the results have limited generalizability to the wider population. Existing literature suggests that 33% of mothers and 36% of fathers of students attending rural schools have a high school diploma (Graham & Teague, 2011). In our study, most parents had some college education, and all of them had at least a high school diploma; hence, the results are applicable only to similar populations. Furthermore, only 20 of the 27 participants completed the study, indicating a high attrition rate. During the study, we found that some of the parents moved, some expressed technology problems (with PLATO), and one expressed her difficulty in accessing school labs. Because of the random assignment to a computer program, we provided the option of using the school labs for parents who did not have internet connection. This could have affected overall participation and completion. Future studies should examine the role of these moderator variables and their influence on the findings.

Implications for Practice

It is estimated that one third of all schools are in rural areas, serving 20% of all school-age student population in the United States (Fedora, 2016; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2015). Rural students with reading struggles at the beginning of

Pindiprolu and Marks 125

KG end up performing lower on third-grade reading tests than their peers from urban and suburban schools of the same socioeconomic status (SES). Furthermore, they fall behind their peers during the summer break (Fedora, 2016). Rural children not only perform lower on school readiness skills than their peers in urban and suburban school dis- tricts, but they also have limited access to highly qualified teachers and resources (Arnold et al., 2005; Fedora, 2016; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2010). Furthermore, there is a very limited research conducted on the effectiveness of academic interventions for students in rural schools (Arnold et al., 2005; Stockard, 2011; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2010). One way to overcome the barriers of resources and the lack of qualified professionals and meet the needs of struggling readers is to empower parent’s ability to provide explicit instruction in the areas of phonemic awareness and phonics. The Funnix and PLATO programs are two such programs that can be used to facilitate gains in basic early literacy skills of students at-risk for reading failure in rural commu- nities during a summer break. Given the geographic isola- tion, lack of transportation for students to access services during summer months, and nonstandard working hours of parents in rural communities, Funnix and PLATO offer schools an alternative way to provide explicit instruction in foundational literacy skills (Arnold et al., 2005; Fedora, 2016; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2010). School personnel in rural areas could partner with families and support family’s implementation of CBRPs to prevent summer slide among rural students with reading difficulties. Furthermore, given the limited access to broadband internet in rural communi- ties (Perrins, 2019), programs like Funnix offer a choice of accessing quality reading instruction without the need for an internet connection. Also, given the limited income and resources of rural communities, Funnix’s pricing and license options make it more affordable and appealing for parents and schools in their quest to support students with reading struggles.

Contributions of the Study

First, the study adds to the small pool of literature base on the effectiveness of CBRPs in promoting basic early liter- acy skills of at-risk beginning readers when implemented by parents during a summer break. More importantly, the gains made by the students were achieved in a relatively short period of time, suggesting that the two CRBPs can be instrumental in preventing summer slide/melt. Second, this study measured the perceptions of parents and students regarding ease of use, likeability, and effectiveness of the programs. The social validity data on the ease of use and desirableness is essential for understanding the sustainabil- ity of program implementation in practice. It provides par- ents and practitioners with information on the practical

value of the programs and can aid in their selection and use of programs.

Acknowledgments

We thank the families who participated in the study and Ms. Amanda Lucius for her assistance with the interobserver agreement.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by Grant H327A040103 from the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education.

References

Agodini, R., Dynarski, M., Honey, M., & Levin, D. (2003). The effectiveness of educational technology: Issues and recom- mendations for the national study (Report no. ED498071). Mathematica Policy Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/full- text/ED498071.pdf

Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003). Use students’ summer-setback months to raise minority achievement. Education Digest, 69, 19–24.

Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(6), 1–25.

Bauserman, K. L., Cassady, J. C., Smith, L. L., & Stroud, J. C. (2005). Kindergarten literacy achievement: The effects of the PLATO integrated learning system. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(4), 49–60.

Carr, P. G. (2016). NCES statement on PISA 2015 results. https:// nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2016/12_ 06_2016.asp

Carter, M. V. (n.d). Using PLATO with students with disabilities. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.57 9.7716&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for strug- gling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.50

Cooper, H. (2003). Summer learning loss: The problem and some solutions. ERIC Digest (Report no. ED475391). https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475391.pdf

Coughlin, C. (2011). Research on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction (NIFDI technical report 2011-4). National Institute for Direct Instruction.

Droe, K. (2013). Effect of verbal praise on achievement goal orientation, motivation, and performance attribution. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 23, 63–78. https://doi. org/10.1177/1057083712458592

126 Rural Special Education Quarterly 39(3)

Escueta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A. J., & Oreopoulos, P. (2017). Education technology: An evidenced-based review (NBER working paper no. 23744). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23744

Fedora. (2016). Single and double deficits in early readers in rural, low wealth communities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(2), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.866 529

Gambino, T. (2016). The effect of verbal praise on maze com- pletion. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 21(1), 54–58.

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, D., Smith, S., & Flindt, N. (2004). Technical ade- quacy of DIBELS: Results of the Early Childhood Research Institute on measuring growth and development (Technical report, no. 7). University of Oregon.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. https://dibels. uoregon.edu/assessment/dibels/dibels-sixth-edition

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of flu- ency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third- grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies in Reading, 5(3), 257–288.

Graham, S. B., & Teague, C. (2011). Reading levels of rural and urban third graders lag behind their suburban peers (Issue brief no. 28). https://scholars.unh.edu/carsey/136/

Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1-to 3-year-olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84(5), 1526–1541. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12064

Hansen, A. (2014). A review of the effects of computer-based read- ing programs on middle school students (Graduate research papers, 174). https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/174

Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge

Huffstetter, M., King, J. R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Schneider, J. J., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2010). Effects of a computer-based early reading program on the early reading and oral language skills of at-risk preschool children. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(4), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.10 80/10824669.2010.532415

Kim, M. K., McKenna, J. W., & Park, Y. (2017). The use of com- puter-assisted instruction to improve the reading comprehen- sion of students with learning disabilities: An evaluation of the evidence base according to the What Works Clearinghouse standards. Remedial and Special Education, 38(4), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517693396

Lee, D. K. (2016). Alternative to P values: Confidence interval and effect size. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 69(6), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2016.69.6.555

Lyon, G. R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Statement of Dr. G. Reid Lyon, Chief, Child Development and Behavior Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Subcommittee

on Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC.

MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101, 273–301.

Macaruso, P., Hook, P. E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advanc- ing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 162–172.

Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowl- edge of preservice and in-service teachers about early lit- eracy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(50), 472–482.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). 2017 read- ing results. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_ math_2017_highlights/files/infographic_2018_reading.pdf

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching chil- dren to read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scien- tific research literature on reading and its implications for reading assessment (NIH Publication no. 00-4754). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Perrins, A. (2019). Digital gap between rural and nonrural America persists. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewre- search.org/fact-tank/2019/05/31/digital-gap-between-rural- and-nonrural-america-persists/

Pindiprolu, S. S., & Forbush, D. (2009). Evaluating the prom- ise of computer-based reading interventions with students with reading difficulties. I-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 4(3), 41–49.

Provasnik, S., Kewal-Ramani, A., Coleman, M. M., Gilbertson, L., Herring, W., & Xie, Q. (2007). Status of education in rural America (NCES 2007-040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Quinn, B., Foshay, R., & Loomis, C. (2003). Teaching beginning reading with PLATO courseware: An overview of the new PLATO beginning reading solution and how to use it. Plato Learning.

Regan, K., Berkeley, S., Hughes, M., & Kirby, S. (2014). Effects of computer-assisted instruction for struggling elementary readers with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48(2), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913497261

Regvoort, A. G. F. M., & Leji, A. V. D. (2007). Early intervention with children of dyslexic parents: Effects of computer-based reading instruction at home on literacy acquisition. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 35–53.

Rouse, C. E., & Krueger, A. B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a “scien- tifically based” reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23, 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econe- durev.2003.10.005

Royer, D. J., Lane, K. L., Dunlap, K. D., & Ennis, R. P. (2019). A systematic review of teacher-delivered behavior-spe- cific praise on K-12 student performance. Remedial and Special Education, 40(2), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1177 /0741932517751054

Pindiprolu and Marks 127

Sandberg-Patton, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Using curric- ulum-based measurement to examine summer learning loss. Psychology in Schools, 50(7), 738–753.

Scammaca, N., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., & Torgensen, J. K. (2007). Extensive reading interventions in grades k-3: From research to practice. Center on Instruction, RMC Research Corporation.

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading disabilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.

Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective beginning reading programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391–1465.

Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2010). Computer-assisted instruc- tion to enhance the reading comprehension of struggling read- ers: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(4), 1–16.

Stockard, J. (2011). Increasing reading skills in rural areas: An analysis of three school districts. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(8), 1–19.

Stockard, J., & Wood, T. W. (2017). The threshold and inclu- sive approaches to determining “best available evidence..” American Journal of Evaluation, 38, 471–492.

Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., & Coughlin, C. (2018). The effective- ness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919

Tichnor-Wagner, A., Garwood, J. D., Bratsch-Hines, M., & Vernon-Feagans, L. (2015). Home literacy environments and foundational literacy skills for struggling and nonstrug- gling readers in rural early elementary schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1), 6–21. https://doi. org/10.1111/1drp.12090

Torgensen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at-risk for dys- lexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 40–56.

Vernon-Feagans, L., Gallagher, K., Ginsberg, M. C., Amendum, S., Kainz, K., Rose, J., & Burchinal, M. (2010). A diagnostic teaching intervention for classroom teachers: Helping strug- gling readers in early elementary school. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 183–193.

Watson, T., & Hempenstall, K. (2008). Effects of a computer-based beginning reading program on young children. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(3), 258–274.