I am attaching my current Chapter 1 and 2 which need additional work. Only needed is the Literature Review. Outline 1. Digital Technology 2. Core 5 Program Impact on Standardized Assessment Scores 3. Blended learning approaches implications on Standa

Chapter 2

Change can be difficult especially if planning for change is not clearly and concisely communicated to all stakeholders. Bolman and Deal (2018) stated, “the problem is that organizations are complicated, and communication among them adds another tangled layer” (p.25). Communication with all stakeholders is vital to the success of students participating and engaging in reading interventions and blended learning. In the K-12 setting, stakeholders include students, parents, teachers, and educational leaders. Each stakeholder has their own perspectives and, at times, those perspectives can be conflicting. Support and communication from educational leaders can alleviate the uncertainty of stakeholders created by the change from traditional classroom learning to blended learning.

A successful implementation plan requires educational leaders to assess the needs of the stakeholders while being mindful of avoiding a fixed mindset because “anxiety and the search for rapid solutions always result in the failure of nerve. Needing to be right, certain, and pain free, we narrow our thinking and put our courage on pause. Operating from a quick-fix mentality is a non-growth position” (Steinke, 2017, p. vii).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study is Tomlinson’s Differentiated Instruction. Differentiated instruction includes designing and planning instruction which is tailored to the students’ needs and abilities to ensure success. Effective differentiated instruction uses preassessments and continuing assessments to determine a student’s understanding of content at varying stages of instruction. The framework of differentiated instruction, as used in present-day, was developed to enable teachers and educational leaders to understand the need and application of differentiating content, process, product, and environment (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2013).

Review of Literature

The academic support of at-risk students is a priority of schools across the United States. With the importance placed on school improvement plans, closing achievement gaps of students using multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) has been introduced in many school districts. The inclusion of MTSS continues to be necessary for students with emotional, behavioral, and academic challenges. There is a need for explicit directions and clear expectations to improve academic performance for students who are at-risk (Benner et al., 2013). Effective instruction from teachers is key to student success (Rodriguez et al., 2016). Research-based educational strategies, like close reading, should be supported with reading interventions. Through the use of close reading, students receive practice identifying key details, vocabulary, text structure, inferences, and opinions (Fisher et al., 2015).

Reading Interventions

Reading interventions, like the education system as a whole, are continuously changing in K-12 classrooms (Austin et al., 2019). The focus of any reading intervention is to improve student achievement (Baranova et al., 2019). While reading interventions change, it is important to ensure quality implementation. Implementation requires consistency. It is necessary to continuously evaluate the implementation of interventions (Rodriguez et al., 2016). The continuous evaluation of the implementation of interventions allows interventions to match the school, not the other way around (Harn et al., 2013).

It is also important to acknowledge that the desire of fidelity of implementation should be to ensure student success. In 2013, Harn et al. stated, “to promote the effective and sustained implementations of effective interventions, researchers need to develop programs that can be adapted to match ever-changing school contexts and student populations” (p. 190).

Necessities and Successes of Reading Interventions

According to Hall and Burns (2018) reading interventions are supplemental and range in instruction style, technology used, skill focus, group size and duration, as well reading interventions of various designs can have significant benefits for struggling students when used appropriately. The focus of a small-group reading intervention should be a single skill that students are struggling to master. In addition, students should not be placed in a small- group reading intervention that concentrates on a wide-ranging set of skills simply based on a low reading score on state assessments. An intensive, small-group reading intervention should be tailored to the students’ needs and focused on specific skills. Found small-group reading interventions were more effective when the intervention focused on one skill versus a comprehensive focus (Hall & Burns, 2018).

Children at risk for developing reading disabilities have more success with reading interventions when they are presented earlier in their schooling. Though studies show gains are made in basic reading skills for at-risk students involved in reading interventions in second and third grade, the effect sizes for studies of kindergarten and first grade students was two to four times greater (Lovett et al., 2017).

Students are ill-prepared for success in continuing education and require multiple courses of development when entering higher education (Flink, 2018). According to Moats et al. (2017), “21% of students with learning disabilities are estimated to be five or more grade levels behind in reading by the time they reach high school” (p.3). In turn, these students are entering middle school classrooms without the phonemic awareness and the ability to decode words that they should have learned early in their educational career. The students with reading disabilities need interventions that focus on the foundational skills of reading prior to being expected to comprehend content-based, grade-level texts. While studying the effects of supplemental reading interventions used in a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), Coyne et al. (2018) found that supplemental reading interventions significantly and positively impacted students’ phonemic and decoding skills. Additionally, students placed in a commercial small-group reading intervention in middle grades had greater gains in word reading than without the intervention (Gwernan-Jones et al.,2018).

Vocabulary is an early indicator of reading comprehension and expressive writing skills. Vocabulary instructions should be taught in context and avoiding isolation (Elleman et al., 2019). McKeown et al.’s research (2018) suggests that a commercial academic vocabulary intervention can increase the Lexile levels and academic word knowledge of middle school students. Both of these skills lead to success in comprehension. The small-group reading intervention led to students being able to comprehend sentences with unfamiliar words using the root of the words.

Students who receive individualized interventions which are tailored to their needs perform higher in reading comprehension than students who receive standardized interventions which focus on a variety of standards (Vaughn et al., 2011). Both reading and mathematics scores on standardized assessments have improved with the use of intervention which includes cognitive factors, attitudinal skills, metacognitive skills, behavioral skills, and social skills (Bowers et al., 2015). Individualized teacher-student discussions lead to higher student motivation in reading than whole-class interactions (Neugebauer & Gilmour, 2019). Reading comprehension success related to positive behavioral regulation and metacognitive skills. Administering the program to students significantly impacted academic achievement along with relationship benefits among students (Bowers et al., 2015). The use of metacognitive reading strategies needs to be effectively and efficiently taught to students, especially those students who are involved in reading interventions. Though Babayigit’s (2019) research found that students used metacognitive reading strategies before, during, and after reading activities, he discussed that classroom teachers are responsible for using these strategies with students.

Classroom teachers play a large role in the success of reading interventions in their classrooms. A variety of strategies including read-aloud, student discussions, rereading, and using high-level texts can benefit student success. Actively including students in discussions should be emphasized when using teacher read-alouds as a reading intervention. The use of teacher read-aloud can positively affect comprehension and vocabulary within reading interventions (Marchessault & Larwin, 2013). The act of rereading allows students to practice fluency and comprehension. Rereading should involve a changing purpose, asking text-dependent questions, and connecting evidence and audience. It is important to share printed text while rereading connect text to meaning (Frey & Fisher, 2018). Beneficially, teachers can implement the use of higher-level text during small groups (Fisher & Frey, 2016). Most importantly, the effectiveness of the intervention is dependent upon the effort of school personnel to continue implementation, review planning, and ensure resource availability (Eber et al., 2011).

Poor Practices and Failures of Reading Interventions

Students relate their ability to read with their enjoyment of reading (Kasperski et al., 2019). Therefore, if they do not enjoy reading, they perceive that they have the inability to read and can begin to struggle. Reading strategies can greatly benefit struggling reading when taught explicitly when and how to use them. Lack of direct instruction of strategies inhibits students from actively using strategies (Bippert, 2019). The inability to self-regulate and determine appropriate strategies to use while reading can continue the struggle of at-risk readers (Lovett et al., 2017). Without targeted interventions, students who struggle in school will fall further behind as they continue to higher grade levels (Kasperski et al., 2019). This can be especially detrimental to students in special education. Previous early interventions have not shown growth nor closing academic gaps in special education settings. However, the earlier a student is identified and placed in special education, the more success they show in reading abilities (Lovett et al., 2017).

District-developed reading interventions have no evidence of positive effects on student achievement as measured by the state standardized assessment (Fien et al., 2018). One of the major problems with these results is the lack of consistency amongst reading intervention programs at the various study sites due to each district implementing their own program, strategies, and practices. Local economies dictate resource availability and can create deficits in student success and intervention fidelity (Tang, 2019). Reading interventions cannot be expected to support a student's success in reading if they are not consistent and implemented with fidelity. Another issue faced by schools when implementing a reading intervention is many students who struggle with reading and a difficulty placing students in appropriately sized small-group reading interventions (Hall & Burns, 2018).

Once a specific reading intervention program has been introduced and the students are placed in their necessary small group, a new set of issues can negatively impact the results of a small-group reading intervention and its implementation. Teachers can feel disengaged with the interventions when there was a lack of teacher input prior to implementation or an insufficient amount of training before teachers are expected to introduce to students (Bippert & Harmon, 2017; Hall & Burns, 2018). Despite the issues that can prevent success with small-group reading interventions, they have shown to be beneficial to struggling readers when they are implemented appropriately, consistently, and with fidelity.

The fidelity of the implementation is incredibly important when discussing new programs and their benefits. If fidelity is not appropriately measured, students and teachers are wasting time and resources. Due to limitations like student and teacher absences, scheduling, and at-risk subgroups, a realistic level of fidelity is 60-80%. Though fidelity of implementation is of high importance, it is not a singular cause for the success of an intervention (Harn et al., 2017). Austin et al. (2019) reviewed 88 studies of the use of reading interventions and quality of studies including study design, statistical treatment, Type 1 errors, and fidelity implementation. They found that the vast majority of studies had low implementation fidelity. As fidelity continues to be a point of necessary continued research, the information is pertinent to understanding the necessity of fidelity in reading intervention implementation.

Blended Learning

The study of K-12 online and blended learning has become a large focus of educational researchers and publications (Hu et al., 2019). “Between 2002 and 2011, the number of K-12 students enrolled in either partial or fully online schools increased from 220,000 to 1.8 million” (Watson et al., 2012, as cited by Pace & Mellard, 2016, p. 156).

Mehrotra et al. (2001) defined distance learning as “any formal approach to instruction in which the majority of the instruction occurs while educator and learner are not in each other’s physical presence” (p. 1). Distance learning has gained popularity in recent decades as technology advances and student demand changes. A majority of higher education institutions offer distance learning but distance learning in K-12 schools has only been introduced recently as cyber schools while brick-and-mortar schools have added blended learning into classrooms. Blended learning creates a personalized learning experience for students while combining teacher instruction in the classroom with technology (Horn & Stacker, 2011). As blended learning has been introduced and practiced within the school, the adaptive challenge of implementing distance learning has the potential to be successful with support from educational leaders and other stakeholders.

There are four models of blended learning which include the rotation model, the flex model, the a la carte model, and the enriched virtual model. The rotation model requires students to complete assignments during a scheduled time then rotate to the next assignment. Online learning only needs to happen during one rotation. The flex model allows students to work on their own schedule and allows for flexible teacher instruction and support. The a la carte model allows a student to take a single course exclusively online while continuing traditional learning in the remaining courses. The enriched virtual model, which is used in many higher education courses, requires students to participate in face-to-face instruction then complete assignments online (Horn & Fisher, 2017).

The implementation of blended learning involves a multitude of people, ideas, and schedules. Khan’s Octagonal Framework includes components to consider including institutional, pedagogical, technological, interface design, evaluation, management, resource support, and ethical. Each part is essential and should be planned accordingly (Singh, 2003). Both synchronous and asynchronous learning can be used in a blended learning program. Synchronous learning takes place in real-time using tools like lectures and video chats while asynchronous learning is on the student’s own time using tools like discussion boards (Serrano et al., 2019). The ratio of face-to-face to online experiences should be adjusted depending on the subject matter being introduced. Success of the instructor and student depends greatly on the ability to reflect and share ideas (Buatip et al., 2019). Blended learning positively impacts the learning experience of students especially in the area of listening comprehension (Syamsuddin & Jimi, 2019).

Necessities and Successes of Blended Learning

As technology continues to change and expand, it has become an important part of educational instruction. The increased use of technology in education has yielded a trend towards computer-assisted blended instruction. The use of computers and online resources alleviates strict time blocks due to class schedules and allows students to receive instruction when needed. Students are able to learn at their own level and pace (Gonzalez-Gomez & Jeong, 2019). Blended learning enables schools to provide effective and personalized instruction without greatly impacting budgets due to avoiding the need for more personnel. Students are more in control of their learning than in a traditional setting. Significant growth was made by students who participated in a blended learning program which was implemented with fidelity (Kazakoff et al., 2017). Delivering reading interventions with technology can give students an even more personalized learning experience within the small-group reading intervention. Presenting reading passages with computers improves both reading fluency and comprehension in 86% of students (Bennett et al., 2017). Blended learning interventions also benefit students in boosting their abilities with phonological skills. Using blended learning reading interventions is successful in early intervention with blending and reading non-words (O’Callaghan et al., 2016). These skills are foundational skills which are necessary to the success of students in reading. Blended learning programs have shown great success in early intervention. Struggling readers across the grade levels make progress but there are significantly better results when used in kindergarten through second grade as an early intervention (Prescott et al., 2018).

Blended learning is beneficial to a variety of students at differing reading levels and grade levels. Blended learning can also significantly enhance the reading skills of students who are of low socioeconomic status. This is an important group of students to impact as they are often a low performing subgroup on state standardized assessments. Students in a Title I elementary school made significant gains on standardized testing when using blended learning (Prescott et al., 2018). Upper elementary students had significantly higher achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs when blended learning was implemented over traditional classroom settings. Blended learning in STEM instruction was especially beneficial in low socioeconomic areas (Seage & Turegun, 2020). Blended learning helps to lower dropout rates and may benefit troubled teens, minorities, pregnant, and parenting students (Harrell & Wendt, 2017).

Arguably one of the most important aspects of any educational initiative is the perception of the students who are participating. Due to varying teaching styles, students may struggle in traditional learning environments if they feel that they cannot learn in a certain style (Alammary, 2019). The structure of a blended learning environment significantly effects student achievement positively when compared to traditional classroom environments. Blended learning is beneficial to students and teachers, giving greater access to resources and instruction (Harahap et al., 2019). Schools are able to offer courses using a blended learning model which were not previously available due to staff or financial constraints (Horn & Fisher, 2017). Blended learning resources can be re-used, saving money for schools (Akpan, 2015). If they do not have a positive perception of the blended learning program, it can negatively impact the results.

Students have positive perceptions of the blended learning environment (Gyamfi & Gyasse, 2015). Students in a blended learning intervention are able to benefit from teacher-directed instruction and online learning. They receive feedback and are able to communicate with the teacher and classmates even when they are not on campus, creating a more accessible, collaborative, and interactive experience for the students. Student-led classroom requires teachers to facilitate learning instead of lecturing (Kozikoglu, 2019). Face-to-face instruction gives students the opportunity to interact with classmates and provides motivation (Mese & Dursun, 2019). Students felt extremely connected to people within the school and also, greatly valued the importance of feeling connected. These findings place value on the need for students to feel cared for in the educational and intervention setting (Bowers et al., 2015). Students who completed computerized programs had significantly higher concept of reading achievement and self-motivation (Kasperski et al., 2019). Blended learning creates a student-centered environment that allows for independence of learners (Dwiyoga & Radjah, 2020) and students learn time-management skills in blended learning settings (Solimani et al., 2019).

Blended learning allows for personalization, feedback, and mobility in instruction (Karaaslan & Kilic, 2019). The flipped classroom strategy is a type of blended learning which prepares students for in-class activities and discussions by providing online information prior to class. Students are better able to engage with lessons and use higher level thinking, as they have more time to digest materials before interacting (Jdaitawi, 2019). Almodaires et al. (2019) sought to establish an understanding of the perceptions of students who were enrolled in a class using a flipped learning model. Within the flipped learning class, the researchers found that the students have a positive perception because they were able to clarification easily, engage and participate in more depth, and collaborate with classmates. Though flipped classrooms rely on students completing tasks online prior to face-to-face class, students and teachers reported increases in student engagement and success. Students participated more in class and has a more positive attitude towards curriculum (Kirmizi & Komec, 2019). The use of videos was more helpful to student learning than using online textbooks (Dwiyoga & Radjah, 2020). Teachers are able to spend more class time on beneficial activities, collaboration, and meaningful feedback (Jdaitawi, 2019). Different formats are easily shared by instructors and students are able to access formats that they are comfortable with. Students are able to make meaningful connections with class materials when they are able to access, process, and review online prior to face-to-face class discussions (Solimani et al., 2019).

Shortcomings of Blended Learning

Teachers must be engaged in each aspect of blended learning in order for progress and improvements to be made by struggling readers. There is also a great deal of importance placed on the teachers’ voluntary participation prior to implementation. Bippert and Harmon (2017) found teachers were having to supplement blended learning programs based on state assessments. It is imperative that districts and schools work to find blended learning approaches that match with state standards and assessments, avoiding the need for teachers to potential negatively supplement the program. Even with the use of multiple computer-based interventions, teachers were still supplementing resources (Bippert, 2019). Students were more engaged because they were able to actively participate. However, with limited resources, instructors are tasked with supplementing the programs and applications (Stover & Houston, 2019). In order to implement blended learning appropriately, lessons, units, and course designs require more upfront planning and teacher time (Akpan, 2015). Teachers struggled with the changing roles and responsibilities while students disengaged and classroom management faltered. Classroom management must be of high quality when implementing blended learning. Poor classroom management can lead to off-task behaviors and discipline issues (Stevens & Rice, 2016). Teachers also had to continue to prompt students to continue when the computer-based instruction became boring or repetitive. These issues can negatively impact the results of the blended learning environment if students become disengaged.

Once teachers are fully engaged in the blended learning environment, there are technical obstacles that can derail the success of the program. Teachers, though mostly positive, expressed frustration with technology and accessibility issues when using computer-based reading interventions. Due to technology issues and class transitions, students were able to access the computer-based interventions for half the prescribed time (Bippert, 2019). The inability to practice skills with the instructor can hinder student success (Stover & Houston, 2019).

Even when students attempt to positively interact with blended learning instruction, many challenges can negatively impact learning. Students reported online platform crashes, inability to use certain resources, and lack of connection to classmates made blended learning difficult. Students continued to struggle with time management between online learning and face-to-face instruction (Sriwichai, 2020). The lack of student participation and poor time management negatively affects the implementation of blended learning (Shamsuddin & Kaur, 2020). When blended learning is taking place at a single site, the technical issues are the potential lack of proper and updated technology and slow internet connectivity. If students are off campus for part of the blended learning class, they may lack compatible technology and internet access (Gyamfi & Gyaase, 2015). In both situations, issues with access to the material can have a negative impact on the results of the blended learning environment and thus, districts and schools should have detailed plans of action in place in the event of technology failings. Students and teachers need training to use technology and education platforms to avoid obstructing the educational benefits (Karaasian & Kilic, 2019). It is difficult to implement the use of technology in blended learning classrooms when teachers do not have the technology skills needed. Teachers and students must adapt to structural changes of classroom instruction to benefit from blended learning including convenience and flexibility of instruction and higher levels of interaction among teacher and students. Blended learning technology should directly relate to the curriculum being taught (Buwono & Ciptaningrum, 2019).

Concerns about distance learning include lack of rigor in content, inability of students to collaborate and learn from peers, less support for struggling students, and inaccessible resources (Mehrotra et al., 2001). The concerns can gravely impact students, teachers, and parents. Implementing blended learning requires those who are impacted, including students, to create a gradual plan of action (Karaasian & Kilic, 2019).

Bippert (2019) stated, “while technology holds many possibilities for student learning, schools need to consider the most effective ways to use this technology” (p. 14). The blended learning approach to literacy is not nearly as effective for students in upper grades as it is for students in grades kindergarten through second. Therefore, blended learning, in this capacity, should be used as an early intervention when students first show signs of struggling with reading. Once students are older or significantly behind in reading skills, the effectiveness of the blended learning approach diminishes. (Prescott et al., 2018).

Programs were not used with fidelity in time or programming which has an effect on the results of student achievement (Bippert, 2019). Though students in blended learning programs made more growth than traditional face-to-face instruction, students were unable to meet grade level standards dur to large gaps in knowledge (Fazal & Bryant, 2019). Some of the negative results of the research of blended learning interventions are because of the lack of focus on a specific skill (Hall & Burns, 2018). Students who struggle with decoding do not need to be in a blended learning intervention focused on vocabulary and comprehension. As well, students who struggle with a computer-based blending and fluency intervention. When blended learning interventions are not tailored to the needs of the students, they become irrelevant and students lose interest causing poor results (Bennett et al., 2017).

Teachers and students may find difficulty making a connection with the feedback presented through a blended learning approach especially if part of the blended learning takes place on campus. The difficulty in making a connection with the feedback presented can also lead to a lack of satisfaction and understanding of students’ final grades (Umek et al., 2017).

Middle Grades Reading

Humphrey (2012) stated, “simplistic solutions to build strong middle school reading programs do not exist” (p. 757). Low effect sizes have been shown when using elementary reading interventions with middle grades readers (Flynn et al., 2012). Middle schools, unlike elementary schools, tend not to have teachers trained exclusively in reading instruction nor do they have comparable rates of use of school library books. Middle schools need teachers who have explicit reading backgrounds through licensure, while middle school libraries can motivate readers with new and high interest books and magazines (Humphrey, 2012). Middle school students who struggle to understand grade-level texts can participate in questions and discussions about the text when teacher read aloud is utilized (Marchessault & Larwin, 2013). Middle school students reported lowered motivation to read in and out of school and perceived reading to be less valuable as they progressed through grade levels. However, there is a lack of validated reading motivation assessments for middle school students (Styck et al., 2020).

Teachers have a positive perception of using increasingly higher-level texts with students. They often feel that the literacy blocks within the schedule do not give enough time to effectively instruct students. The use of learning intentions requires teachers to unpack the lesson standards to create a concise connection to student learning. Teachers discussed the continued gap between texts used at the reader’s level and grade level texts. The use of more complex texts can help to bridge the gap. Teachers avoid introducing more complex texts because they want to avoid seeing students struggle or feel frustrated but peer collaboration with more complex texts gives students the ability to understand topics in a safe grouping (Fisher & Frey, 2016). Low-performing middle grades students who were explicitly taught to close read more complex texts perform significantly better on summative assessments than students who were not (Fisher & Frey, 2015).

Students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds scored lower in reading, had lower reading skills, and perform worse on standardized assessments (Kazakoff et al., 2018). Fazal and Bryant (2019) determined, “while there is emphasis on higher levels of achievement, the resources and strategies needed to make it happen especially in high poverty middle schools are often insufficient in supporting instructional practices that meet the varying learning needs of students” (p.52). Cultural differences can change how students interact and collaborate with their peers (Tang, 2019). Female middle school students were even more successful with blended learning and avoided other online uses when working (Ceylan & Kesici, 2017).

Flink (2018) stated, “improving students’ attitudes about reading is critical when attempting to improve reading comprehension and fluency” (p. 143). Issues with reading reflect in an inability to learn new information from texts. Learning to use context clues to determine the meaning of unknown words can be especially helpful for middle school readers. Vocabulary knowledge greatly effects reading comprehension in middle grades. As students transition to more difficult concepts, the difficulty of vocabulary also increases (Itler, 2019). While fluency is a determining factor in reading proficiency, there is a lack of concentration on teaching fluency in curriculum. Interventions are needed to correct the deficit. A variety of commercial reading interventions can be purchased and used by school districts to enhance fluency among struggling middle school readers (Lingo, 2014). Automaticity in word recognition relates to fluency but not to reading comprehension in middle school readers (Roembke et al., 2019). Reading comprehension, the ability to understand what is read, and morphological awareness, the understanding of the structure of the words, contribute to the academic success of students. In middle school, morphological awareness is a strong predictor of reading comprehension (Memis, 2019). Student reading levels are measured using Lexile® measures. The typical reader should have a Lexile® score of 855-1165 in sixth grade, 925-1295 in seventh grade, and 985-1295 in eighth grade (MetaMetrics, 2018). Students who read below these ranges are considered to be below grade level. An inability to read on grade level can result in student frustration (Ilter, 2019).

Middle grades reading is not simply decoding. It includes engaging with the text through social interactions. Middle grades students reported that collaboration among their peers was a positive motivator when using technology. Middle grades readers positively engage in intervention programs when they are able to make choices within the lessons and collaborate with peers (Bippert, 2019). Middle grade students were highly motivated by the use of computer-based instruction. The use of technology in middle grades can improve academic performance of low performing students (Winter, 2019). With schoolwide initiatives, students with challenges have seen positive results socially, emotionally, and academically (Eber et al., 2011). Relevancy, engagement, and collaboration greatly impact the motivation of students, especially adolescent students. The use of technology as a motivator can benefit middle school students. However, it is necessary to ensure students are exposed to a variety of resources, strategies, and motivators (Elleman et al., 2019).

Summary