Final Draft of Effectiveness of Leveled Literacy Intervention Program

Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF LEVELED LITERACY INTERVENTION 1
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Leveled Literacy Intervention Program at Spring Mills
Elementary School
Michael Fletcher, Kate Kimball, and Jeremy Mitchell
Oakland University
Lindson Feun, Ph.D.
March 24, 2018

EFFECTIVENESS OF LEVELED LITERACY INTERVENTION 2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 4
Abstract 5
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
Background 6
Assumptions and Limitations 8
Research Questions 8
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 10
Introduction of Research Topic 10
Literature Review 10
Summary of Literature 14
Chapter 3: Method of Study 16
Overview 16
Selection of Subjects 18
Evaluation/Research Design 18
Description of Instruments 19
Data Analysis 19
Summary 20
Chapter 4: Results of the Study 21
Overview 21
Triangulation of Data 22
NWEA MAP® Reading Assessment Results 22
Staff Perceptions Survey 24
Student Perceptions Survey 26
Discussion of Results 27
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations 30
Conclusions 30
Recommendations 32
Implications for Future Evaluation/Research 33
References 34
Appendices
Appendix A: Consent Forms 35
A1 - Spring Mills Elementary Consent Form/Letter to Principal 35
A2 - Parent Consent Form 36
A3 - Staff Consent Form 37
Appendix B: Surveys 38
B1 - Staff Perceptions Survey 38
B2 - Student Perceptions Survey 39
Appendix C: Data Tables and Graphs
C1 - MAP® Reading RIT Average Growth Scores 41
C2 - Staff Perceptions Survey Responses 42
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the students, teachers, support staff, and administrators at Spring
Mills Elementary. This study would not have been possible without their support and
cooperation. In particular, Principal Randy Muffley showed leadership and a commitment to all
students who were receiving instruction and intervention. Dr. Christine Abbott served as our
cohort coordinator and she was helpful and inspiring as we completed our research and
evaluations. Finally, we are grateful and indebted to Dr. Lindson Feun who supervised our work
and offered valuable insights, feedback, and support as we completed our action research project.
Abstract
In an effort to address deficient reading skills at Spring Mills Elementary, the district
implemented a program called What I Need (WIN), an intervention block intended to help
students who were deemed “at-risk” of falling behind in reading. Spring Mills used the Fountas
& Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention System (LLI) to address those needs. This paper
examines the benefits and the limitations of the LLI program on student achievement in reading
as well as the students’, teachers’, and paraprofessionals’ attitudes toward reading during the
2016-17 school year. Third through fifth grade students were selected for this study based on
results from the district’s Northwest Evaluation Association’s MAP® assessment, teacher input
and observation. Students identified as needing additional support to reach grade level
competencies were then placed into small supplemental pull-out reading intervention groups
using the LLI system.
The research study concluded that the LLI program is effectively improving the reading
proficiency of students receiving interventions. On average, students in grades 3-5 who received
intervention showed greater growth than their peers who did not receive reading services.
Despite this improvement, most classroom teachers reported feeling indifferent or negatively
towards LLI, often citing that they struggle to see LLI strategies transfer to the classroom.
Students who participated in LLI reported positive feelings towards the program and felt that LLI
helped them become better readers. It is recommended that further research be conducted to
address the discrepancies between the perception of staff and students. Additionally, future
studies should be conducted to verify students who receive LLI services continue to make greater
gains in reading than their nonintervention peers.

Chapter 1
Introduction
Background/Rationale
Research shows that the most important criterion for success in early elementary school is
success in reading. Reading is the basis for success in all other skills and when students struggle
in reading, it is a strong indicator for special education services and retention (Slavin, 2009).
Therefore, providing rigorous interventions for struggling readers is imperative.
At Spring Mills Elementary School the district has implemented The Fountas & Pinnell
Leveled Literacy Intervention System (LLI), an intensive, small group pull-out intervention for
students who struggle with reading. The goal of LLI is to get students who are not reading at
grade level to achieve grade-level competencies.
Spring Mills Elementary is part of the Huron Valley School district, located on the border of
Oakland County and Livingston County in southeastern Michigan, approximately 45 miles
northeast of Detroit. Huron Valley covers the communities of Commerce, White Lake, Milford,
and Highland, where Spring Mills is located, and ranks 6th in the state of Michigan for the
number of students it serves. Spring Mills is one of nine elementary schools in the district. The
student body demographics are limited with 94% of the students identifying as Caucasian.
Approximately 27% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Traditionally, standardized
test scores at Spring Mills, as measured by NWEA Measure of Academic Progress (MAP®) tests
and Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP), have been consistently average
with test scores from similar districts in the state. Targeted intervention has been implemented
for students who consistently score below or near benchmark of these tests.
In 2008 Huron Valley Schools implemented a district-wide WIN (What I Need) program
intended to help students who were deemed “at-risk” of falling behind. This initiative asked each
school to identify students who were performing near benchmark levels on MAP® testing but
who did not qualify to receive special education services. Those students would be pulled out for
a total of three hours per week to receive intensive intervention in their needed academic area.
Interventions would be carried out by the building’s specialist teacher and the school’s
paraprofessionals. The district mandated that all schools address the need of reading before
addressing any other academic area; with the idea being that reading-proficiency permeates into
all other subjects and has been statistically shown to be one of the key contributors to academic
success. The school district purchased and provided one LLI kit for each building.
LLI is has been well-researched by both Heinemann, its publisher, and through several
independent studies. In an independent study by Ransford-Kaldon, Flynt, and Ross (2011), it was
generalized that LLI had a positive impact on the reading levels of K-2 students in rural and
suburban elementaries. This study cited their findings that the average student receiving LLI
services improved by 1 ½ to 5 ½ benchmark reading levels versus the average improvement of 1
to 3 benchmark reading levels of students who did not receive LLI. This study did not look at
students receiving services in grades 3-5.
Spring Mills has found similar success using LLI for lower-elementary students, as
several students have achieved reading proficiency as measured by MAP® scores and
curriculum-based assessments. This has led to students regularly graduating from the WIN
program and returning to the classroom full-time. At the same time, students receiving LLI
services in grades 3-5 rarely leave the program. This juxtaposition in trends inspired the
researchers to study the effectiveness of LLI for upper-elementary students at Spring Mills.
Assumptions
This study collected data from various instruments. It is assumed that all test scores pulled for
this study were accurate and reflect the best effort of all students. The study employed staff and
student surveys which were assumed to be answered honestly and accurately. In addition, it is
our assumption that all teachers and paraprofessionals were delivering the district-adopted
reading curriculum with fidelity.
Limitations
This study did not take into account other factors that impacted academic progress such as
additional instruction, school attendance, or additional support. Limitations in this study were
that students had different classroom teachers with varying levels of ability in terms of reading
instruction and intervention. Another limitation is that this study was only based on the LLI
system in place at Spring Mills Elementary School. The results of LLI’s effectiveness could be
different in other school districts. Finally, due to the small number of subjects selected in one
school, the results cannot be generalized to other grades and schools.
Research Questions
This study answers the following questions that prompted this evaluation:
● To what extent does the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) help close the achievement
gap between students in grades 3-5 who received LLI services versus their grade level
peers who did not receive the intervention?

● What are the students’ perceptions/attitudes of LLI in improving their reading?
● What are the teachers’ perceptions/attitudes of the effectiveness of LLI in developing
students’ reading achievement?

EFFECTIVENESS OF LEVELED LITERACY INTERVENTION
10
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction of Research Topic
Our research team evaluated the effectiveness of the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI)
program in grades 3 - 5 at Spring Mills Elementary School. We were charged with evaluating
both the effectiveness of the program as well as the perceptions of the program through the eyes
of the staff and students. The experimental group consisted of students who received LLI in
grades 3 - 5. The control group consisted of the students in grades 3 -5 who needed interventions
but did not qualify due to program restrictions. Students qualify for interventions based on the
results of the NWEA MAP® assessment results. Spring Mills Elementary will use the research
results to determine whether or not to continue to use LLI as its primary intervention program in
the coming years. This chapter is a compilation of the literature the research team reviewed
during its evaluation of the effectiveness of the LLI program.
Literature Review
The LLI program is a fast-paced, intensive reading intervention system developed by Fountas
& Pinnell (2010) that grew out of the successes of the guided reading movement (Clay, 1991).
Guided reading is “an instructional context for supporting each reader’s development of effective
strategies for processing novel texts at increasingly challenging levels of difficulty” (Fountas &
Pinnell, 1996, p. 25). It was believed that teachers could better meet the needs of their students
by grouping them with peers of similar strengths and weaknesses and providing intensive
interventions 2-4 times per week. The intent of LLI is just that; to support struggling readers who
are not achieving grade level expectations by putting them in small groups with other students
11
requiring reading interventions. The program consists of organized lessons that move students
through guided reading levels to get students reading at or above grade level. The Fountas &
Pinnell (2016) website touts that the LLI program is designed to do the following when
implemented properly:
● Advance the literacy learning of students not meeting grade-level expectations in reading
● Deepen and expand comprehension with close reading
● Elevate the expertise of teachers
● Increase reading volume by engaging students in large amounts of successful daily
reading
● Increase student engagement with books that build knowledge
● Intervene with small groups of struggling readers to maximize growth
● Meet the needs of struggling readers
● Monitor student progress
Students are assessed using the program’s Benchmark Assessment System, an assessment kit
developed by Fountas and Pinnell (2009) that reading professionals use to determine the level of
text the student can process effectively in terms of decoding and comprehension. Students work
in groups no larger than three students and move through the LLI lessons in sequential order.
The lessons include rereading books from previous lessons, word work, introducing a new book
at the student’s instructional reading level, running reading records to assist with progress
monitoring, introducing a new book at an easier level to build confidence, and optional word
work (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010).
In Fountas and Pinnell’s (2008) resource book entitled When Readers Struggle: Teaching that
Works, reading professionals present strategies to literacy professionals and classroom teachers
who work with struggling readers. The authors state that struggling readers need explicit word
instruction that occurs outside a text they are reading (2009). The resource is filled with a wealth
of specific teaching ideas for helping children in kindergarten through Grade 3 who are having
12
difficulty in reading and writing. The sections include; a comprehensive approach to literacy
success, language systems and literacy learning, learning written language systems, teaching that
works, as well as appendices filled with additional resources for success.
Likewise, in a 2004 study, Put Reading First conducted by Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn,
researchers explored the building blocks that teachers use to teach children to read. The
researchers found that it was not enough for children to just be able to recognize letters; they had
to know the letters and each sound letters make. Researchers concluded that when children
cannot recognize letters names and shapes they must be taught them in conjunction with
phonemic awareness (Armbruster et al.) The LLI program includes these building blocks into
their word work portion of the lessons (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009).
The final study to be cited for the purpose of our action research project was conducted at the
University of Memphis by Carolyn Ransford-Kaldon and fellow researchers. They evaluated the
effectiveness of the LLI program (Center for Research in educational Policy University of
Memphis, 2009-2010). Their study utilized “a randomized controlled trial, and included both
quantitative and qualitative data to determine the perception of use of this program, and student
progress while using the LLI system. They conducted teacher surveys, observed 90 lessons
worth of LLI instruction of a second grade class. The control group did not receive LLI
instruction until the first and second grade evaluation period ended. Students in either group did
not receive any additional pull out services that involved literacy in any capacity during the data
collection period” (p. 27). The researchers used the Fountas and Pinnell (2010) benchmark
assessment kit and DIBELS to monitor student progress. The outcome of the research was that
when the LLI program was administered with fidelity, second grade students’ reading levels
13
were positively impacted. (Implementation of Effective Intervention, 2009-2010). The study also
concluded that students who participated in LLI instruction gained between 1.5 and 5.5
benchmark levels, where students who did not receive LLI instruction gained less than 1 to 3
benchmark levels by the study’s completion (Ransford-Kaldon, et al.). Student data were
collected during the evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the LLI interventions.
Intervention teachers’ attitudes and perceptions were also examined and the researchers (2010)
found that the reading interventionists felt:
● The LLI intervention system had a positive impact on students’ literacy development.
● A small group setting of no more than three students was beneficial to the LLI lesson
structure.
● The pacing of the lessons could not always be completed in the 30-minute time limit
● Students who severely struggled with reading deficits grappled with the fast paced nature
of this intervention.
● Interventionists were well trained and supported by district personnel.
Most of the LLI interventions are implemented in the school setting. However, at the end of each
session, students who participated in the LLI program took home books, which are copies of the
books they read during that lesson. Students were expected to take these books home and
practice with an adult. Some teachers who participated in this study felt, students were not
always receiving the added time with the books in the home setting for a variety of reasons
(Ransford-Kaldon et al., 2010). At the conclusion of their study, Ransford-Kaldon et al. (2010)
recommended that it is best to combat reading deficits by implementing LLI as early as possible.
They also stressed the importance of administering the interventions with fidelity by providing
professional development and training for reading teachers. Finally, they suggested that
partnering with parents is imperative to student reading gains.

14
The research team also took into account the negative aspects of LLI as reported in the
literature. As mentioned previously, LLI is designed to service 3-5 students 30 minutes per day.
Interventions are often completed in the classroom, while other districts pull students out of the
classroom. Both methods (push in/pull out) can be problematic. Teachers who administer
interventions within the classroom setting report that it is difficult to find effective and highly
educational literacy activities for the other students to complete while the teacher is meeting with
the LLI group. Likewise, when students receiving interventions are pulled out of the regular
classroom, they miss valuable instructional time. Still other districts such as Spring Mills
Elementary, administer LLI interventions by pulling students out to work with the reading
teacher while the regular classroom teacher must stop instruction so that intervention students do
not miss any instructional time. These examples are classroom teachers’ biggest concerns about
the LLI program. When the Center for Research in Educational Policy did the empirical study for
LLI in 2010, they reported, “LLI teachers reported that the most frequently encountered
logistical issue when implementing LLI was time and/or scheduling of LLI groups to coordinate
with classroom teachers’ schedules” (Ransford-Kaldon, p. 6). Additionally, the study reported
that teachers were frustrated with time constraints. Many stated that the LLI interventions were
challenging to complete in the allotted 30 minute time frame.
Summary of Literature
The aforementioned research supports the efficacy of targeted interventions delivered by
highly trained interventionists and reading teachers. The literature revealed that early detection
and intervention is essential to student success. Small group instruction is also advantageous for
struggling students but it is debatable whether the LLI program has a negative impact on students
15
who are not receiving interventions; those left to complete additional assignments during push-in
interventions and those who must stop their learning while students receiving interventions are
pulled out. Based on the research cited, the authors of this action research project believe the
literature makes a strong case that small group instruction using the LLI program is a viable
means of delivering literacy intervention for students who are not achieving grade level
standards. The rest of this paper will explore the findings of the action research our team
conducted which evaluates the efficacy of the LLI program in grades 3-5 at Spring Mills
Elementary.
16
Chapter 3
Method of Study
Overview
The purpose of this study was to examine both the benefits and the limitations of the Leveled
Literacy Intervention (LLI) system in grades 3-5 at Spring Mills Elementary, as well as to gauge
the attitudes and perceptions of LLI based on survey responses from students, teachers, and
paraprofessionals participating in the interventions.
According to Heinemann Publishers (2016), The Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy
Intervention System is a “short-term, supplementary intervention system proven to improve
literacy achievement of struggling readers in grade K - 12 with engaging leveled books and
fast-paced systematically designed lessons”. Teachers and paraprofessionals who administer the
LLI system must be closely examined because the system is used to advance the literacy learning
of students not meeting grade level expectation as well as in school-wide student growth data
collection.
Researchers began by posing three questions:
● To what extent does the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) help close the achievement
gap between students in grades 3-5 who received LLI services versus their grade level
peers who did not receive the intervention?
● What are the students’ perceptions/attitudes of LLI in improving their reading?
● What are the teachers’ perceptions/attitudes of the effectiveness of LLI in developing
students’ reading achievement?

17
In Evaluating Programs to Increase Student Achievement (2013), Jason states, “Consistent
with the growth concept of kaizen, evaluation carried out for the purpose of improving school
achievement strengthens the link that connects the assessment results, the curriculum’s ongoing
development, and progressively higher student performance” (p. 23). In the same vein, the
research team was assigned the task of connecting the assessment results from the MAP® test
administered in the fall, to Spring Mills’ ongoing reading intervention curriculum, which would
then lead to student achievement gains.
The team evaluated the LLI program for the impact it had on student achievement and the
attitudes and perceptions of those administering the interventions (teachers and
paraprofessionals), as well as of those who were receiving the interventions (students). A non
experimental evaluation of the LLI program was conducted over the course of one school year.
Researchers were granted administrative consent to conduct the evaluation. Spring Mills
Elementary school principal, Randy Muffley, formally approved the action research project
request (See Appendix A).
This study was conducted using quantitative and qualitative data collected during the 2016-17
school year. Quantitative data were gathered through a nonrandomized pretest and posttest
control group study of third through fifth grade reading scores. Students take the MAP
assessment in September and March to measure growth. Students are also given the Fountas &
Pinnell Benchmark Assessment (Running Record) in September and May. Qualitative data were
collected through both staff and student surveys (B1 and B2).
18
Selection of Test Subjects
The process for identifying students who needed interventions was based on MAP® test
results from the fall of 2016. Students in grades 3 - 5 who performed near benchmark levels who
were not receiving special education services were placed into intervention groups. Students
were selected by academic need for intervention, or sample of convenience, and not by random
sample. The students who received reading interventions were pulled out of for three hours per
week to receive intensive reading intervention services. Interventions were carried out by the
Spring Mills’ reading specialist teacher and the school’s paraprofessionals.
Research Design
The study was a Non-Equivalent Control Group Design and it was conducted during the
2016-17 school year. Researchers looked at the LLI program that had been an ongoing
intervention system at Spring Mills Elementary since 2012. We looked at the LLI program that
is currently in place to gather evidence of the program’s effectiveness as well as to provide a
rationale for introducing potential changes in the way interventions might be administered.
Student achievement data were calculated and compared using the results from the MAP® test
and the Fountas & Pinnell Running Record administered in the fall and spring of the 2016-17
school year. The purpose was to observe, describe, and document the LLI program as it was
naturally occurring during the 2016-17 school year. Being a descriptive design, there was no
outside manipulation or control of the variables. To avoid bias, researchers evaluated all students
in grades 3-5 who qualified for LLI support. Valid and reliable research tools and formal data
collection methods were used as well.

19
Researchers also administered staff and student surveys to gather input from teachers, support
staff, and students regarding the LLI program’s effectiveness. Staff members were asked to
complete an electronic survey and students were asked to complete a paper survey during the
school day. All of the surveys were completed in the spring of 2017 after the completion of the
LLI program.
Description of Instruments
The Huron Valley school district uses the NWEA universal screener known as the Measures
of Academic Progress®, or, MAP®. It is a computer-adaptive test for assessing proficiencies in
reading, language usage, and mathematics. When taking a MAP® test, the difficulty of each
question is based on how well a student answers all the previous questions. MAP® is also used
for progress monitoring students who qualified for reading interventions.
Researchers also gathered information from staff and students using survey questions to
ascertain the perceptions of the effectiveness of the LLI program’s effectiveness. The Staff
surveys contained four Likert scale questions and one open-ended question. The student surveys
contained one YES or NO question and two open-ended questions (See Appendices B1 and B2).
Data Analysis
The Likert scale questions on the staff survey were calculated and compared with the
responses with the other Likert scale questions. The responses to the open-ended questions were
analyzed for patterns or themes. A similar approach was used with the student survey. With the
NWEA MAP® Reading Test, the average Rausch Unit (RIT) growth points were calculated
from the pretest to posttest for both the LLI and control group students and compared visually at
each grade level.

20
Summary
The research study looked at the efficacy of the LLI program using a common set of data
sources such as MAP® test results, student survey questionnaires, and staff survey
questionnaires. The evaluators went to great lengths to identify meaningful data and processes as
well as to determine that the interventions were delivered with integrity. Additionally, surveys
were written to gather student and staff perceptions and attitudes toward the efficacy of the LLI
program. Our conclusions were based on data collected over the course of the 2016-17 school
year (See Appendices, Conclusions, and Recommendations).

21
Chapter 4
Results of the Study
Overview
The purpose of our research was to examine both the benefits and the limitations of the
Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) program. Our research team modeled after
Ransford-Kaldon’s (2009-10) University of Memphis research project referenced in chapter two
of this study. Their university research team utilized a randomized controlled trial with both
quantitative and qualitative data to determine the perception of use of the LLI program, as well
as student progress while using the LLI system. Likewise, the Spring Mills research team used
three data sources analyzing quantitative data (fall and spring assessment results) and qualitative
data (staff surveys and student surveys) to measure student growth in reading as well as attitudes
and perceptions of the LLI program. The results of the study will determine whether or not
Spring Mills Elementary should continue to use LLI as the primary reading intervention program
in grades 3 - 5.
Our study began by following 20 out of 68 third grade students, 14 out of 79 fourth grade
students, and 18 out of 85 fifth grade students at Spring Mills Elementary. These students were
recommended for LLI based on the results of the 2016 fall screening of the MAP® assessment.
Additionally, we examined the attitudes and perceptions of the LLI program based on survey
responses from students, teachers, and paraprofessionals participating in the interventions. The
research team sent parent permission slips home so that parents could offer consent for their
students’ participation in the research (See Appendix A2). Staff Consent forms were also issued
to participating teachers and support staff members seeking their consent to participate in the
22
action research for Spring Mills Elementary (See Appendix A3). In this chapter, data will be
presented and analyzed illustrating and comparing the outcomes for the students participating in
the LLI program, as well as the attitudes and perceptions survey results from students receiving
LLI and the survey results of teachers and paraprofessionals involved in administering
interventions.
Triangulation of Data Results
In order to answer the research questions our team analyzed data from quantitative and
qualitative sources:
1. NWEA MAP® Reading Test administered in the fall of 2016 and the Spring of 2017 to
determine growth of students in LLI compared to non intervention peers.
2. Staff Perceptions survey administered in the fall of 2017 to ascertain their attitudes
toward the effectiveness of the program.
3. Student Perceptions survey administered in the fall of 2017 to ascertain whether or not
they feel they are better readers as a result of the LLI program.
Northwest Evaluation Association MAP® assessment results
The main method for determining student growth in reading at Spring Mills Elementary is the
NWEA MAP® Reading Test administered in the fall and spring of each school year. The
research team used the assessment results from the fall 2016 screening and compared them to the
spring 2017 test results (See Appendix C1). At the beginning of the study it was hypothesized
that if LLI was an effective program for students who are behind in reading, then there should be
a reflection in students’ MAP® Reading scores from fall to spring; thereby justifying the
students’ reading growth.

23
To determine growth, students’ fall 2016 and spring 2017 MAP® Rausch Unit (RIT) reading
scores were compared between intervention and nonintervention students (See Appendix C1).
The average RIT growth points for all students in all grades was 7.14 points (196.74 → 203.89),
5.64 points (201.06 → 206.70) for nonintervention students, and 10.77 points (186.44 → 197.22)
for students in intervention receiving LLI. Thus, one can deduct that LLI small group
intervention is producing better growth results than the greater student body. From a critical
lens, one could argue that it is easier to move the growth needle when there is a wide deficit to
overcome, whereas growth might be more difficult when you are already high performing.
However, outperforming by 5.13 points, nearly 100% better is substantiating evidence that the
intervention program is successful. The disheartening news is that while these students are
growing at a higher rate than their non intervention peers, they are still behind grade level
benchmark in reading. The intervention group’s final average spring growth score was 197.22,
which is still 3.84 points behind their nonintervention peer’s fall average score of 201.06, and
only 0.48 higher than than the 196.74 average score of all students in the fall.
MAP® Reading scores are also broken out by growth at each grade level. In the 3rd grade,
intervention students bested their nonintervention peers growth by 4.82 points, growing from
177.40 to 189.55. In 4th grade, intervention students grew 12.27 points from 184.04 to 196.31,
6.80 points better than their non intervention peers. Lastly, 5th grade intervention students grew
7.89 points from 197.89 to 205.79, 3.79 points better than their non intervention peers. Again, as
with data for all grades, the growth is very promising with regard to closing the achievement gap,
but they are still behind their grade level peers.

24
Staff Perceptions Survey
The staff at Spring Mills Elementary received a digital survey via work email asking for their
input on the effectiveness of the LLI program used during the building’s WIN intervention time
with struggling readers (See Appendix B1). The survey contained four multiple choice questions
pertaining to their perception of the effectiveness of LLI and how it transfers back to the
classroom. Out of the 23 staff members who were eligible to complete the survey, twenty
responded. The survey also contained one open-ended response to allow for feedback that was
not presented through the questions. Of the twenty teachers who completed the survey, six chose
to provide additional input and feedback. The following comments were reported on staff
surveys (See Appendix C2):
Although I see growth with students reading levels who are using the LLI program, I don't see much
carryover with strategies in the classroom.

The program may work, but with the program being run by people who do not work everyday, it is
not noticed in the upper grades.

In the lower grades, it is more noticeable, but still little carried over into the classroom.
This program is extremely beneficial for all students in our school.

I am not sure if the LLI works or not, I feel one huge problem with the intervention is ABSENTEEISM.
Whether it is the student or our schedule or the para is absent-the 6-8 week intervention ends up
only receiving 4-5 weeks

I am also unsure that the classroom teacher could run an effective intervention with a class full of
students

The program does not work for those few students that are really dyslexic. Those students need a
more structured approach in an intervention.
I feel we, at HVS, would have more success in a shorter period of time, if we adhered to 3 in a group
as is proposed for the intervention.

The LLI program moves lower el kids through levels more quickly. Upper el dives into the depth and
breath of each level, and the students move more slowly through fewer levels.
25
The program operates on an even/odd numbered lesson system. These rotate between
instructional and independent levels.

To be honest, I am not trained or highly familiar with components or strategies that make up the LLI
intervention program. I know that the LLI intervention program is utilized with my students that
participate in literacy support groups. The work done in the support group is separate from the
classroom intervention. While I'm sure that the students are utilizing strategies from the LLI
program, I am not aware of the specific strategies used in the program. Due to my lack of personal
experience with the LLI program, I stated that I am undecided to several questions. I am unable to
speak to the specifics of the LLI program. I do highly agree that each of the students that attend the
LLI intervention groups and receive classroom intervention have shown growth this year.
The survey results indicated a wide variety of opinions from the staff at Spring Mills. When
asked if teachers saw a difference between students receiving LLI services and those who did
not, 40% of respondents answered “undecided” while 25% responded “disagreed,” 20% said
“agree,” 15% said “strongly agree.” None of the respondents indicated that they “strongly
disagree” that LLI made a difference for students receiving services. Staff seemed to be equally
divided when asked to respond to whether they saw carry over of LLI strategies to everyday
classroom performance; with 40% of respondents stating “undecided,” 40% answering “agree,”
15% responding “disagree,” and 5% saying “strongly agree.” There were more divisive results
when the staff was asked whether they believe LLI reading intervention helps all students in
need with 40% of respondents answering “disagree,” 25% stating “agree,” 20% responding
“strongly agree,” and 15% were “undecided.” Finally, when asked whether they feel LLI closes
the achievement gap between students “at grade level” and students “below grade level,” 45% of
the staff agreed LLI works to close the achievement gap, 35% were “undecided,” 15%
“disagreed” that LLI closed the gap, and 5% “strongly agreed” LLI closed the achievement gap
(See Appendix C2).

26
The results seem to suggest a disconnect in communications between the paraprofessionals
administering the LLI interventions and the classroom teachers. Most teachers are unaware of the
strategies taught during interventions which prevents them from seeing those strategies in the
classroom. This, in turn, makes it difficult for the teachers to reinforce those strategies. This
could be a key contributor to the apathy or dissatisfaction felt by the staff towards LLI. This lack
of communication and reinforcement of skills could also contribute to results that do not
demonstrate the full potential of the LLI program.
Student Perceptions Survey
The student survey contained three questions; one YES or NO question where students could
choose whether they felt the interventions made them a better reader or not; one question seeking
input on what participants liked about the program; and one question seeking input on what
participants disliked about the program (See Appendix B2).
Of the 34 students surveyed, 30 said YES they feel like they are better readers as a result of
LLI, 2 students said NO they do not feel they are better readers as a result of LLI, and 2 selected
YES and NO in their responses. In the comment section, students said they liked LLI and they
really liked their LLI teachers. They also requested books at a more challenging reading level
and larger room to meet for their intervention groups. Therefore, there is an overwhelming
majority of students who enjoyed the intervention time, the program and also felt there was a
positive impact on their reading ability. One limitation to consider is that these surveys were
answered in the presence of the paraprofessionals that provide the LLI reading intervention
services. This may have persuaded the students’ answers.

27
Discussion of Results
The results of our study conducted at Spring Mills Elementary show a direct correlation to the
research cited in our literature review. Our first research question asked: To what extent does the
Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) help close the achievement gap between students in grades
3-5 who received LLI services versus their grade level peers who did not receive the
intervention? The outcome of the research referenced in the literature review (Ransford-Kaldon
et al., 2010) was that reading levels were positively impacted when the LLI program was
administered with fidelity. Additionally, their research showed that students who participated in
LLI instruction gained between 1.5 and 5.5 average scaled score points benchmark levels over
their peers. Those students who did not receive LLI instruction gained fewer than 1 to 3
benchmark levels.
Our own research results concluded similar findings with third grade students growing 4.82
points, fourth grade growing 12.27 points, and fifth grade growing 7.89 points over their
nonintervention peers. The growth is significant in the third and fifth grade groups but the
growth is staggering in the fourth grade group showing double digit growth over their
nonintervention peers. The downside is that, despite the significant gains, intervention students
still lagged behind their grade level peers.
Further results of our study conducted at Spring Mills Elementary showed a disparity between
the research described in our literature review and the survey results of our study. Our second
and third research questions asked: What is the student perception/attitude of LLI in improving
their reading? And What is the teachers’ and paraprofessionals’ perceptions/attitudes of

28
effectiveness of LLI in developing students’ reading achievement? Both Ransford-Kaldon et al.
(2010) and Armbruster et al. (2004) evaluated the effectiveness of the LLI program as well as the
perceptions of those involved in administering the interventions and those receiving the
interventions. Both sets of researchers found that intervention staff reported the LLI system had a
positive impact on student’s literacy development, they felt well trained and supported by district
personnel, and that small group interventions were key to the program’s success. On the
contrary, staff felt that students who were far below their grade level peers struggled with the fast
paced lessons and that the lessons could not always be completed within the 30-minute time
frame. The Spring Mill’s staff survey responses were not as positive, having 40% of the
respondents saying they were largely “undecided” when asked about the effectiveness of LLI.
The biggest complaint amongst staff was that all teaching had to cease during LLI intervention
times. Teachers were not to teach any new material until intervention students returned to the
classroom. Teachers reported feeling frustrated that they could not advance reading and writing
instruction students who remained in the classroom during intervention times.
Finally, it is important to consider other variables that could potentially impact the results of
our data that were not addressed with our research questions. For instance, the study does not
consider socio-economic levels (those who qualify for free and reduced lunch) of students in
intervention groups despite research indicating that students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds are more at risk for failure in reading. Likewise, the study does not factor in IQ
levels of students who are receiving LLI. Students in LLI do not have an IEP and, therefore, do
not qualify for services. Students who are learning English as a Second Language (ESL) are not
taken into account in our research study either.

29
The research team concluded that the LLI program is effective when interventions are
conducted with fidelity and by highly trained reading teachers. The data supports the positive
correlation between students who received LLI and reading growth based on the results of the
fall and spring MAP® Reading scores. Therefore, the research team confers with
Ransford-Kaldon’s (2010) recommendation that small group reading interventions are an
effective way of delivering literacy intervention for students who are not achieving grade level
standards.
30
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overview
The evaluation of the LLI program at Spring Mills Elementary as illustrated in chapter four
showed that the intervention program is effectively improving the reading proficiency of students
receiving interventions. On average, students in grade 3-5 who received interventions showed
greater growth than their peers who did not receive reading interventions. Despite this
improvement; however, most classroom teachers reported feeling indifferent or negatively
towards LLI, often citing that they struggle to see LLI strategies transfer to the classroom. They
also complained absences can have a negative impact because students are unable to complete all
of the lessons in the 6 - 8 week intervention schedule when support staff members and/or reading
intervention students are absent. As a result, they only get through 4 - 5 weeks of lessons.
Student survey results, on the other hand, were far more complimentary of the LLI program.
Intervention students who participated in LLI reported feeling positive towards the reading
interventions and felt that LLI helped them become better readers.
Conclusions
The first major finding was that students who received LLI demonstrated an additional 8.33
points growth in reading over their nonintervention peers. On average, students in 3rd grade who
received intervention services made an additional 4.82 points growth, while fourth grade grew
12.27 points, and fifth grade grew 7.89 points.
These findings suggest that, in general, the small LLI group intervention is producing better
growth results than the results of those who are not receiving interventions. Therefore, the
31
student achievement results provide strong evidence that students who participate in LLI make
significant gains in literacy compared to their nonintervention peers. The research team also
analyzed MAP® Reading scores to compare reading growth in grades 3 - 5. In 3rd grade
intervention students grew 4.82 points over their nonintervention peers; 4th grade showed the
most impressive growth 12.27 points over nonintervention peers, and 5th grade showed growth
of 6.80 points over nonintervention peers.
The growth is very promising with regard to closing the achievement gap, but it is worth
noting that students participating in LLI are still lagging behind their grade level peers in
reading. As mentioned in chapter four, the LLI group’s final average spring RIT score was
197.22, which is still 3.84 points behind their nonintervention peer’s fall average score of
201.06, and only 0.48 higher than than the 196.74 average score of all students in the fall.
The second major finding was that staff perception of the LLI program does not align with the
positive student achievement results that provide strong evidence that students who participate in
LLI make significant gains in literacy compared to their nonintervention peers. Unlike the
research findings of Ransford-Kaldon et al. (2010) and Armbruster et. al. (2004), whose research
found that intervention staff and teachers reported the LLI system had a positive impact on
student literacy development, the Spring Mills staff perceptions were not as optimistic. Staff
survey results indicated a disparity between those who feel LLI is an effective program and those
who feel it is ineffective. The survey results further indicated a breakdown in communications
between support staff members administering LLI and the classroom teachers. Classroom
teachers reported being frustrated with the LLI program because they are not taught the
intervention strategies used during LLI and, therefore, are unable to reinforce them in the
32
classroom. They expressed additional frustrations with regard to absenteeism. Teachers reported
that when support staff and/or students are absent for interventions, it is difficult to get through
all of the intervention lessons in a 6-8 week period. These findings suggest that the lack of
communication amongst teachers and support staff members, absenteeism, and classroom
teachers’ inability to reinforce the LLI skills in the classroom are contributing factors to the
apathy and dissatisfaction toward the LLI program. In turn, these factors could potentially have a
negative impact on the LLI program’s effectiveness.
Recommendations
The results of the study indicate that the LLI program does positively impact students who
receive reading interventions. The research team recommends that Spring Mills Elementary
continues to use the LLI program for their reading inventions to help close the achievement gap.
Results of the perception surveys showed that, despite the positive impact LLI has of students
in grades 3-5, the staff at Spring Mills have negative perceptions of the intervention program.
Classroom teachers complain that they are unaware of what happens while students are receiving
LLI services. As a result, staff cannot be sure if LLI strategies are being transferred to the
classroom, nor can they support the strategies being taught.
It is recommended that Spring Mills Elementary begins to explore the disconnect between the
success rate of the program and the dissatisfaction amongst classroom teachers. The research
team also recommends that the district offers teachers and support staff opportunities to attend
LLI information sessions and professional development so they are better trained on the
program’s content and strategies being taught. This training and communication would serve to
align classroom teachers with the intervention teachers. Providing information about LLI would
33
also help address concerns that surfaced from the perception surveys about what to do with
students who receive LLI services when intervention teachers are absent from school.
Implications for Future Evaluation/Research
This research has generated additional questions that need further investigation. It is
recommended that further research be undertaken in the following areas:
● Understanding that this research was a snapshot of the effectiveness of LLI for one
school year, continued research to see if these results are repeated over time would help
to see if LLI is continually effective for students in grade 3-5
● A longitudinal study following students who received LLI as they enter middle school
and beyond would help determine if the effects of LLI last beyond the year students
received services.
● We have a hunch that having small group instruction is the cause of the growth seen in
students receiving intervention. To deduce if LLI was the cause of the growth observed, a
controlled experiment should be completed with one group receiving LLI and the other
receiving generic small group instruction.
● Due to the fact the participants for this research were not randomly selected, the
effectiveness of the LLI program cannot be generalized. Conducting a experiment with
randomly-selected participants who receive LLI would help determine if this intervention
is effective for students in grades 3-5.

34
References
Allington, R. & Walmsley, S. (1995). No Quick Fix: Rethinking Literacy in America’s Schools.
Newark, Delaware: Teachers College Press.
Allington, R. (2006). What Really Matters for Struggling Readers. Boston, Massachusetts:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Clay, Marie. (1998). Becoming Literate. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
Clay, Marie. (1997). Reading Recovery: A Guidebook. Portsmouth, New Hampshire:
Heinemann.
Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G.S. (2016). Leveled Literacy Intervention. Portsmouth, New Hampshire:
Heinemann..
Jason, M.H. (2008). Evaluating Programs to Increase Student Achievement. Corwin Press.
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Slavin, R.E. (2009). Effective Reading Programs for Title One Schools. Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University.

35
Appendix A1: Principal Consent for Action Research Project
October 1, 2016
Mr. Randy Muffley, Principal

Spring Mills Elementary School
3150 Harvey Lake Rd.
Highland, MI 48356
Dear Mr. Muffley,
We are part of an education specialist cohort from Oakland University conducting an action
research project on the effectiveness of the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) program. Our
research questions are: To what extent does the LLI program help close the achievement gap
between students who are receiving LLI services versus their grade level peers? and What are
the students’, teachers’, and paraprofessionals’ perceptions and attitudes of effectiveness of LLI
in developing reading achievement?
We are seeking permission to survey both staff and students involved in the LLI program. Our
evaluation will focus on grades 3 - 5. We would like to conduct our surveys in March 2017. Prior
to conducting the survey we will get consent from parents, students, and staff. Parents may elect
to opt their children out of the evaluations and all information will remain anonymous. There is
no risk in taking this survey and subjects may discontinue participation at any time without
penalty or loss of benefits.
When the research is complete, the findings will be made public but no student information will
be identifiable as the evaluation is being completed anonymously. The information from our
research will benefit future students and staff as we plan on improving our reading intervention
program. We would appreciate your approval for this project. Please indicate your permission on
the form below and return it to Michael Fletcher. If you have specific questions regarding this
research project, please contact Michael Fletcher at (614) 203-7976, Kate Kimball at (810)
591-6667, or Dr. Lindson Feun, Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor, Oakland University, (248) 623-9233.
Thank you for your consideration,
Michael Fletcher, Teacher Kate Kimball, District, Librarian Jeremy Mitchell, Principal
Spring Mills Elementary Grand Blanc Schools Indian Hill Elementary
By signing below I am granting permission for the Oakland University cohort group to conduct a
survey of students and staff involved in the LLI reading program.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Administrator’s Signature Date
36
Appendix A2: LLI Parent Consent Form

September 15, 2017
Dear Parent(s),
We are part of an education specialist cohort from Oakland University conducting action
research on the effectiveness of the Leveled Literacy Intervention program at Spring Mills
Elementary School. The purpose of the program evaluation is to determine the long-term
effectiveness on increasing reading proficiency in grades 3-5. One of our research questions is:
What are the students’ perceptions and attitudes of the effectiveness of LLI in developing their
reading achievement?
Your child’s feedback is very valuable to us. We will be asking the students in grades 3 - 5 who
are participating in the LLI program to complete a survey. Your student’s participation is
completely voluntary and all information provided is confidential. No names will be requested
on the survey. There is no risk to your students in taking this survey. It will not impact his/her
grade. You or your child can withdraw the consent to participate at any time. In order for your
child to participate in this survey we need the permission slip at the bottom of this letter returned
no later than May 15, 2017. The information used from this survey will benefit future students as
we plan for improving reading interventions at Spring Mills Elementary school.
When the research project is complete, the findings will be made available to the public but no
student information will be identifiable, as the surveys will be completed anonymously. Please
contact Michael Fletcher, Teacher, at Spring Mills Elementary School at (248) 684-8130 or
Lindson Feun, Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor, Oakland University, (248) 623-9233. For questions
regarding the human subjects in research, you may contact Dr. Christine Hansen, Chair, Oakland
University Institutional Review Board, (248) 370-2552
If you do not wish for your child to participate in the study, please sign and return the form
below. We hope to have 100% participation in an effort to determine the program’s
effectiveness. If you have any questions, please call me at xxx-xxx-xxx. I would be happy to
answer any questions and address concerns.
Respectfully,
Michael Fletcher Kate Kimball Jeremy Mitchell
_____ Yes, my child may participate in the LLI action research survey.
_____ No, my child may not participate in the LLI action research survey.
Parent/Guardian Signature _______________________________ Date: _____________

**Please keep one copy of the consent and have your student return the signed form to Mr.
Fletcher.
37
Appendix A3: Staff Consent Form

September 1, 2017
Dear Colleague,
We are part of an education specialist cohort from Oakland University conducting action
research on the effectiveness of the Leveled Literacy Intervention program at Spring Mills
Elementary School. The purpose of the program evaluation is to determine the long-term
effectiveness on increasing reading proficiency in grades 3-5. Our research questions are: To
what extent does the LLI program help close the achievement gap between students who are
receiving LLI services versus their grade level peers? and What are the students’, teachers’, and
paraprofessionals’ perceptions and attitudes of effectiveness of LLI in developing reading
achievement?
Your feedback is very valuable to us. We will be asking the teachers and paraprofessionals
who are involved with the LLI program in grades 3 - 5 to complete a survey. There is no risk in
taking this survey. Your participation is completely voluntary and all information provided is
confidential. No names will be requested on the survey. In order for you to participate in this
survey we need the permission slip at the bottom of this letter returned no later than May 15,
2017. You may withdraw your consent at any time.
The information used from this survey will benefit future students as we plan for improving
reading interventions at Spring Mills Elementary school. When the research project is complete,
the findings will be made available to the public. Please contact Michael Fletcher, Teacher, at
Spring Mills Elementary School with questions regarding the research or consent at (248)
684-8130 or Lindson Feun, Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor, Oakland University, (248) 623-9233. For
questions regarding the human subjects in research, you may contact Dr. Christine Hansen,
Chair, Oakland University Institutional Review Board, (248) 370-2552
If you do not wish for your child to participate in the study, please sign and return the form
below. We hope to have 100% participation in an effort to determine the program’s
effectiveness. If you have any questions, please call me at xxx-xxx-xxx. I would be happy to
answer any questions and address concerns.
Respectfully,
Michael Fletcher Kate Kimball Jeremy Mitchell
_______________________________ ________________________
Staff Signature Date
38
Appendix B1: LLI Staff Perceptions Survey
The purpose of this survey is to acquire staff member’ opinions on how effective the LLI
program has been in terms of student improvement in reading. The data gathered will be used to
evaluate the current use of LLI and will help determine future use of the LLI program. Please do
not put your name anywhere on this document. Thank you for your participation.
Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention Program

Staff Perception Survey
1. There is a noticeable difference between students that are receiving LLI reading
interventions and those that are not.
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree
O O O O O
2. LLI reading intervention students demonstrate a carry over of LLI strategies into everyday
classroom performance.
O O O O O
3. The LLI reading intervention program helps all students in need of intervention.
O O O O O
4. The LLI reading intervention program closes the achievement gap between ‘at grade level’
and ‘below grade level’ students.
O O O O O
39
5. Please provide any open-ended feedback that you think would help understand the context of
your perceptions of the effectiveness of the LLI reading intervention program:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
40
Appendix B2
Student Perceptions Survey
1. Do you feel like you’re a better reader as a result of WIN?
YES NO
2. What did you like about WIN?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3 . What is it about WIN that you think could be improved?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
41
Appendix C1 - MAP® Reading RIT Average Growth Comparing Intervention and Non
Intervention Students
MAP Test Average Growth - All vs Intervention vs. Non Intervention
3rd Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth

All 186.04 194.79 8.75
Non Intervention 189.65 196.98 7.33

Intervention 177.40 189.55 12.15
4th Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth

All 198.22 205.92 7.71

Intervention 184.04 196.31 12.27
5th Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth

All 205.96 210.94 4.98

Intervention 197.89 205.79 7.89
All Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth

All 196.74 203.89 7.14

Intervention 186.44 197.22 10.77
42
Appendix C2 - LLI Staff Perceptions Survey Responses

43
Appendix C2 - LLI Staff Perceptions Survey Responses (cont.)

Final Draft of Effectiveness of Leveled Literacy Intervention Program

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Draft of Effectiveness of Leveled Literacy Intervention Program

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Running head: EFFECTIVENESS OF LEVELED LITERACY INTERVENTION 1

Michael Fletcher, Kate Kimball, and Jeremy Mitchell

Lindson Feun, Ph.D.

March 24, 2018

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations 30

using the LLI system.

gains in reading than their nonintervention peers.

Therefore, providing rigorous interventions for struggling readers is imperative.

grade level to achieve grade-level competencies.

Oakland County and Livingston County in southeastern Michigan, approximately 45 miles

services improved by 1 ½ to 5 ½ benchmark reading levels versus the average improvement of 1

students receiving services in grades 3-5.

reading curriculum with fidelity.

school, the results cannot be generalized to other grades and schools.

peers who did not receive the intervention?

● What are the students’ perceptions/attitudes of LLI in improving their reading?

● What are the teachers’ perceptions/attitudes of the effectiveness of LLI in developing

students’ reading achievement?

Introduction of Research Topic

during its evaluation of the effectiveness of the LLI program.

work (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010).

works, as well as appendices filled with additional resources for success.

found that the reading interventionists felt:

partnering with parents is imperative to student reading gains.

challenging to complete in the allotted 30 minute time frame.

The aforementioned research supports the efficacy of targeted interventions delivered by

paraprofessionals participating in the interventions.

Intervention System​ is a “short-term, supplementary intervention system proven to improve

Researchers began by posing three questions:

peers who did not receive the intervention?

● What are the students’ perceptions/attitudes of LLI in improving their reading?

● What are the teachers’ perceptions/attitudes of the effectiveness of LLI in developing

students’ reading achievement?

In ​Evaluating Programs to Increase Student Achievement ​(2013), Jason states, “Consistent

then lead to student achievement gains.

attitudes and perceptions of those administering the interventions (teachers and

request (See Appendix A).

Selection of Test Subjects

Spring Mills’ reading specialist teacher and the school’s paraprofessionals.

is currently in place to gather evidence of the program’s effectiveness as well as to provide a

collection methods were used as well.

of Acad​emic Progress®, or, MAP®. It is a computer-adaptive test for assessing proficiencies in

for progress monitoring students who qualified for reading interventions.

each grade level.

year (See Appendices, Conclusions, and Recommendations).

Results of the Study

Ransford-Kaldon’s (2009-10) University of Memphis research project referenced in chapter two

Triangulation of Data Results

determine growth of students in LLI compared to non intervention peers.

toward the effectiveness of the program.

Northwest Evaluation Association ​MAP®​ assessment results

students’ reading growth.

but they are still behind their grade level peers.

Staff Perceptions Survey

surveys (See Appendix C2):

(See Appendix C2).

The results seem to suggest a disconnect in communications between the paraprofessionals

demonstrate the full potential of the LLI program.

Student Perceptions Survey

participants disliked about the program (See Appendix B2).

services. This may have persuaded the students’ answers.

still lagged behind their grade level peers.

their reading?​ And ​What is the teachers’ and paraprofessionals’ perceptions/attitudes of

Intervention System is a “short-term, supplementary intervention system proven to improve

In Evaluating Programs to Increase Student Achievement (2013), Jason states, “Consistent

of Academic Progress®, or, MAP®. It is a computer-adaptive test for assessing proficiencies in

Northwest Evaluation Association MAP® assessment results

their reading? And What is the teachers’ and paraprofessionals’ perceptions/attitudes of

effectiveness of LLI in developing students’ reading achievement? Both Ransford-Kaldon et al.

Clay, Marie. (1998). Becoming Literate. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

Clay, Marie. (1997). Reading Recovery: A Guidebook. Portsmouth, New Hampshire:

Parent/Guardian Signature ___________________ Date: _