1. Introduction
Across the United States, reading achievement data indicate that the majority of students have been performing and continue to perform below a proficient level in reading (Irwin et al., 2022; McFarland et al., 2017, 2019). For students with disabilities, outcomes are even more alarming as there is a pronounced disparity between the reading achievement of students identified with and without disabilities, and this gap persists over time (Cutting & Levine, 2010; Gilmour et al., 2019; McFarland et al., 2019; Morgan et al., 2011). Furthermore, the number of students who received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) increased from 13% to 14% of total public school enrollment from the 2009–2010 to 2019–2020 school year (Irwin et al., 2021). Among students receiving special education services, approximately 33% of students are identified with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs), and 85% of students with SLDs have a primary area of need in reading (DePaoli et al., 2015; McFarland et al., 2019).
To address the state of reading achievement, federal law mandates and reinforces that teachers implement scientifically- or evidence-based research practices within general and special education curricula (Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], 2015; IDEA, 2004). Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are those that have been proven to be effective at improving student outcomes (Cook et al., 2019; Cook & Odom, 2013). Research has indicated that high-quality, evidence-based, explicit instruction of foundational literacy skills is key to supporting the diverse learning needs of students (Blachman et al., 1999; Castles et al., 2018; D’Angiulli et al., 2004; Gersten et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2009; Torgesen et al., 2001). Therefore, the provision of high-quality, evidence-based instruction in foundational literacy skills will substantially improve national reading outcomes (Castles et al., 2018; Joshi et al., 2009; Spear-Swerling, 2019; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2014).
When implementing EBPs in reading, it is important that teachers implement the practices with fidelity (Capin et al., 2022; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Quinn & Kim, 2017; Vaughn et al., 2015). Fidelity of implementation has various definitions, although it is generally defined as the implementation of the critical components of an intervention as intended or designed; however, fidelity is broadly considered to be multidimensional (Capin et al., 2022; Harn et al., 2013). Researchers have captured the multiple dimensions of fidelity under two broad categories: (a) structural dimensions and (b) process dimensions (Harn et al., 2013). These dimensions vary in the ways in which fidelity is defined and measured.
Structural dimensions of fidelity are objective and indicate whether important pieces of the intervention were delivered. Structural dimensions include measuring (a) program adherence (i.e., central components of the intervention), (b) time allocation (e.g., number of minutes), and (c) intervention completion (e.g., expected number of lessons completed, expected material covered; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Gersten et al., 2005). Structural dimensions of fidelity are commonly measured in research and schools (Capin et al., 2022; DiGennaro et al., 2007; Durlak & DuPre, 2008) and are most often measured via direct observation or self-report from the interventionist (McKenna et al., 2014).
Process dimensions of fidelity include examining the quality of intervention delivery, also referred to as instructional quality, and teacher–student interactions (Justice et al., 2008; O’Donnell, 2008). Process dimensions of fidelity are more difficult to measure due to the qualitative nature of these dimensions, and reliability can be difficult to establish as observers attempt to rate the quality of instructional delivery. This rating may include how well the lesson flowed, teacher responsiveness, and the use of instructional language and materials (Durlak, 2010; Kaderavek & Justice, 2010). Although process dimensions of fidelity are regarded as more subjective and difficult to accurately capture, researchers have emphasized the importance of measuring process dimensions of fidelity as these components may be more directly related to student outcomes (Gersten et al., 2005; Mowbray et al., 2003; Power et al., 2005). Moreover, researchers have advocated for a multidimensional approach to measuring fidelity including measuring both structural and process dimensions (Gersten et al., 2005; Odom et al., 2010; Power et al., 2005), with the goal of determining the impact of fidelity on student outcomes (Odom et al., 2010).
Generally, studies have reported that fidelity positively predicts student outcomes (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Carroll et al., 2007; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Kaderavek & Justice, 2010; Stein et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 2015). High fidelity of implementation of EBPs may be even more critical for pre-service or novice teachers as they are less skilled and experienced at making adaptations to curriculum protocols (Capin et al., 2022; Quinn & Kim, 2017). Furthermore, previous studies have found that the impact of fidelity of implementation is moderated by students’ initial performance levels (Boardman et al., 2016; Hamre et al., 2010; Neugebauer et al., 2017; Odom et al., 2010), such that students with lower initial levels of performance require higher levels of fidelity to make strong gains. Thus, students identified as performing below expectations in reading at initial timepoints may require teachers who implement reading interventions with higher levels of fidelity.
For teachers to provide effective, evidence-based reading instruction that meets students’ reading needs, teachers require an understanding of the Science of Reading (SoR) including knowledge of reading skills, reading development, and best practices for teaching foundational reading skills (DeWalt & Hink, 2009; Hudson et al., 2021; Petscher et al., 2020; Rayner et al., 2001). Indeed, poor reading outcomes have often been attributed to teachers who may not have the necessary knowledge and skills to implement EBPs during reading instruction (Lyon & Weiser, 2009; Moats, 2009; Podhajski et al., 2009). Research has indicated that some teachers lack the content knowledge about the key components of reading (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), how the key components relate to reading development (Lyon & Weiser, 2009), and how to explicitly teach foundational reading skills (Brady & Moats, 1997; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Pittman et al., 2020; Spear-Swerling & Cheesman, 2012; Washburn et al., 2016). Additionally, observations of in-service teachers’ classrooms have shown low levels of academic engagement, little explicit instruction, and misalignment of instructional practices with student needs (Cunningham et al., 2009; Foorman et al., 2006; Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010). Effective instruction is widely considered to incorporate EBPs; however, many teachers do not adequately implement these practices during reading instruction (Klingner et al., 2010; Maheady et al., 2013).
Although there are many potential reasons for knowledge gaps among educators regarding how to explicitly teach foundational reading skills, initial teacher preparation has been publicly critiqued for a lack of training and experience in delivering EBPs in reading (Hanford, 2019; Hindman et al., 2020; Will, 2019). Teacher preparation programs (TPPs) are often described as having gaps and inconsistencies in their preparation of PSTs to meet the diverse needs of their students in reading (Brownell et al., 2010). In addition, novice teachers have reported concerns with the lack of instruction provided during their TPPs on how to teach foundational reading skills (Meeks et al., 2020). Furthermore, novice teachers have demonstrated they feel unprepared for the realities faced in classrooms as beginning teachers (du Plessis et al., 2020), and principals have confirmed their ill-preparedness (du Plessis et al., 2020; Levine, 2006). Thus, strengthening instruction on EBPs in TPPs is one way to improve teachers’ knowledge and skills related to the identification and implementation of EBPs in reading (Binks-Cantrell et al., 2012; Greenberg et al., 2013; ILA, 2020; Joshi et al., 2009; Moats, 2014, 2020).
To better prepare teachers of reading during their TPPs, researchers have suggested components of high-quality TPPs include instruction on EBPs, specifically the use of explicit instruction for students with or at risk for disabilities, in addition to opportunities to practice knowledge and skills learned during clinical experiences with extensive feedback and scaffolded support (Brownell et al., 2020; Cornelius & Nagro, 2014; Englert et al., 2020; Hudson et al., 2021; Schles & Robertson, 2019; Sindelar et al., 2010). Coaching has been identified as one method to strengthen follow-up support and feedback for pre-service and in-service teachers after being trained on evidence-based instructional practices to be used during reading instruction (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2016; Jager et al., 2002; Kraft et al., 2018; Kretlow et al., 2009; Lignugaris-Kraft & Marchand-Martella, 1993; Morgan et al., 1994; Schnorr, 2013). In addition, research has demonstrated that with improved fidelity of implementation of these practices via ongoing follow-up support, reading outcomes for students are likely to improve (Brownell et al., 2017; Bursuck et al., 2004; Quick et al., 2009; Sailors & Price, 2010; Varghese et al., 2021).
To illustrate, Schles and Robertson (2019) identified five single-case studies in which special education PSTs received performance feedback from coaches on their implementation of EBPs, including direct instruction in reading. Performance feedback has been defined as collecting data based on observations of teachers and using the data gathered to provide objective information about aspects of teachers’ instruction (Sweigart et al., 2016). Across all studies, coaches who provided feedback had a range of backgrounds and included researchers with PhDs, doctoral students, undergraduate PSTs, and a coach with a master’s degree in special education experienced in supervising practicum students and coaching in-service teachers. Coaches provided feedback in a variety of formats including (a) twice-weekly emails; (b) visual and verbal feedback before, during, and after sessions; (c) individual coaching sessions based on video observations; (d) live feedback provided via bug-in-ear technology; and (e) debriefs after live observations. Across all intervention studies, the authors found that 19 of 20 PSTs demonstrated improved fidelity of implementation of the EBP. Moreover, there was evidence that student outcomes improved, although these results varied across studies.
Cornelius and Nagro (2014) also evaluated the evidence base for providing PSTs enrolled in various TPPs with performance feedback. Eight studies were included in their review and five met all rigorous standards as quality research. Feedback was delivered across a range of formats (e.g., face-to-face, email, bug-in-ear) and from a variety of coaches (e.g., supervisors, experts, peers). The results were similar to those found in the review by Schles and Robertson (2019); the greatest change in the fidelity of implementation of EBPs was as a result of performance feedback. In conclusion, providing performance feedback was identified as an EBP to increase teachers’ fidelity of implementation of instructional practices.
There are a variety of methods that can be employed to provide feedback to teachers including supervisory coaching and side-by-side coaching. These dominant coaching models differ by the integration of in vivo feedback for teachers based on observations during side-by-side coaching compared to delayed feedback during supervisory coaching (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010). However, teachers may implement interventions with varying levels of accuracy, and they may not all require universal levels of support (Goodnight et al., 2020; Hsieh et al., 2009); therefore, multilevel coaching is a framework of coaching that is responsive to teachers’ strengths and needs when providing them with feedback on their implementation of EBPs (Wood et al., 2016). Research has indicated that multilevel coaching can support in-service teachers’ implementation of EBPs (Schnorr, 2013; Goodnight et al., 2020), but there are currently no known studies of multilevel coaching to support PSTs’ implementation of EBPs in reading. Furthermore, existing studies typically report fidelity as an overall score, suggesting fidelity is a stable rather than multidimensional construct; however, this view does not reflect the highly contextualized field of education. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the effects of multilevel coaching support on PSTs’ structural and process dimensions of fidelity when implementing an evidence-based reading intervention. Additionally, the experimenters examined PSTs’ perceptions of the feasibility, effectiveness, and future impact of the multilevel coaching intervention. The research questions were as follows:
What are the effects of multilevel coaching support on PSTs’ fidelity of implementation of an evidence-based reading intervention?
What are PSTs’ perceptions of the feasibility, effectiveness, and future impact of the multilevel coaching intervention?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
To be included in this study, participants had to be enrolled in a nationally accredited elementary education TPP at a four-year public university in the Southeast. Participants were enrolled in a course that required participation in an enhanced clinical experience, which involved the implementation of an evidence-based reading program with feedback and coaching support from experienced educators, including the university instructor. After obtaining IRB approval, the primary researcher recruited PSTs to participate in the multilevel coaching intervention during synchronous training sessions. All PSTs enrolled in the course provided written consent to participate, and the six PSTs with the lowest initial fidelity scores were selected to participate. All PSTs were undergraduate seniors and elementary education majors, while one student (Greer) double-majored in elementary education and applied dance with an add-on K-12 dance teaching licensure. All PSTs were assigned pseudonyms in this study. Table 1 includes demographic information for all PSTs.
2.2. Setting and Context
2.2.1. Elementary School
The study took place at an elementary school located in the southeastern United States. The school was a Title 1, university laboratory, public charter school and served students in kindergarten through fourth grades at the time of the study. Students enrolled at the elementary school had been identified as students at risk for academic failure, at risk for social–emotional or health-related factors, or were previously enrolled in an underperforming school. Enrollment by race/ethnicity included 76% Black, 12% Hispanic, 6.67% two or more races, 4% White, and 1.33% Asian. During the 2022–2023 school year, 95% of students were from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In the same school year, 33.3% of students scored at a proficient level with sufficient understanding of grade-level content standards in reading and 17.9% of students scored at a thorough or comprehensive level of understanding of grade-level content standards in reading.
2.2.2. Student Participants
Twelve elementary-grade students who received the reading intervention were enrolled in an existing after-school program and volunteered to participate in an additional after-school reading tutoring program. Caregivers had previously provided consent for participation in the reading tutoring program. The participating students were identified by school personnel as demonstrating below grade level decoding. Inclusion criteria for students included (a) scoring below benchmark on universal screeners in reading and (b) participation in both existing after-school programs due to the availability of transportation services.
2.2.3. Reading Tutoring Intervention and Coaching Context
Each PST provided the reading intervention to a small group of two students for most sessions. Prior to PSTs’ implementation of the intervention, students completed an initial placement test to inform lesson placement in Sound Partners. Then, students were paired in dyads based on similar starting lesson placements. If a student was absent, reading tutoring may have taken place in a one-on-one context. There were two, 25–30 min tutoring sessions per week for a maximum of 17 tutoring sessions. During this study, PSTs participated in a multilevel coaching intervention that included three levels of coaching support. Level 1 was postsynchronous and asynchronous training, Level 2 was supervisory coaching (i.e., email feedback), and Level 3 was side-by-side plus supervisory coaching. All coaching sessions occurred one-on-one via email (i.e., supervisory coaching) or via email and in person during the tutoring session (i.e., supervisory and side-by-side coaching). If the reading tutoring session required side-by-side coaching support, the coach was visible to the PST and students and sat at the table where the reading intervention was taking place. This procedure was to ensure the coach was able to provide in-the-moment support as needed. The primary researcher, who served as the coach to all PSTs in the study, was a third-year doctoral student in special education at the same university as the PSTs and a former elementary special education teacher of five years. The researcher held a bachelor’s and master’s degree in Special Education (multi-categorical, K–12) and was a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA). The researcher had prior experience in training and coaching PSTs to implement Sound Partners in previous semesters.
2.3. Materials
Materials related to the multilevel coaching intervention and reading tutoring sessions included (a) the reading curriculum, (b) asynchronous and synchronous training materials, and (c) coaching materials.
2.3.1. Reading Curriculum
All PSTs used the reading curriculum, Sound Partners, during every tutoring session. Sound Partners is a semi-scripted, evidence- and phonics-based tutoring program that provides struggling readers in kindergarten through third grade with supplemental, explicit instruction in early reading skills (e.g., phonemic awareness and phonics; Vadasy et al., 2004). Sound Partners lessons follow a predictable format with scripts and prompts within the lesson book to guide tutors on what to say and do during instruction. After completing a set of 10 lessons, PSTs administered a mastery test to determine student progress and inform the next steps. When implementing the Sound Partners intervention, PSTs had access to Sound Partners and researcher- or faculty-developed materials. The Sound Partners materials included (a) a Sound Partners Lesson Book with semi-scripted lessons, (b) a Sound Partners Sound Card to support error correction procedures, and (c) Bob Books for Book Reading. In one-on-one sessions, Sound Partners lessons are designed to be implemented in 30 min tutoring sessions, and tutors were encouraged to complete as much of each lesson as possible within the 30 min timeframe by using a brisk instructional pace.
The researcher- or faculty-developed materials that PSTs had access to during implementation included a (a) quick reference guide with supplemental scripts and key procedures, (b) visual schedule with expectations and goal, and (c) activity and assessment log to track student progress through lessons. Other materials for implementation included reinforcers (e.g., notes home, pencils, stickers), dry-erase markers and erasers, whiteboards, and laptops for tracking data and video-recording.
2.3.2. Asynchronous and Synchronous Training Materials
The asynchronous training module included lessons and embedded videos for PSTs to engage with on the Rise 360 platform, an online application used to create interactive and responsive training or courses. The online training module included (a) an overview of information related to reading tutoring, (b) specific procedures to be used during implementation, and (c) embedded exemplar videos of instructional procedures. Simultaneously, synchronous training occurred over four sessions across four weeks for a total of four and a half hours. Training consisted of high-quality professional development features including demonstration and practice with feedback (Joyce & Showers, 2002). The professor of the elementary education course and the coach facilitated the synchronous training.
2.3.3. Coaching Materials
The multilevel coaching intervention included three levels of coaching support. Level 1 was postsynchronous and asynchronous training. Level 2 was supervisory coaching, and Level 3 was side-by-side plus supervisory coaching. During Levels 1, 2, and 3, the coach had access to the (a) Sound Partners lesson book, (b) Fidelity of Implementation Checklist, and (c) PSTs’ video-recorded sessions. Although the coach did not provide coaching support during Level 1, the coach watched PSTs’ video-recorded sessions and scored fidelity. During Levels 2 and 3, the coach also had access to a systematic coaching feedback document that included researcher- and faculty-developed examples of possible scripts for email feedback and a coaching log to document the coaching activities and to record observation notes.
2.4. Dependent Variables
2.4.1. Fidelity of Implementation Checklist
The primary dependent variable was the percentage of observed expected behaviors on the Fidelity of Implementation Checklist adapted from the Tutor Observation Form in the Sound Partners Tutor Handbook (Vadasy et al., 2004). All PSTs’ video-recorded sessions were analyzed using this checklist across all levels of coaching support. The Fidelity of Implementation Checklist measured structural and process dimensions of fidelity (Harn et al., 2013). Structural dimensions of fidelity focused on treatment adherence, which included the implementation of required expected behaviors specific to components of the reading intervention (e.g., modeling sounds and words in boxes, providing appropriate words to spell, reading the selected book two times). Process dimensions of fidelity focused on the quality of instructional delivery and teacher–student interactions. Components measuring quality of instructional delivery and teacher–student interactions included (a) appropriate pacing; (b) use of the Visual Schedule; (c) use of specific praise; (d) preparation of materials; and (e) provision of appropriate and aligned systematic error correction based on student responses during specific components of the reading intervention (e.g., sight words, decodable words).
To measure appropriate pacing, it was expected that PSTs would complete a minimum of six components of Sound Partners during a 30 min lesson. This expectation allowed for one Sound Partners component to be completed every 5 min with appropriate time for beginning and ending tutoring session activities (e.g., preparing materials, reviewing the Visual Schedule, setting a goal with the students). The expectation to complete six components was aligned with existing program expectations, and the authors of Sound Partners emphasize the importance of using brisk instructional pacing to maximize instructional time and minimize off-task behavior (Vadasy et al., 2004). If the PST met the expectation for the expected number of components to be completed, pacing was scored as 1, and if the PST did not meet the expectations for the expected number of components to be completed, pacing was scored as 0.
The overall fidelity score was obtained by summing the number of observed expected behaviors, dividing the total number of observed expected behaviors by the total applicable expected behaviors, and multiplying this ratio by 100 to obtain a percentage. Each observable behavior received a score of 0, 0.5, or 1. Behaviors on the Fidelity of Implementation Checklist were scored as 1 if the behavior was observed or 0 if the behavior was not observed. Some items could be scored as 0.5 if the behavior included multiple components and was partially observed. For example, one line item of expected behavior was that PSTs (a) track points during and at the end of a lesson, and (b) review the daily goal at end of the lesson and determine if the goal was met. If the PST only met criterion a or b for this behavior, the line item was scored as 0.5. If the lesson did not include a component, the behaviors were marked as N/A in the score column for each line item of that component (e.g., additional components that were not present in all lessons).
The overall fidelity scores served as the primary dependent variable in the single-case design graph. However, there were two sub-fidelity scores related to structural and process dimensions of fidelity to guide feedback to PSTs. Given that PSTs were working with two students during the reading tutoring session, the expected behaviors were scored based on the occurrence of the behavior with at least one student to ensure consistency of scoring fidelity between sessions with one or two students.
2.4.2. Social Validity Questionnaire
PSTs’ perceptions of the multilevel coaching intervention were gathered via a social validity questionnaire administered at the conclusion of the study. The social validity questionnaire consisted of 16 questions including 12 Likert rating scale questions ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and four open-ended questions. The questionnaire measured PSTs’ perceptions of the social importance of the intervention including the feasibility, effectiveness, and future impact of the multilevel coaching intervention. The quantitative results of the social validity questionnaire were analyzed by reporting the range and mean of ratings across all PSTs. The qualitative results of the social validity questionnaire were reviewed by the primary researcher for recurring or distinguishable ideas and reported in a narrative format.
2.5. Experimental Design
The experimental design was a quantitative, experimental, multiple baseline across participants single case design (Ledford & Gast, 2018) employed to investigate the impact of multilevel coaching on PSTs’ fidelity of implementation of an evidence-based reading intervention. As previously noted, the multilevel coaching intervention included three levels of coaching support. Level 1 was post-training. Level 2 was supervisory coaching, and Level 3 was side-by-side plus supervisory coaching.
In this study, PSTs were paired in dyads based on their initial baseline performance. Criteria for pairing PSTs were determined by ranking PSTs from PST 1 to PST 6 based on their fidelity percentage of the first two baseline data points. The PST with the lowest fidelity score was ranked as PST 1 and the PST with the highest fidelity score was ranked as PST 6. The list of PSTs was then divided in half, and the top low-performing PST was paired with the top high-performing PST until all PSTs were paired (e.g., PST 1 and PST 4; PST 2 and PST 5; PST 3 and PST 6). This process was used to clearly define how dyads were formed for replicability purposes; however, the level, trend, and stability of PST data in Level 1 also informed decisions about initial PST pairings.
2.5.1. Baseline
All PSTs entered Level 1 simultaneously. Prior to Level 1, PSTs participated in asynchronous and synchronous training activities for four weeks. During Level 1, PSTs began implementing the reading intervention with students and video-recorded all sessions. The coach watched each PSTs’ video and measured PSTs’ fidelity after each session. Neither supervisory nor side-by-side coaching was provided during the Level 1 phase.
2.5.2. Intervention
Across all levels of the study, the criteria to meet fidelity was the observation of at least 80% of expected behaviors across three consecutive sessions or at least 90% of expected behaviors for one session and the observation of appropriate pacing. If PSTs did not meet overall fidelity during the Level 1 phase, they entered Level 2 (i.e., supervisory coaching) as PST dyads in a time-lagged manner. During supervisory coaching, PSTs continued to video-record and upload each tutoring session. The coach watched the video-recorded sessions, scored PSTs’ fidelity, and emailed feedback to each PST with a minimum of two strengths and one to two areas of growth prior to the next tutoring session. Emailed feedback on each area of strength included specific praise on correctly implemented components from the Fidelity of Implementation Checklist, with specific language or examples of behaviors observed during the tutoring session. Emailed feedback on each area of growth also included specific language or examples of behaviors from the Fidelity of Implementation Checklist or training, with a focus on how to improve in the identified areas of growth. This method of providing feedback is consistent with previous research when performance feedback was delivered, including via email, following observation of a video-recorded lesson (e.g., Cornelius & Nagro, 2014; Schles & Robertson, 2019).
When PSTs received email feedback in Level 2 and Level 3, their scores on structural and process dimensions of fidelity were tracked separately and used to determine the content of coaching support. First, PSTs received email feedback related to areas of growth on structural dimensions, which included implementation of required expected behaviors specific to components of the reading intervention (e.g., modeling segmenting and blending boxed sounds and words, asking oral-only questions when prompted, reading sentences and books two times). PSTs received email feedback on their implementation of structural dimensions of fidelity after each session during phases in which PSTs received email feedback (e.g., Level 2 and Level 3), and their structural dimensions of fidelity percentage was less than 80% on the Fidelity of Implementation Checklist. If PSTs’ fidelity percentage was at or above 80% for structural dimensions of fidelity, PSTs then received feedback related to areas of growth on their implementation of process dimensions of fidelity. Process dimensions of fidelity are oftentimes more complex and, to implement correctly, require sound understanding and implementation of structural dimensions of fidelity. Process dimensions included measuring (a) appropriate pacing; (b) use of the Visual Schedule; (c) use of specific praise; (d) preparation of materials; and (e) provision of appropriate and aligned systematic error correction based on student responses during specific components of the reading intervention (e.g., sight words, decodable words). Based on these decision rules, the content of the email feedback for PSTs’ areas of growth followed this methodical process due to the significance and prevalence of each structural or process component to a Sound Partners lesson.
PSTs entered Level 3 of coaching support if their data were stable and did not meet overall fidelity (at least 80% of expected behaviors across three consecutive sessions or at least 90% of expected behaviors for one session and observation of appropriate pacing) during Level 2. PST dyad members entered Level 3 simultaneously if levels of responding were similar. During Level 3, PSTs received side-by-side coaching during their tutoring sessions and continued to receive supervisory coaching as described in Level 2 after each session. For side-by-side coaching, the coach was positioned at the intervention table during the tutoring session, and all materials were visible and accessible to the coach. During side-by-side coaching, the coach used a coaching log to document areas of strength and growth. If PSTs did not implement a behavior or implemented the behavior incorrectly during the session, the coach intervened and either prompted the PST to attend to lesson materials or modeled the behavior.
If PSTs met the criteria for fidelity of implementation with scores that were 80% or greater for expected behaviors across three consecutive sessions or 90% or greater for expected behaviors during one session and pacing was scored as 1, PSTs would have moved into the maintenance condition in which coaching support would have been removed. However, to maintain the integrity of the single case, multiple baseline across participants design and the conclusion of the semester-long clinical experience, maintenance data were not collected. Figure 1 visually depicts the multilevel coaching intervention framework and decision rules.
2.6. Interobserver Agreement
To ensure the reliability of scoring the dependent variable across all experimental conditions, a secondary observer viewed the video-recorded sessions and scored PSTs’ fidelity of implementation. Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were collected on the primary dependent variable, PSTs’ fidelity of implementation. To ensure IOA of scoring the dependent variable, a secondary observer was trained to watch the video-recorded sessions and score PSTs’ fidelity of implementation for a minimum of 20% of all data points (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3) for each PST included in the experimental design (WWC, 2022). IOA data were collected across all PSTs and during each phase. IOA was calculated using a point-by-point agreement method by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus the number of disagreements and multiplying by 100 to calculate the total percent agreement (Ledford & Gast, 2018). IOA across Level 1 fidelity of implementation indicated a mean of 77% agreement (range: 67–87%). IOA across Level 2 fidelity of implementation indicated a mean of 86% agreement (range: 80–90%). IOA across Level 3 fidelity of implementation indicated a mean of 86% agreement (range: 78–89%). Low IOA scores across all levels were primarily the result of disagreements when one observer scored 0.5 and the other observer scored 1 or 0. When line-item scores were not an exact match, IOA was scored as a 0 for the line item. Due to the nuanced scoring of fidelity of implementation, lower IOA for some tutoring sessions was expected. When IOA for a tutoring session was low, the primary researcher met with the secondary observer to review the scoring rules, and the primary researcher determined the final fidelity score. Additionally, a notes column was included on the checklist to track nuances of instruction that were not clearly captured by check boxes. If an item was scored as 0 or 0.5, the researcher and secondary observer may have used the notes column to document the rationale for the score.
2.7. Procedural Fidelity
To ensure procedural fidelity of the multilevel coaching intervention, a secondary observer measured the adherence and differentiation of the independent variables in baseline and intervention conditions to determine if all experimental conditions were conducted as intended (Ledford & Gast, 2018). Adherence included measuring that the intervention was implemented as planned, and differentiation included measuring that different levels of coaching were implemented in each phase (Ledford & Wolery, 2013; Sutherland et al., 2013). The secondary observer collected procedural fidelity data for between 20 and 33% of sessions for each phase and for each PST included in the experimental design (Ledford & Gast, 2018). The secondary observer collected procedural fidelity data in three ways: (a) using the coach’s coaching log, (b) reviewing the Level 2 feedback emails, and (c) reviewing videos for the presence of side-by-side coaching during Level 3. Results indicated a mean of 100% procedural fidelity for each level of coaching across all PSTs.
3. Results
3.1. Fidelity of Implementation Results
Visual analysis of PSTs’ overall fidelity indicated an increase in level from Level 1 to Levels 2 and 3 across all six tiers (Figure 2). Two PSTs required Level 2 support to obtain sustained and stable high levels of fidelity, and four PSTs required Level 2 and Level 3 support before their data indicated sustained and stable high levels of fidelity. No PSTs met the criteria for fidelity during Level 1. Five of six PSTs met the criteria for fidelity during Level 2, Level 3, or during both levels of support, and one PST did not meet the criteria for fidelity during the study. These results indicated that elementary education PSTs demonstrated improved fidelity of implementation after receiving multilevel coaching intervention support inclusive of supervisory or supervisory plus side-by-side coaching. Additionally, Figure 3 visually depicts PSTs’ mean structural, process, and overall fidelity of implementation scores across Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. PSTs’ mean fidelity of implementation for structural dimensions was consistently higher than their mean fidelity of implementation for process dimensions. Table 2 and Table 3 include PSTs’ range and mean fidelity of implementation scores across all three levels for structure and process dimensions of fidelity, respectively. Collectively, these data suggest that training alone was not a sufficient level of support for PSTs when learning how to implement an EBP with fidelity, and PSTs as novice learners may require ongoing, effective follow-up coaching support post-training to implement EBPs in reading with fidelity during clinical experiences.
3.2. Social Validity Questionnaire Results
At the conclusion of this study, all PSTs responded anonymously to a social validity questionnaire to gather their perceptions of the social significance of the multilevel coaching intervention. Four PSTs received the questionnaire regarding their perceptions related to all levels of coaching support including supervisory coaching, side-by-side coaching, and general coaching support. Two PSTs who did not receive side-by-side coaching support received the questionnaire regarding their perceptions of supervisory and general coaching support. Table 4 includes the results from the social validity questionnaire.
For supervisory coaching, all PSTs agreed or strongly agreed they enjoyed supervisory coaching and that having a coach send email feedback improved their knowledge of teaching reading and instructional behaviors. For side-by-side coaching, three of four PSTs agreed or strongly agreed they enjoyed side-by-side coaching and that having a coach model strategies in the moment improved their knowledge of teaching reading and instructional behaviors. One PST stated she was neutral regarding enjoying side-by-side coaching and that having a coach model strategies helped to improve her instructional behaviors. For general coaching support, all PSTs agreed or strongly agreed they enjoyed receiving feedback from a coach, they will use strategies and behaviors learned in the future, would like to have a coach in future teaching experiences, and would recommend a coach to their peers.
PSTs also had the opportunity to answer free-response questions about coaching support. Within these questions, several PSTs noted preferences for side-by-side coaching, describing that they enjoyed instant feedback, which made instructional changes easier to remember and implement later. However, one PST noted that side-by-side coaching was a challenge because it made her feel stressed for someone to watch and interject during her session. Several PSTs also mentioned that they appreciated receiving strengths and areas for growth via email feedback to help them improve their fidelity. Although PSTs described disparate preferences for supervisory versus side-by-side coaching, results of the social validity questionnaire indicated that PSTs found coaching support to be feasible, effective, and impactful on their future teaching experiences.
4. Discussion
Previous research investigating the impact of coaching support (e.g., supervisory or side-by-side coaching) on in-service and PSTs’ instructional teaching behaviors, use of EBPs, and fidelity of implementation of EBPs has indicated improved effects on teacher and student outcomes (Kraft et al., 2018; Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Additionally, research has indicated that teachers may require varying levels of support to achieve mastery criteria for fidelity of implementation (Bursuck et al., 2004; Goodnight et al., 2020). This study examined the impact of multilevel coaching, including supervisory and side-by-side coaching, on PSTs’ fidelity of implementation of an EBP in reading during a coursework-aligned clinical experience. This study showed that PSTs demonstrated improved fidelity of implementation during the multilevel coaching intervention (Levels 2 and 3) which aligns with previous research demonstrating that coaching is an effective method of providing follow-up support for PSTs during reading instruction (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2016; Jager et al., 2002; Kraft et al., 2018; Kretlow et al., 2009; Lignugaris-Kraft & Marchand-Martella, 1993; Morgan et al., 1994; Schnorr, 2013).
First, two of six PSTs required only supervisory coaching (Level 2) to maintain improved fidelity of implementation. Previous research has also indicated that supervisory coaching following training can be used to improve PSTs’ instruction during reading (Capizzi et al., 2010; Lignugaris-Kraft & Marchand-Martella, 1993; Meisner, 2020; Morgan et al., 1994; Peeples et al., 2019). To facilitate supervisory coaching for PSTs, video-recorded sessions served as the method to observe and provide subsequent feedback from an expert coach. Observations of video-recorded sessions followed by feedback from an expert coach is one method of supervisory coaching that can contribute to improved PSTs’ instructional behaviors during reading (Capizzi et al., 2010; Lignugaris-Kraft & Marchand-Martella, 1993; Mallette et al., 1999; Morgan et al., 1994; Peeples et al., 2019).
Second, four of six PSTs required side-by-side plus supervisory coaching (Level 3) to maintain improved fidelity of implementation. Previous research has indicated that side-by-side coaching is an effective form of coaching to improve teachers’ fidelity of implementation of EBPs during reading instruction (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). During this study, side-by-side coaching included immediate feedback via in-the-moment prompting and modeling from an expert coach sitting next to or near PSTs as they implemented the EBP in reading. The results of this study indicated that providing side-by-side coaching support can be an effective method of providing feedback to improve the fidelity of implementation of an EBP in reading and aligns with previous research indicating improved fidelity of implementation and instructional behaviors for PSTs (Scheeler & Lee, 2002; Scheeler et al., 2012).
In this study, both structure (i.e., program adherence) and process (i.e., quality of instructional delivery) dimensions of fidelity composed the overall fidelity of implementation score. Across all levels, PSTs’ mean fidelity of implementation for the structural dimension of fidelity was consistently higher than their mean fidelity of implementation for the process dimension of fidelity. Due to the dynamic nature of process dimensions of fidelity and PSTs’ status as less experienced, novice teachers, it is not surprising that PSTs had lower scores related to the process dimension of fidelity compared to the structural dimension. However, the multilevel coaching intervention in this study was effective at improving PSTs’ mean fidelity of implementation scores related to both structure and process dimensions of fidelity from Level 1 to Levels 2 and 3 of coaching.
Previous research has indicated that TPPs do not frequently offer opportunities for PSTs to apply learned knowledge and skills under expert guidance, but providing these opportunities for PSTs may enhance the transfer of their knowledge and skills learned into practice and impact instructional quality, or the process dimension of fidelity (Gormley & Ruhl, 2007; Hindman et al., 2020; Hudson et al., 2021). Although fidelity levels related to the process dimension were lower overall in this study, the results indicate that PSTs improved their implementation of the process dimension of fidelity and perceived themselves as more knowledgeable and skilled at teaching reading after participating in the multilevel coaching intervention. Due to the potential impact of improved instructional quality (i.e., process dimension of fidelity) on student outcomes, researchers have highlighted the importance of measuring this dimension of fidelity (Gersten et al., 2005; Mowbray et al., 2003; Power et al., 2005). Moreover, higher levels of fidelity of implementation may be a critical factor impacting student outcomes in reading, specifically for students who are at risk for reading difficulties (Connor et al., 2007; Hamre et al., 2010; Neugebauer et al., 2017; Odom et al., 2010; van Dijk et al., 2022), and for PSTs, who may have less experience and lower instructional quality (Capin et al., 2022; Quinn & Kim, 2017; Vaughn et al., 2015).
Overall, there is limited research in teacher preparation on the effects of employing a multilevel coaching framework on PSTs’ fidelity of implementation of EBPs, and the research is even more limited regarding EBPs in reading. However, research has indicated the positive effects of multilevel coaching on in-service teachers’ instructional behaviors and fidelity of implementation of EBPs (Bursuck et al., 2004; Goodnight et al., 2020; Hsieh et al., 2009; Schnorr, 2013). Additionally, research has indicated that coaching provided within a tiered framework of support facilitates accurate and sustained implementation of EBPs (Freeman et al., 2017). This study showed that much like in-service teachers, PSTs differed in the levels of coaching support needed before demonstrating improved fidelity of implementation of an EBP in reading. These results indicate that PSTs may benefit from tiered coaching support that is responsive to data rather than providing universal coaching support for all (Myers et al., 2011). Furthermore, within a tiered coaching framework, PSTs as novice reading teachers may initially require more intensive levels of coaching support and feedback, inclusive of modeling by an expert, to implement EBPs effectively and efficiently (Dawkins et al., 2009a, 2009b). In this study, four of six PSTs required additional coaching support in the form of side-by-side coaching, providing some evidence that PSTs did require coaching support that included modeling of skills in the moment to achieve higher levels of fidelity.
The results of this study also align with research that indicates that PSTs who receive instruction through coursework and carefully sequenced and designed clinical experiences demonstrate positive perceptions of their preparedness to teach reading (Englert et al., 2020). In this study, PSTs’ perceptions indicated that they found the coaching support within the coursework-aligned clinical experience to improve their knowledge and skills of teaching reading and their instructional behaviors. Although PSTs’ knowledge was unmeasured and PSTs’ skills in teaching reading and instructional behaviors were only measured through the fidelity of implementation of the EBP in reading, PSTs’ perceptions of these improved domains reflect recommendations for TPPs to provide PSTs with situated, scaffolded practice within authentic contexts to impact PSTs’ beliefs and future practices in teaching reading (Englert et al., 2020).
Last, with the varying needs of students at risk for or identified with disabilities accompanied by the increasing number of students who receive instruction in reading in general education classrooms, all teachers, including elementary education teachers, require the knowledge and skills to be effective literacy teachers and meet the differential needs of all students (Irwin et al., 2021). This study showed that elementary education PSTs can be trained and coached to implement evidence-based, Tier 2, supplemental reading intervention with students reading below benchmark. Previous research has highlighted the need for elementary education PSTs to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to implement evidence-based reading intervention to positively impact reading outcomes for elementary-aged students (Leko et al., 2015; McFarland et al., 2017; McFarland et al., 2019). Together, the results of the single case design and social validity questionnaire provide evidence that training and coaching elementary education PSTs to implement a Tier 2 EBP in reading and to serve as an interventionist for students is both feasible and effective. These results substantiate recommendations for general education TPPs to provide PSTs with knowledge and skills to implement EBPs within a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework (Leko et al., 2015). Moreover, relevant legislation highlights the demand for elementary education teachers to be proficient in the implementation of interventions aligned with the SoR and that PSTs must receive instruction and be afforded opportunities to apply knowledge and skills learned during their TPPs (Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], 2015; North Carolina’s Excellent Public Schools Act of 2021). The training and multilevel coaching model employed in this study respond to these federal and state legislative requirements.
5. Limitations and Future Research
This study contains several limitations to consider that could be addressed with future research. First, although this study investigated the effects of multilevel coaching via supervisory and side-by-side plus supervisory coaching, there is limited research to confirm the effects of multilevel coaching on PSTs’ fidelity of implementation, specifically when providing reading intervention support. The study was not designed to determine if Level 2 support was necessary prior to Level 3 or if PSTs could have skipped Level 2 support and received Level 3 support if post-training fidelity was below the criterion. Therefore, the results do not necessarily demonstrate the most efficient coaching methods for supporting PSTs when implementing reading interventions with fidelity. Future research could investigate the efficiency of coaching models in supporting PSTs’ implementation of evidence-based reading interventions with high levels of fidelity. By investigating the efficiency of various coaching models, such as supervisory or side-by-side coaching, researchers could determine the most sustainable coaching models and how resources are best allocated. Also of note, Rene’s overall mean fidelity score decreased from Level 2 to Level 3 and Peyton’s overall mean fidelity score improved only by 0.2% from Level 2 to Level 3. However, each of their overall mean fidelity scores in Level 2 and Level 3 are above the 80% threshold for fidelity compared to overall mean fidelity scores of 71.69% for Rene and 74.08% for Peyton during Level 1.
Additionally, there were several unmeasured variables in this study including teacher knowledge and student outcomes in reading. Although studies generally report that fidelity of implementation is associated with improved teacher knowledge and student outcomes (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Benner et al., 2011; Carroll et al., 2007; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Kaderavek & Justice, 2010; O’Donnell, 2008; Stein et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 2015), investigation of these outcomes was beyond the scope of this study. Future research is needed to confirm relations between improved fidelity of implementation and other relevant outcomes for PSTs and their students. Finally, future research can continue to investigate the effects of the multiple dimensions of fidelity, such as adherence and instructional quality, and the interaction on student outcomes, specifically in reading.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of providing multilevel coaching support to PSTs during their TPPs when engaged in a clinical experience implementing an EBP in reading is, ultimately, to positively impact the reading performance of students reading below benchmark expectations and their future outcomes. In this study, PSTs engaged in multilevel coaching support based on their fidelity of implementation levels when implementing an EBP in reading. PSTs are novice learners, and it may be particularly important for novice teachers to implement EBPs in reading with higher levels of fidelity to positively impact student outcomes. Although student outcomes were unmeasured in this study, it is possible that by providing PSTs with coursework-aligned clinical experiences applying knowledge and skills learned paired with ongoing, effective feedback when doing so, PSTs’ knowledge and skills as well as beliefs and perceptions about teaching reading could improve.
The results of this study demonstrated a functional relation between the multilevel coaching intervention and PSTs’ fidelity of implementation indicating that multilevel coaching is effective at improving PSTs’ fidelity of implementation of a supplemental, Tier 2 reading intervention to elementary-grade students who read below grade level. Due to most PSTs requiring coaching support inclusive of modeling and demonstrations post-training, initially providing side-by-side coaching and supplementing with supervisory coaching support according to PSTs’ levels of fidelity may be an appropriate next step to investigate using a multilevel coaching framework. Also in regard to fidelity, PSTs’ scores were consistently higher for structure compared to process dimensions across all levels of the multilevel coaching intervention. This finding indicates PSTs may require more intensive coaching related to the process dimension of fidelity as they may be more likely to have higher levels of adherence, or the structural dimension of fidelity, when implementing EBPs in reading.
Finally, PSTs generally reported they agreed that multilevel coaching supports are feasible to participate in, effective at improving their knowledge and skills to teach reading and instructional behaviors, and contribute to their preparedness to teach reading in future contexts. Although PSTs’ perceptions of coaching support and the impact on their knowledge and skills to teach reading were positive, PSTs held contrasting preferences for supervisory versus side-by-side coaching. Honoring PSTs’ preferences for coaching and establishing a collaborative relationship founded on clear and open communication could contribute to a systematic, well-designed coaching process that strengthens the collaborative PST–coach relationship over time (Heineke, 2013; L’Allier & Brown, 2021). To conclude, a multilevel coaching intervention as a responsive form of coaching during enhanced clinical experiences for PSTs is a socially valid intervention and effective at improving PSTs’ ability to implement EBPs in reading with fidelity.
Conceptualization, C.R.K.; methodology, C.R.K., K.D.B., S.A.G., C.L.W. and E.K.W.; validation, T.C.; formal analysis, C.R.K.; investigation, C.R.K.; resources, C.R.K., K.D.B., S.A.G. and E.K.W.; data curation, C.R.K.; writing—original draft preparation, C.R.K.; writing—review and editing, K.D.B., S.A.G., C.L.W. and E.K.W.; visualization, C.R.K.; supervision, K.D.B.; funding acquisition, C.R.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Protocol IRB-22-0618 and 14 December 2022).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data are unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
We acknowledge the Belk Foundation, whose funding provided resources to support the enhanced clinical experience within the Departments of Reading and Elementary Education and Special Education and Child Development at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. PSTs’ fidelity of implementation of the reading intervention. L1 = Level 1; L2 = Level 2; L3 = Level 3. The open data points indicate sessions when PSTs did not meet the pacing expectation. The closed data points indicate sessions when PSTs did meet the pacing expectation. The triangles indicate sessions in which only one student was present instead of two. The asterisk indicates the first session within the level the tutor met the criteria for overall fidelity of implementation. Hashmarks on the horizontal axis indicate breaks from school.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. PSTs’ mean fidelity of implementation scores for structural, process, and overall dimensions. L1 = Level 1; L2 = Level 2; L3 = Level 3.
PST demographics.
| PST | Gender | Age | Ethnicity | Race | Self-Reported GPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logan | Woman | 20 | Not Hispanic or Latino | White | 3.78 |
| Ollie | Woman | 24 | Hispanic or Latino | White | 4.0 |
| Rene | Woman | 21 | Hispanic or Latino | Black or African American | 3.4 |
| Greer | Woman | 20 | Not Hispanic or Latino | White | 3.86 |
| Peyton | Woman | 23 | Not Hispanic or Latino | White | 3.7 |
| Dylan | Woman | 21 | Not Hispanic or Latino | White | 4.0 |
PSTs’ fidelity of implementation for structural dimensions of fidelity.
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logan | Range: 71.05–100% | Range: 83.33–92.86% | Range: 81.25–96.88% |
| Ollie | Range: 75.00–100% | Range: 81.25–100% | Range: 96.15–100% |
| Rene | Range: 64.29–78.57% | Range: 87.50–100% | Range: 85.71–92.11% |
| Greer | Range: 68.75–87.50% | Range: 75.00–100% | N/A |
| Peyton | Range: 50.00–100% | Range: 75.00–100% | Range: 76.92–88.46% |
| Dylan | Range: 64.29–100% | Range: 87.50–100% | N/A |
PSTs’ fidelity of implementation for process dimensions of fidelity.
| Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logan | Range: 50.00–65.38% | Range: 53.57–72.73% | Range: 61.76–82.35% |
| Ollie | Range: 55.56–68.75% | Range: 42.32–70.00% | Range: 78.57–88.89% |
| Rene | Range: 56.25–77.78% | Range: 54.55–96.43% | Range: 76.67–91.67% |
| Greer | Range: 67.86–86.36% | Range: 77.27–100% | N/A |
| Peyton | Range:46.43–82.14% | Range: 56.67–81.82% | Range: 70.00–75.00% |
| Dylan | Range: 44.44–90.00% | Range: 75.00–91.67% | N/A |
Social validity questionnaire results.
| Questions | Range of Ratings | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| Supervisory Coaching | ||
| I enjoyed receiving supervisory coaching (i.e., video observations with email feedback) during the reading tutoring program. | 4–5 | 4.83 |
| Having a coach observe video recorded sessions and send email feedback during the reading tutoring program improved my knowledge and skills of teaching reading. | 5 | 5 |
| Having a coach observe video recorded sessions and send email feedback during the reading tutoring program improved my instructional behaviors. | 5 | 5 |
| Side-by-Side Coaching | ||
| I enjoyed receiving side-by-side coaching (i.e., when my coach supported me in the moment) during the reading tutoring program. | 3–5 | 4.25 |
| Having a coach model strategies in the moment during the reading tutoring program improved my knowledge and skills of teaching reading. | 4–5 | 4.75 |
| Having a coach model strategies in the moment during the reading tutoring program improved my instructional behaviors when teaching reading. | 3–5 | 4.5 |
| General Coaching Support | ||
| I enjoyed receiving feedback from a coach as a part of the reading tutoring program. | 5 | 5 |
| I will use reading strategies that I learned from my coach in my future teaching experiences. | 5 | 5 |
| I will use instructional behaviors (e.g., pacing, positive behavior supports) that I learned from my coach in my future teaching experiences. | 5 | 5 |
| Receiving coaching support in the reading tutoring program has helped prepare me for my future teaching experiences. | 5 | 5 |
| I would like to have coaching support in my future teaching experiences. | 4–5 | 4.67 |
| I would recommend coaching support during the reading tutoring program to my peers. | 5 | 5 |
Note. Based on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.
References
Al Otaiba, S.; Fuchs, D. Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2006; 39, pp. 414-431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050401]
Benner, G. J.; Nelson, J. R.; Stage, S. A.; Ralston, N. C. The influence of fidelity of implementation on the reading outcomes of middle school students experiencing reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education; 2011; 32,
Binks-Cantrell, E.; Washburn, E. K.; Joshi, R. M.; Hougen, M. Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading; 2012; 16,
Blachman, B. A.; Tangel, D. M.; Ball, E. W.; Black, R.; McGraw, C. K. Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two-year intervention with low-income, inner-city children. Reading and Writing; 1999; 11, pp. 239-273. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008050403932]
Boardman, A. G.; Buckley, P.; Vaughn, S.; Roberts, G.; Scornavacco, K.; Klingner, J. K. Relationship between implementation of collaborative strategic reading and student outcomes for adolescents with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2016; 49,
Brady, S.; Moats, L. Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation; International Dyslexia Association: 1997; Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED411646.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
Brownell, M. T.; Kiely, M. T.; Haager, D.; Boardman, A.; Corbett, N.; Algina, J.; Dingle, M. P.; Urbach, J. Literacy learning cohorts: Content-focused approach to improving special education teachers’ reading instruction. Exceptional Children; 2017; 83,
Brownell, M. T.; Jones, N. D.; Sohn, H.; Stark, K. Improving teaching quality for students with disabilities: Establishing a warrant for teacher education practice. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2020; 43,
Brownell, M. T.; Sindelar, P. T.; Kiely, M. T.; Danielson, L. C. Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children; 2010; 76,
Bursuck, W. D.; Smith, T.; Munk, D.; Damer, M.; Mehlig, L.; Perry, J. Evaluating the impact of a prevention-based model of reading on children who are at risk. Remedial and Special Education; 2004; 25,
Capin, P.; Roberts, G.; Clemens, N. H.; Vaughn, S. When treatment adherence matters: Interactions among treatment adherence, instructional quality, and student characteristics on reading outcomes. Reading Research Quarterly; 2022; 57,
Capizzi, A. M.; Wehby, J. H.; Sandmel, K. N. Enhancing mentoring of teacher candidates through consultative feedback and self-evaluation of instructional delivery. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2010; 33,
Carroll, C.; Patterson, M.; Wood, S.; Booth, A.; Rick, J.; Balain, S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science; 2007; 2,
Castles, A.; Rastle, K.; Nation, K. Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest; 2018; 19,
Connor, C. M.; Morrison, F. J.; Fishman, B. J.; Schatschneider, C.; Underwood, P. Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science; 2007; 315,
Cook, B. G.; Odom, S. L. Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children; 2013; 79,
Cook, B. G.; Collins, L. W.; Cook, S. C.; Cook, L. Evidence-based reviews: How evidence-based practices are systematically identified. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice; 2019; 35,
Cornelius, K. E.; Nagro, S. A. Evaluating the evidence base of performance feedback in preservice special education teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2014; 37,
Cunningham, A. E.; Zibulsky, J.; Stanovich, K. E.; Stanovich, P. J. How teachers would spend their time teaching language arts: The mismatch between self-reported and best practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2009; 42,
Cutting, L. E.; Levine, T. M. Cognitive profile of children with neurofibromatosis and reading disabilities. Child Neuropsychology; 2010; 16,
D’Angiulli, A.; Siegel, L. S.; Maggi, S. Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading achievement in English-language learners and children with English as a first language: A longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice; 2004; 19,
Dawkins, S.; Ritz, M. E.; Louden, W. Evaluating the practicability and sustainability of a reading intervention programme, using preservice teachers as trained volunteers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy; 2009a; 32, pp. 136-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.801807739740232]
Dawkins, S.; Ritz, M. E.; Louden, W. Learning by doing: Preservice teachers as reading tutors. Australian Journal of Teacher Education; 2009b; 34,
DePaoli, J. L.; Fox, J. H.; Ingram, E. S.; Maushard, M.; Bridgeland, J. M.; Balfanz, R. Building a grad nation: Progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic; Civic Enterprises: 2015; Available online: http://gradnation.americaspromise.org/sites/default/files/d8/18006_CE_BGN_Full_vFNL.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
DeWalt, D. A.; Hink, A. Health literacy and child health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Pediatrics; 2009; 124,
DiGennaro, F. D.; Martens, B. K.; Kleinmann, A. E. A comparison of performance feedback procedures on teachers’ treatment implementation integrity and students’ inappropriate behavior in special education classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; 2007; 40,
du Plessis, A. E.; Cullinan, M.; Gramotnev, G.; Gramotnev, D. K.; Hoang, N. T.; Mertens, L.; Roy, K.; Schmidt, A. The multilayered effects of initial teacher education programs on the beginning teacher workforce and workplace: Perceptions of beginning teachers and their school leaders. International Journal of Educational Research; 2020; 99, 101488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.010]
Durlak, J. A. The importance of doing well in whatever you do: A commentary on the special section, “implementation research in early childhood education”. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2010; 25,
Durlak, J. A.; DuPre, E. P. Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology; 2008; 41,
Englert, C. S.; Mariage, T. V.; Truckenmiller, A. J.; Brehmer, J.; Hicks, K.; Chamberlain, C. Preparing special education preservice teachers to teach phonics to struggling readers: Reducing the gap between expert and novice performance. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2020; 43,
Every Student Succeeds Act. Public law no. 114-95 § 114 stat. 1177; 2015; Available online: https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2025).
Foorman, B. R.; Schatschneider, C.; Eakin, M. N.; Fletcher, J. M.; Moats, L. C.; Francis, D. J. The impact of instructional practices in Grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology; 2006; 31,
Freeman, J.; Sugai, G.; Simonsen, B.; Everett, S. MTSS coaching: Bridging knowing to doing. Theory into Practice; 2017; 56,
Gersten, R.; Fuchs, L. S.; Compton, D.; Coyne, M.; Greenwood, C.; Innocenti, M. S. Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children; 2005; 71,
Gersten, R.; Haymond, K.; Newman-Gonchar, R.; Dimino, J.; Jayanthi, M. Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness; 2020; 13,
Gettinger, M.; Stoiber, K. C. Coaching and demonstration of evidence-based book-reading practices: Effects on Head Start teachers’ literacy-related behaviors and classroom environment. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education; 2016; 37,
Gilmour, A. F.; Fuchs, D.; Wehby, J. H. Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children; 2019; 85,
Goodnight, C. I.; Wood, C. L.; Thompson, J. L. Effects of in-service and coaching to increase teachers’ use of research-based strategies in beginning reading. Preventing School Failure; 2020; 64,
Gormley, S.; Ruhl, K. L. Language structure knowledge of preservice teachers: Connecting speech to print. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2007; 30,
Greenberg, J.; McKee, A.; Walsh, K. Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs; National Council on Teacher Quality: 1 June 2013; Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2353894 (accessed on 14 January 2025).
Hamre, B. K.; Justice, L. M.; Pianta, R. C.; Kilday, C.; Sweeney, B.; Downer, J. T.; Leach, A. Implementation fidelity of MyTeacherPartner literacy and language activities: Association with preschoolers’ language and literacy growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2010; 25,
Hanford, E. (Host). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers [Audio podcast]; APM Reports 2019; Available online: https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading (accessed on 1 August 2023).
Harn, B.; Parisi, D.; Stoolmiller, M. Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools?. Exceptional Children; 2013; 79,
Heineke, S. F. Coaching discourse: Supporting teachers’ professional learning. The Elementary School Journal; 2013; 113,
Hindman, A. H.; Morrison, F. J.; Connor, C. M.; Connor, J. A. Bringing the science of reading to preservice elementary teachers: Tools that bridge research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly; 2020; 55,
Hsieh, W.-Y.; Hemmeter, M. L.; McCollum, J. A.; Ostrosky, M. M. Using coaching to increase preschool teachers’ use of emergent literacy teaching strategies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2009; 24,
Hudson, A. K.; Moore, K. A.; Han, B.; Wee Koh, P.; Binks-Cantrell, E.; Malatesha Joshi, R. Elementary teachers’ knowledge of foundational literacy skills: A critical piece of the puzzle in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly; 2021; 56,
IDEA. Individuals with disabilities education act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq; 2004; Available online: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1400 (accessed on 14 January 2025).
International Literacy Association. What’s hot in literacy: 2020 report; 2020; Available online: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/resource-documents/whatshotreport_2020_final.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
Irwin, V.; De La Rosa, J.; Wang, K.; Hein, S.; Zhang, J.; Burr, R.; Roberts, A.; Barmer, A.; Bullock Mann, F.; Dilig, R.; Parker, S. Report on the condition of education 2022 (NCES 2022-144); National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education: May 2022; Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022144.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
Irwin, V.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Hein, S.; Wang, K.; Roberts, A.; York, C.; Barmer, A.; Bullock Mann, F.; Dilig, R.; Parker, S. Report on the condition of education 2021 (NCES 2021-144); National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education: May 2021; Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021144.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
Jager, B.; Reezigt, G. J.; Creemers, B. P. The effects of teacher training on new instructional behaviour in reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2002; 18,
Joshi, R. M.; Binks, E.; Hougen, M. C.; Dean, E. O.; Graham, L.; Smith, D. L. Rosenfield, S.; Berninger, V. The role of teacher education programs in preparing teachers for implementing evidence-based reading practices. Implementing evidence based academic interventions in school settings; Oxford University Press: 2009; pp. 605-625. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780195325355.003.0022]
Joyce, B. R.; Showers, B. Student achievement through staff development; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: 2002; Vol. 3.
Justice, L. M.; Mashburn, A. J.; Hamre, B. K.; Pianra, R. C. Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2008; 23,
Kaderavek, J. N.; Justice, L. M. Fidelity: An essential component of evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology; 2010; 19,
Klingner, J. K.; Urbach, J.; Golos, D.; Brownell, M.; Menon, S. Teaching reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly; 2010; 33,
Kraft, M. A.; Blazar, D.; Hogan, D. The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research; 2018; 88,
Kretlow, A. G.; Bartholomew, C. C. Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2010; 33,
Kretlow, A. G.; Wood, C. L.; Cooke, N. L. Using in-service and coaching to increase kindergarten teachers’ accurate delivery of group instructional units. The Journal of Special Education; 2009; 44,
L’Allier, S. K.; Brown, E. M. Teachers’ questions about coaching: Pathways to productive collaborations. The Reading Teacher; 2021; 75,
Ledford, J. R.; Gast, D. L. Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences; 3rd ed. Routledge: 2018.
Ledford, J. R.; Wolery, M. The effects of graphing a second observer’s data on judgments of functional relations when observer bias may be present. Journal of Behavioral Education; 2013; 22,
Leko, M. M.; Brownell, M. T.; Sindelar, P. T.; Kiely, M. T. Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children; 2015; 82,
Levine, A. Educating school teachers; The Education Schools Project 2006; Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504144.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
Lignugaris-Kraft, B.; Marchand-Martella, N. Evaluation of pre-service teachers’ interactive teaching skills in a direct instruction practicum using student teachers as supervisors. Teacher Education and Special Education; 1993; 16,
Lyon, G.; Weiser, B. Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2009; 42,
Maheady, L.; Smith, C.; Jabot, M. Cook, B. G.; Tankersley, M.; Landrum, T. J. Utilizing evidence-based practice in teacher preparation. Evidence-based practices; Emerald: 2013; pp. 121-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0735-004X(2013)0000026008]
Mallette, B.; Maheady, L.; Harper, G. F. The effects of reciprocal peer coaching on preservice general educators’ instruction of students with special learning needs. Teacher Education and Special Education; 1999; 22,
McFarland, J.; Hussar, B.; de Brey, C.; Snyder, T.; Wang, X.; Wilkinson-Flicker, S.; Gebrekristos, S.; Zhang, J.; Rathbun, A.; Barmer, A.; Bullock Mann, F.; Hinz, S. The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-144); National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education: May 2017; Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017144.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
McFarland, J.; Hussar, B.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, K.; Hein, S.; Diliberti, M.; Forrest Cataldi, E.; Bullock Mann, F.; Barmer, A. The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019-144); National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education: May 2019; Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019144.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
McKenna, J. W.; Flower, A.; Ciullo, S. Measuring fidelity to improve intervention effectiveness. Intervention in School and Clinic; 2014; 50,
Meeks, L.; Madelaine, A.; Stephenson, J. New teachers talk about their preparation to teach early literacy. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties; 2020; 25,
Meisner, J. Understanding pre-service teachers’ perceptions of instructional coaching during student teaching. Doctoral dissertation; Utah State University: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global 2020; Available online: https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/understanding-preservice-teachers-perceptions/docview/2455935765/se-2 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
Moats, L. Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing; 2009; 22,
Moats, L. C. What teachers don’t know and why they aren’t learning it: Addressing the need for content and pedagogy in teacher education. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties; 2014; 19,
Moats, L. C. Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Educator; 2020; 44,
Moats, L. C.; Foorman, B. R. Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia; 2003; 53,
Morgan, P. L.; Farkas, G.; Wu, Q. Kindergarten children’s growth trajectories in reading and mathematics: Who falls increasingly behind?. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2011; 44,
Morgan, R. L.; Menlove, R.; Salzberg, C. L.; Hudson, P. Effects of peer coaching on the acquisition of direct instruction skills by low-performing pre-service teachers. The Journal of Special Education; 1994; 28,
Mowbray, C. T.; Holter, M. C.; Teague, G. B.; Bybee, D. B. Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation; 2003; 24,
Myers, D. M.; Simonsen, B.; Sugai, G. M. Increasing teachers’ use of praise with a Response-to-Intervention approach. Education and Treatment of Children; 2011; 34,
Neugebauer, S.; Coyne, M.; McCoach, B.; Ware, S. Teaching beyond the intervention: The contribution of teacher language extensions to vocabulary learning in urban kindergarten classrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly; 2017; 30,
Odom, S. L.; Fleming, K.; Diamond, K.; Lieber, J.; Hanson, M.; Butera, G.; Horn, E.; Palmer, S.; Marquis, J. Examining different forms of implementation and in early childhood curriculum research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2010; 25,
O’Donnell, C. L. Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research; 2008; 78, pp. 33-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793]
Peeples, K. N.; Hirsch, S. E.; Gardner, S. J.; Keeley, R. G.; Sherrow, B. L.; McKenzie, J. M.; Randall, K. N.; Romig, J. E.; Kennedy, M. J. Using multimedia instruction and performance feedback to improve preservice teachers’ vocabulary instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2019; 42,
Petscher, Y.; Cabell, S. Q.; Catts, H. W.; Compton, D. L.; Foorman, B. R.; Hart, S. A.; Lonigan, C. J.; Phillips, B. M.; Schatschneider, C.; Steacy, L. M.; Terry, N. P.; Wagner, R. K. How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly; 2020; 55,
Pittman, R. T.; Zhang, S.; Binks-Cantrell, E.; Hudson, A.; Joshi, R. M. Teachers’ knowledge about language constructs related to literacy skills and student achievement in low socio-economic status schools. Dyslexia; 2020; 26,
Podhajski, B.; Mather, N.; Nathan, J.; Sammons, J. Professional development in scientifically based reading instruction: Teacher knowledge and reading outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2009; 42,
Power, T. J.; Blom-Hoffman, J.; Clarke, A. T.; Riley-Tillman, T. C.; Kelleher, C.; Manz, P. H. Reconceptualizing intervention integrity: A partnership-based framework for linking research with practice. Psychology in the Schools; 2005; 42,
Quick, H. E.; Holtzman, D. J.; Chaney, K. R. Professional development and instructional practice: Conceptions and evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk; 2009; 14,
Quinn, D. M.; Kim, J. S. Scaffolding fidelity and adaptation in educational program implementation: Experimental evidence from a literacy intervention. American Educational Research Journal; 2017; 54,
Rayner, K.; Foorman, B. R.; Perfetti, C. A.; Pesetsky, D.; Seidenberg, M. S. How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest; 2001; 2,
Sailors, M.; Price, L. R. Professional development that supports the teaching of cognitive reading strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal; 2010; 110,
Scheeler, M. C.; Lee, D. L. Using technology to deliver immediate corrective feedback to preservice teachers. Journal of Behavioral Education; 2002; 11,
Scheeler, M. C.; McKinnon, K.; Stout, J. Effects of immediate feedback delivered via webcam and bug-in-ear technology on preservice teacher performance. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2012; 35,
Schles, R. A.; Robertson, R. E. The role of performance feedback and implementation of evidence-based practices for preservice special education teachers and student outcomes: A review of the literature. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2019; 42,
Schnorr, C. I. Effects of multilevel support on first-grade teachers’ use of research-based strategies during beginning reading instruction. Doctoral dissertation; University of North Carolina at Charlotte: 2013.
Sindelar, P. T.; Brownell, M. T.; Billingsley, B. Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education; 2010; 33,
Spear-Swerling, L. Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children; 2019; 51,
Spear-Swerling, L.; Cheesman, E. Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing Response-to-Intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing; 2012; 25,
Stein, M. L.; Berends, M.; Fuchs, D.; McMaster, K.; Sáenz, L.; Yen, L.; Fuchs, L. S.; Compton, D. L. Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis; 2008; 30,
Sutherland, K. S.; McLeod, B. D.; Conroy, M. A.; Cox, J. R. Measuring implementation of evidence-based programs targeting young children at risk for emotional/behavioral disorders: Conceptual issues and recommendations. Journal of Early Intervention; 2013; 35,
Sweigart, C. A.; Collins, L. W.; Evanovich, L. L.; Cook, S. C. An evaluation of the evidence base for performance feedback to improve teacher praise using CEC’s quality indicators. Education and Treatment of Children; 2016; 39,
Torgesen, J. K.; Alexander, A. W.; Wagner, R. K.; Rashotte, C. A.; Voeller, K. K. S.; Conway, T. Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2001; 34,
Tschannen-Moran, M.; McMaster, P. Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal; 2009; 110,
Vadasy, P. F.; Wayne, S. K.; O’Connor, R. E.; Jenkins, J. R.; Pool, K.; Firebaugh, M.; Peyton, J. Sound Partners: A supplementary, one-to-one tutoring program in phonics-based early reading skills; Sopris West: 2004.
van Dijk, W.; Huggins-Manley, A. C.; Gage, N. A.; Lane, H. B.; Coyne, M. Why does construct validity matter in measuring implementation fidelity? A methodological case study. Assessment for Effective Intervention; 2022; 47,
Varghese, C.; Bratsch-Hines, M.; Aiken, H.; Vernon-Feagans, L. Elementary teachers’ intervention fidelity in relation to reading and vocabulary outcomes for students at risk for reading-related disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2021; 54,
Vaughn, S.; Wanzek, J. Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice; 2014; 29,
Vaughn, S.; Roberts, G.; Swanson, E. A.; Wanzek, J.; Fall, A.-M.; Stillman-Spisak, S. J. Improving middle-school students’ knowledge and comprehension in social studies: A replication. Educational Psychology Review; 2015; 27,
Washburn, E. K.; Binks-Cantrell, E. S.; Joshi, R. M.; Martin-Chang, S.; Arrow, A. Preservice teacher knowledge of basic language constructs in Canada, England, New Zealand, and the USA. Annals of Dyslexia; 2016; 66,
What Works Clearinghouse. What works clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook; version 5.0 U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance: August 2022; Available online: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks (accessed on 1 July 2023).
Will, M. Will the Science of Reading Catch on in Teacher Prep?. Education Week; 3 December 2019; Available online: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/will-the-science-of-reading-catch-on-in-teacher-prep/2019/12 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
Wood, C. L.; Goodnight, C. I.; Bethune, K. S.; Preston, A. I.; Cleaver, S. L. Role of professional development and multi-level coaching in promoting evidence-based practice in education. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal; 2016; 14,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Beach, Kristen D 1
; Gesel, Samantha A 2
; Wood, Charles L 2 ; Washburn, Erin K 3 ; Connors, Thomas 1
1 Department of Special Education and Child Development, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA;
2 Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA;
3 Department of Reading and Elementary Education, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA;