Do Children's Learning-Related Behaviors Moderate the Impacts of an Empirically-Validated Early Literacy Intervention?

Student Behavior Ratings and Response to Tier 1 Reading Intervention: Which Students Do Not Benefit?

Core reading instruction and interventions have differential effects based on student characteristics such as cognitive ability and pre-intervention skill level. Evidence for differential effect based on affective characteristics is scant and ambiguous; however, students with problem behavior are more often non-responsive to core reading instruction and intensive reading interventions. In this study, we estimated the range of students' behavior ratings in which a core reading instruction intervention was effective using a data set including 3,024 students in K-3. Data came from seven independent studies evaluating the Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) Tier 1 reading intervention and were pooled using integrative data analysis. We estimated Johnson-Neyman intervals of student behavior ratings that showed a treatment effect both at the within and between classroom level. ISI was effective in improving reading scores (b=0.51, p=.020, d = 0.08). However, students with very low or very high behavior ratings did not benefit from the approaches (range of behavior rating factor scores: -0.95 - 2.87). At the classroom level, students in classrooms with a higher average of problem behaviors did not benefit from ISI (average classroom behavior rating factor score: 0.05 - 4.25). Results suggest differentiating instruction alone is not enough for students with behavior problems to grow in reading ability.

Intelligence Can Be Used to Make a More Equitable Society but Only When Properly Defined and Applied

In the US, undeniable evidence shows that socioeconomic inequities explain a high proportion of individual differences in school achievement. Although not all countries show this same effect due to socioeconomic status, it is consistently found that social inequities lead to achievement gaps. These achievement gaps then manifest into trajectories that set some individuals on a path of lower incomes, poorer health and higher mortality, lower wellbeing, and other poor adult outcomes. Like James Flynn so handily reminded the scientific literature that achievement gaps are explainable by environmental factors, the inequities we see around the world are based on environments some children are exposed to. In his work, Flynn stated his belief that the suppression of scientific work on intelligence would continue to lead to social inequities. We wish to take this idea and move it forward. We believe that the scientific construct of intelligence plays a key role in helping create a more equitable society through science. We also believe that the poor perception of intelligence, rooted in historical realities, means that it will continue to be misunderstood, feared, and misused, limiting how effective it could be in helping to close gaps in achievement and in creating a more equitable society.

Academic enablers as dynamic moderators: Exploring academic enablers and achievement across elementary school

The purpose of the current study was to advance the understanding of the cross-grade dynamics of academic enablers in three ways: (a) to compare overall levels of academic enablers across children's elementary school years, (b) to determine if the relationship between academic enablers and academic achievement remained consistent across children's elementary school years, and (c) to determine if the interrelationships between academic enablers remained consistent across elementary school. We examined cross-grade dynamics using a sample of elementary-aged children (N = 536) and structural equation modeling methodology to compare primary (K-3rd grade) and intermediate (4th-5th grade) students. After establishing measurement invariance, we tested whether (a) academic enabler means and variances were equivalent for younger and older elementary students, (b) the relationships between academic enablers and academic achievement were equivalent for younger and older elementary students, and (c) the interrelations between academic enablers were equivalent for younger versus older students. The findings revealed few differences in mean levels of academic enablers but several differences in the relationships between academic enablers and academic achievement, as well as academic enabler interrelations across grade groups. Implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.