Wanda Grewe The Leveled Literacy Intervention System (LLI) was developed by Irene C.

Fountas and Gay Su innell !or students in "inder#arten throu#h second #rade who have been labeled at$ris" due to their low per!ormance on readin# assessments. The system utili%es the Fountas and innell Te&t Level Gradient. This means that boo"s are leveled on an '$( scale) with ' bein# the lowest level and considered the *easiest+ te&t. Students be#in on level ' in mid$"inder#arten and wor" their way up to level () which) ideally) they will achieve by the si&th #rade. The LLI system !ocuses on phonolo#ical awareness) phonics) !luency) comprehension) and the e&pansion o! oral lan#ua#e s"ills (includin# vocabulary). In addition to receivin# re#ular classroom instruction) at$ris" students wor" to#ether in small #roups with a teacher who has been trained in LLI (usually a Title I teacher or readin# specialist). Students wor" with this speciali%ed teacher !or every day !or ,-$,. wee"s !or /0 minutes. Students are evaluated and #iven two di!!erent levels1 their independent level and their instructional level. Independent level te&t they should be able to read with little di!!iculty) while te&ts at their instructional level tend to be a bit more challen#in#. This is to help them build !luency and con!idence (with independent level) and to allow them to build on their readin# s"ills (with instructional level). (Typically) there is only #radient level between the two.) They are evaluated periodically durin# this time to reassess their levels. The #oal is to have students readin# at their current #rade level by the end o! the assessment period. 2ethod ' total o! nine schools participated in this research study. Students in "inder#arten to second #rade were randomly assi#ned to either the treatment #roup (n3444) or the control #roup (n3405). 'll students were assessed at the be#innin# and end o! the intervention usin# the Fountas and innell 6enchmar" 'ssessment System and the 7ynamic Indicators o! 6asic 8arly Literacy S"ills (7I68LS). The Fountas and innell 6enchmar" 'ssessment System assess students on phonemic awareness) letter$sound relationships (decodin#)) vocabulary) comprehension) !luency and writin#. In this study the 7I68LS was used to assess students on initial sound !luency) letter namin# !luency) phoneme se#mentation !luency) nonsense word !luency) and oral readin# !luency.

Teachers identi!ied students !or LLI usin# their own selection criteria. These students then wor"ed in small #roups o! !our or less with the trained teacher !or up to 90 days on their readin# s"ills. :o additional pull$out tutorin# was done with any student who was in the pro#ram. ;esults <inder#arteners who participated in LLI achieved a mean #ain o! ,.5= benchmar" levels. Those that did not receive LLI) had a mean #ain o! .>.. ?n avera#e) LLI students be#an on level pre$' and !inished between levels ' and 6. :on$LLI students be#an near pre$' and !inished on level '. Students parta"in# in LLI !inished closer to their end o! the year #rade level) C) than those in the control #roup. There were !ew si#ni!icant #ains with the 7I68LS. First #raders in the treatment #roup achieved a mean #ain o! -.-= benchmar" levels. Those in the control #roup had a mean #ain o! 4.=/ benchmar" levels. LLI students #enerally started below #rade level) ') and !inished between levels 8 and F. The control #roup be#an near level ' and !inished around level 7. 't the time the assessment was per!ormed) students should have been at levels 8@F accordin# to the Fountas and innell benchmar"s. ?verall) there were !ew si#ni!icant #ains with the 7I68LS between treatment and control #roups. Second #raders in the LLI #roup had a mean #ain o! -.=- benchmar" levels whereas those in the control #roup had a 4.99 increase. Those in the treatment #roup started out around level 8) but !inished on avera#e at level A. Students in the control #roup be#an around level F and !inished around level I. Ideally) students should have tested at levels A@< at this time to be considered at #rade level. '#ain) there no was si#ni!icant di!!erence in the 7I68LS subtests. 7iscussion The cost o! LLI is somethin# that prevents schools !rom adoptin# this type o! intervention. LLI provides hi#h interest te&ts to students at a hi#h monetary cost to the school district. Three di!!erent "its are sold !or di!!erent #rade levels. Students ta"e boo"s !rom these "its home with them to practice their readin# s"ills and may not return them) which !orces the district to purchase additional materials. It is di!!icult to accommodate students in a small #roup. 'lthou#h students may all be at the same readin# level) they may stru##le with di!!erent literary s"ills. Teachers also stru##led on

!ittin# in a daily hal! hour session. Students who went to pull out sessions tended to miss re#ular classroom instruction which may cause them to !all behind in other subBects. The schools participatin# in this study !ound that the Leveled Literacy Intervention System did have a positive impact on the students in the treatment #roup. 'cross the #rade levels) there was an increase in benchmar" levels ran#in# !rom ,.5 up to 5.5 levels. Students in the control #roup had increases ran#in# !rom less than , to / levels. 8ven thou#h overall there was little si#ni!icant di!!erence when it came to the 7I68LS assessment) certain subtests did show some #ains. 't the time o! this study) there were no lon#itudinal trac"in# done) so it is di!!icult to say what the lon# term impact o! LLI is.

;e!erences ;ans!ord$<aldon) C. ;.) Flynt) 8. S.) ;oss) C. L.) Franceschini) L.) (oblots"y) T.) Cuan#) D.) E Galla#her) 6. (40,0). Implementation o! e!!ective intervention1 'n empirical study to evaluate the e!!icacy o! Fountas E innellFs Leveled Literacy Intervention ro#ram (LLI).

'rticle CritiGue It was interestin# to read this article because it has an ac"nowled#ement section that states *This study was supported by !undin# !rom Ceinemann ublishin#HWe appreciate the opportunity to evaluate one o! their widely used productsH+ '!ter loo"in# at three other research studies that were not sponsored by their own publisher) I noticed a several di!!erences between them. This study made little re!erences to any previous studies that had been done on the Leveled Learnin# Intervention System. There was nothin# to compare their results to in order to tell i! they were valid or reliable. It was di!!icult to tell i! this was because there really is not a lar#e base o! research on this intervention) or i! it was intentionally le!t out. Since the publisher !unded the research) it ma"es easier to believe that the omission was done on purpose) but I would have to do !urther research on LLI to determine i! this were true. The researchers did not mention that they were #oin# to !ocus on minorities durin# the introduction or method section o! the paper. Cowever) a lar#e portion o! the results section was spent on how well these speci!ic #roups did and how much that they bene!ited !rom the Leveled Learnin# Intervention System. With that lar#e o! a !ocus place on this) one would have thou#ht mention o! it would have been made earlier. It seemed apparent that they were ma"in# an appeal to urban schools to purchase their product. ?verall) it was hard to accept all o! the results that were stated in this study. They seemed too e&ceptional. ?ur school district uses LLI) and I am not con!ident that we receive the same outcomes that this study claims to have had.

Figure 1. ' Chec"list !or ;eviewin# and Writin# a Scholarly 'rticle Excellent Criterion Is title consistent with content o! articleI 7oes abstract condense the articleI Is the problem clearly statedI 're hypotheses clearly statedI 're all assumptions clearly statedI 're study limitations clearly statedI 're important terms clearly de!inedI Is introduction clear and relates problem to previous researchI Is research method described clearly and !ullyI Is research method appropriate !or problem solutionI 're population and sample described !ullyI J J J J J J J J J J 5 J Good Fair Poor Failed 4 3 2 1

Is samplin# method appropriateI Is there evidence o! validity and reliabilityI 're data analysis procedures appropriateI Were statistical methods applied appropriateI 're results presented lo#ically and clearlyI 're conclusions clearly statedI 're conclusions consistent with evidence presentedI 're #enerali%ations con!ined to population !rom which the sample was ta"enI Is article clearly writtenI Is article lo#ically or#ani%edI Is tone o! article consistent with an unbiased) impartial scienti!ic attitudeI 7id author cite mostly primary sourcesI

J J

J J

J J J

Is article primary or secondary in natureI 're !indin#s related to e&istin# literatureI 7oes article include recent and older literatureI K 2odi!ied a!ter Wandt in Issac E 2ichael (,9>,). KK'll items may not be appropriate !or a #iven article.