/
At-Risk Beginning Readers: At-Risk Beginning Readers:

At-Risk Beginning Readers: - PowerPoint Presentation

karlyn-bohler
karlyn-bohler . @karlyn-bohler
Follow
375 views
Uploaded On 2018-10-28

At-Risk Beginning Readers: - PPT Presentation

Implications for Tier II Economies of Scale University of Utah Reading Clinic UURC Kathleen J Brown Matthew K Fields amp Grace T Craig with many thanks to Darrell Morris Appalachian State University ID: 699612

amp level intervention effect level amp effect intervention group readers model morris reading brown educators size school certified hlm

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "At-Risk Beginning Readers:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

At-Risk Beginning Readers:

Implications for Tier II Economies of Scale Slide2

University of Utah Reading Clinic (UURC)

Kathleen J. Brown, Matthew K. Fields & Grace T. CraigSlide3

….

with many thanks to

Darrell Morris, Appalachian State UniversitySlide4

Theoretical Frame: Readers

University of Virginia Intervention

Fluency work: repeated readings

Word study: systematic, explicit, isolated

Assisted reading on instructional level

4-5x per week; 45 minutes, 80 lessons

(Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005; Invernizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 2001; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1991; Santa & Hoien, 1995; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2003)Slide5

Theoretical Frame: Educators

University of Virginia P.D.

Year-Long Clinical Practicum in

schools

Modeling, Observation, Coaching (36 hours)

Tutoring (80 hours – minimum)

(Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1991; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2003)Slide6

Theoretical Frame: Group Size

University of Virginia Model

1:1 tutorial

Elbaum, Vaughn et al., meta-analysis 2002

No empirical evidence for 1:1 advantage over groupsSlide7

Theoretical Frame: Group Size

Vaughn et al., (2003)

G2

Group

size:

1:1

vs.

1:3 – n.s.; 1:10 *Brown

, Fields, Craig & Morris (2008

) G2&3

Group size: 1:1 vs. 1:3 –

n.s

.

Helf

et al., (2009) G1

Group size: 1:1 vs. 1:3 – n.s.Slide8

Research Question: Readers

Does 1:1 intervention for at-risk 1

st

graders have an advantage over intervention delivered in a 1:4 group format?Slide9

Research Question: Educators

Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver reading intervention as effectively as certified teachers in

1:1

and

1:4

formats…

…when supervised by a intervention specialist? Slide10

Methods: Readers

N = 214

14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools

Public: rural & urban

Grade 1 at-risk

Diverse SES, ethnicity

Randomly assigned to 1:1 or

Quad (1:4)Slide11

Methods: Educators

N = 47 (21 certified; 26 non-certified)

literacy coaches, paraprofessionals

Each pre-certified in Early Steps

Each tutored 1:1

and

1:4

Each was observed 13 times over yearSlide12

Methods: Intervention

45 minute Early Steps lesson

80 lessons over year’s

time

Identical content in text & word study

Students in Quads worked chorally on same materials at same

time during their lessons. Slide13

Methods: Pre-Post Measures

Criterion-referenced

Word recognition automaticity (Flash)

Reading Level Assessment – RLA (passages)

Spelling (developmental)

Norm-referenced

Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC)

DIBELS (NWF-WWR, ORF)Slide14

Methods: RLA Criteria

(passage reading) Slide15

Methods: Analyses

3-Level HLM: School, Tutor, Student

1:1/1:4 – Level 1 Variable

Certified/Non – Level 2 Variable

Model reduction method

Run full model w/ all covariates

Remove non-significant covariates

Retain variables of interest Slide16

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post RLA (passage reading)

c

2

p-value for Level-2 R (

Tutor Effect

) = .001

c

2

p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .259Slide17

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

RLA (passage reading)Slide18

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

c

2

p-value for Level-2 R (

Tutor Effect

) = .001

c

2

p-value for Level-3 U (

School Effect

) = .032Slide19

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

DIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)Slide20

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post Flash (word

rec

automaticity)

c

2

p-value for Level-2 R (

Tutor Effect

) = .000

c

2

p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500Slide21

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

Flash (word

rec

automaticity)Slide22

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post Spelling

c

2

p-value for Level-2 R (

Tutor Effect

) = .011

c

2

p-value for Level-3 U (

School Effect

) = .009Slide23

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post Passage Comprehension

c

2

p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .303

c

2

p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .152Slide24

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

WRMT Passage ComprehensionSlide25

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post DIBELS Whole Words Read

c

2

p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .345

c

2

p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500Slide26

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

DIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read)Slide27

Discussion: Readers

Extends

Vaughn et al., 2003 & Brown et al., 2008

to 1

st

graders

Extends

Helf et al., 2009 to group of 4

No advantage for at-risk G1 students in 1:1 group format over 1:4 (Quads)Slide28

Discussion: Educators

Extends

Brown

, Morris & Fields (2005

), Brown et al., (2008)

paraprofessionals as effective as certified educators

in delivering intervention.

Note: ALL (non-cert & cert) were trained & supervised by intervention specialistsSlide29

Implications for Ed Practice

Growing evidence that small groups are

effective means of delivering intervention to

primary grade struggling

readers.

mor

e desirable than 1:1--stretches

resources

such that

more

students

receive intervention (Title I schools)Slide30

Implications for Ed Practice

Trained, supervised paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of classroom teacher and literacy coaches.

Sheds new light on the

assumption

that “only the most highly qualified educators should be working with struggling readers.”Slide31

Implications for Ed Practice

>1 group size requires management skill on part of educator

When to Choose 1:1

group size

Students

who “don’t fit” a group

Educators who “don’t fit” with groupsSlide32

Future Research

Economies of Scale -

1:1

vs.

1:5 or 1:6

advantage?

Intervention that targets earlier phases of

developmentAt-risk pre-alphabetic readers in early K

At-risk partial

alphabetic

readers in mid K