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
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.
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