Steve Amendum Marnie C. Ginsberg University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill National Reading Conference, 2007

1. The Targeted Reading Intervention: How Early Reading Intervention for Rural Kindergarten and First-Grade Students Affects Teachers’ Ratings of Students’ Literacy Skills Targeting instructional match in every interaction… Steve Amendum Marnie C. Ginsberg University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill National Reading Conference, 2007

2. Purpose The purpose of the current research-in-progress study was to evaluate the effects of the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) on struggling rural kindergarten and first-grade students’ reading achievement. The TRI was designed and is currently being evaluated as part of a multiyear randomized clinical trial.

3. Research Question Do struggling rural kindergarten and first-grade students who receive the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) with adequate implementation make greater gains in teachers’ ratings of literacy ability across one year than struggling rural kindergarten and first-grade students who receive TRI with lower implementation or than students who do not receive TRI, when controlling for SES?

4. Rationale/Theoretical Framework • Importance of early intervention (e.g., Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) • What is less well-established efficient and effective reading interventions • TRI designed and conceptualized from several key reading theories/current reading research • Focus on the needs of schools

5. Transactional model of early reading development Motivation: Guthrie’s Reading as Engagement Cognition:Share’s Self-Teaching Hypothesis Child Explaining Cumulative Effects:Stanovich’s Matthew Effects Teacher The Relational:Literacy via the teacher-child relationship (Pianta)

6. Methods—Design • One year pre-post two-group randomized experimental design • Three rural schools • One intervention school, two control schools • Intervention school: TRI materials, TRI professional development, and ongoing TRI consultation • Control schools: “business as usual”

7. Methods—Teacher Participants • 10 kindergarten, 10 first-grade • 8 experimental, 12 control • All 20 teachers held state teaching certification • two held temporary certificates (one experimental, one control) • All 20 were female • Ethnicities: • 13 Caucasian of European descent • 3 African-American • 1 Native American • Ages ranged 24 to 60 years • Prior experience .5 years to 33 years • average 16.83 years of experience • 14 undergraduate degree, 6 master’s degree or higher

8. Methods—Student Participants • All students likely to struggle with reading identified • 5 focal students were randomly selected per classroom • Total of 90 students • 41 intervention, 49 control • 29 females, 61 males • Ethnicities: • 45.6% African-American • 34.4% European Caucasian • 14.4% Native American • 5.6% other races • Students in control schools: • mothers with higher levels of education • lower subsidized lunch levels (78.5% vs. 98%)

9. Targeted Reading Intervention • The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) (Ginsberg, Amendum, & Vernon-Feagans): • Dual-level intervention • Targets both K-1 teachers and their struggling readers • The TRI helps teachers: • acquire essential knowledge of early reading development and efficient instructional strategies • develop skills in matching instruction to informal assessment • apply these knowledge sources and skills particularly for the benefit of struggling readers

10. Targeted Reading Intervention • Daily • One-on-one  small groups • Efficient, evidence-based reading strategies • Reading strategies integrate multiple essential early reading abilities • Context of real words and books • Diagnostic thinking • TRI materials are low-cost, commonly available

11. Data Sources • Modified version of the Academic Rating Scale (ARS) for Language and Literacy (Academic Rating Scale, 2001) • Completed fall and spring • Example items • rxx = .87 and .91 for fall and spring, respectively • TRI intervention fidelity rating scale • Rated the duration and quality of the TRI instruction for each student • Completed spring

12. Variables • Teacher’s Rating of Literacy Ability Gain. • From modified ARS • difference scores were computed between spring and fall ARS scores • TRI Implementation Status • From TRI intervention fidelity rating scale • First, computed Total Fidelity score (the mean of the duration and quality of TRI instruction) • Second, Total Fidelity scores divided into two groups • Adequate fidelity (Total Fidelity > 3) • Inadequate fidelity (Total Fidelity ≤ 3) • Third, students’ scores categorized into three levels of TRI Implementation Status • TRI with adequate implementation (n = 14) • TRI with inadequate implementation (n = 17) • No TRI (n = 43)

13. Analyses/Results • An analysis of covariance • DV = Teacher’s Rating of Literacy Ability Gain • IV = TRI Implementation Status • Cov = maternal education in years • Planned contrasts for TRI Implementation Status • Participants with missing ARS scores (n = 16) excluded from analyses

14. Analyses/Results • Main effect for TRI Implementation Status • F(2, 67) = 5.836, p < .006, η2 = 0.142 • Indicated significant differences among the three groups.

15. Results of Planned Contrasts *

16. Main Conclusion • Struggling K-1 students who received TRI instruction with adequate implementation made greater teacher’s rating of literacy ability gains than students who received the TRI with inadequate implementation or did not receive the TRI. • Preliminary findings revealed positive effects of the TRI, when implemented with adequate implementation, for students’ gains on Teacher’s Rating of Literacy Ability

17. Limits • Teachers’ ratings vs. student assessments • Short intervention period • Analyses

18. Discussion/Implications • Effective reading intervention for struggling readers • Effect of TRI on students’ gains on reading assessments (Ginsberg, 2006; Vernon-Feagans, 2007). • Importance of implementation • Support for the dynamic interplay between internal (child) and external (teacher instruction) factors • Additional research • impact on other student populations • teacher-student interactions • additional outcomes at teacher and student levels • long term effects of the TRI