1 / 55

Oregon Reading First

Oregon Reading First. Review of Supplemental and Intervention Programs Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D. Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph.D. Acknowledgments. Oregon Department of Education Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, College of Education, University of Oregon

ostinmannual
Download Presentation

Oregon Reading First

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Oregon Reading First Review of Supplemental and Intervention Programs Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D. Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph.D.

  2. Acknowledgments • Oregon Department of Education • Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, College of Education, University of Oregon • U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs • Oregon Reading First Supplemental and Intervention Curriculum Review Panel

  3. Content Development Content developed by: Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph. D. Coordinator, Oregon Reading First Center University of Oregon Edward J. Kame’enui, Ph. D. Professor, College of Education University of Oregon Additional support: Patrick Kennedy-Paine Katie Tate University of Oregon

  4. Copyright • All materials are copy written and should not be reproduced or used without expressed permission of Dr. Edward J. Kame’enui or Dr. Deborah C. Simmons. Selected slides were reproduced from other sources and original references cited.

  5. Schoolwide: Each & All Results Focused All Readers by 3rd Grade Prevention Oriented Scientifically Based IBR Foundational Features: Translating Research into Practice

  6. IBR Guiding Questions • Goals: What outcomes do we want for our students in our state, district, and schools? • Knowledge: What do we know and what guidance can we gain from scientifically based reading research? • Progress Monitoring Assessment: How are we doing? What is our current level of performance as a school? As a grade? As a class? As an individual student? • Outcome Assessment: How far do we need to go to reach our goals and outcomes? • Core Instruction: What are the critical components that need to be in place to reach our goals? • Differentiated Instruction: What more do we need to do and what instructional adjustments need to be made? Today’s Focus

  7. Objective of Reading First • (1) “To provide assistance to state educational agencies and local educational agencies in establishing reading programs for students in kindergarten through grade 3 that are based on scientifically based reading research to ensure that every student can read at grade level or above not later than the end of grade 3.” • NCLB, 2001, Part B, Sec. 1201

  8. Core Reading Program Meeting the needs for most Understanding the Purpose of Different Programs Programs are tools that are implemented by teachers to ensure that children learn enough on time. Classifying Reading Programs: What is the purpose of the program? 1. Core 2. Supplemental Core Intervention 3. Intervention Supplemental Supplemental Intervention Reading Program Reading Program Supporting the Core Meeting the needs for each (Vaughn et al. 2001)

  9. Core Program A core program is the “base” reading program designed to provide instruction on the essential areas of reading for the majority of students schoolwide. In general, the core program should enable 80% or more of students to attain schoolwide reading goals. A Core Instructional Program of Validated Efficacy Adopted and Implemented Schoolwide

  10. Evaluating Core Programs: Identifying Gaps One size does not fit all— Period! We may need to supplement or modify, but we must do it judiciously.

  11. Supplemental Programs: • Support and extend the critical elements of a core reading program. • Provide additional instruction in one or two areas (e.g., phonological awareness, fluency) and • Provide more instruction or practice in particular area(s) of need.

  12. Intervention Programs: • Designed for children who demonstrate reading difficulty and are performing below grade level. • Provide more explicit, systematic instruction to accelerate learning and bring the learner to grade-level performance. • Focus on more than one area (e.g., phonics, fluency, and comprehension). • May focus exclusively on one essential reading area. • Allow teachers to meet the needs of individual students who are struggling in their classrooms. • Specialized, intense, and typically delivered in small group settings.

  13. Core Reading Program Meeting the needs for most Understanding the Purpose of Different Programs Programs are tools that are implemented by teachers to ensure that children learn enough on time. Classifying Reading Programs: What is the purpose of the program? 1. Core 2. Supplemental Core Intervention 3. Intervention Supplemental Supplemental Intervention Reading Program Reading Program Supporting the Core Meeting the needs for each (Vaughn et al. 2001)

  14. Identifying Gaps: Examine the Core Review Summary of Houghton Mifflin: Possible Gaps Are Areas <75%

  15. Identifying Gaps: Examine the Core Review Summary of Open Court: Possible Gaps Are Areas <75%

  16. Call for Supplemental and Intervention Programs • Announcement posted on Oregon Reading First and WOATRA’s websites inviting publishers to submit supplemental and intervention programs for review. (August 15, 2003 deadline for submissions.) • Second call for supplemental and intervention programs in October of 2003 with a December 19th deadline for submissions.

  17. Supplemental and Intervention Programs to Review • 42 publishers submitted 230 programs in first call. • In October, 2003, regional coordinators and mentor coaches were asked to identify high-priority programs from the list of 230 programs and were given the opportunity to nominate programs that were not on the list. • Any program that received 2 or more votes was put on a priority list. • 106 high-priority programs were identified.

  18. Oregon Reading First - Top 25 High Priority Programs

  19. Oregon Reading First - Top 25 High Priority Programs (cont.)

  20. More Programs to Review • 44 programs written in by coaches and regional coordinators. • 13 additional programs were identified from Reading First Centers in other states • Approximately 60 programs received through the second call. • With first call programs, a total of over 300 programs to review!!

  21. Curriculum Review Panel for Supplemental and Intervention Programs • 66 members: • 35 Reading First Mentor Coaches • 4 Reading First Regional Coordinators • 5 staff members from the Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center • 3 faculty and staff from the University of Oregon • 6 research assistants from the University of Oregon • 7 researchers from the Pacific Institute for Research • 4 teachers • 2 district curriculum specialists

  22. Oregon Reading First Curriculum Review Panel Members • Karen Aquinas RF Mentor Coach, Chiloquin Elementary • Julie Bainbridge RF Mentor Coach, May Roberts Elementary • Doris Baker Research Assistant, University of Oregon • Scott Baker, Ph.D. Researcher, Pacific Institute for Research • Leanne Bettesworth Research Assistant, University of Oregon • Judy Chesnut RF Mentor Coach, Grove and Freewater Elementaries • Linda Carnine, Ph.D. Consultant, Western Regional RF Technical Assistance Center • Ben Clarke, Ph.D. Researcher, Pacific Institute for Research • Debbie Connolly RF Mentor Coach, Howard Elementary • Lisa Cook Teacher (Title I), Cherry Park Elementary • Annette Culbertson RF Mentor Coach, Beach Elementary • Carol Dissen RF Mentor Coach, Mooberry Elementary • Hank Fien RF Regional Coordinator • Toni Fisher RF Mentor Coach, William Walker Elementary • Toni Gula RF Mentor Coach, Lincoln Park Elementary • Barbara Gunn, Ph.D. Researcher, Pacific Institute for Research • Sheila Hallinan RF Mentor Coach, Scott Elementary • Mariko Harris Teacher (ELL), Mill Park Elementary • David Howe Tech. Assistance Coordinator, Western Regional RF Tech. Assist. Center • Kathy Howe, Ph.D. Deputy Director, Western Regional RF Tech. Assistance Center

  23. Oregon Reading First Curriculum Review Panel Members (cont.) • Susan Josephson RF Mentor Coach, Woodlawn Elementary • Edward Kame’enui, Ph.D. Professor, University of Oregon • Ruth Kaminski, Ph.D. Researcher, Pacific Institute for Research • Rachell Katz RF Regional Coordinator • Meera Kreitzer RF Mentor Coach, Washington Elementary • Katherine Kurdock RF Mentor Coach, Aloha Park Elementary • Jim Lehmkuhler RF Mentor Coach, Myrtle Creek Elementary • Barbara Low RF Mentor Coach, Oak Grove Elementary • Kristen MacConnell Research Assistant, University of Oregon • Jerrie Matuszak RF Mentor Coach, Sunrise Elementary • Laurene McClintock RF Mentor Coach, Mill Park Elementary • Sarah McDonagh, Ph.D. Tech. Assist. Coord, Western Regional RF Tech Assist Center • Stacie Moncrief RF Mentor Coach, Ventura Park Elementary • Shawna Moran RF Mentor Coach, Hayesville Elementary • Linda Myers RF Mentor Coach, Hayesville Elementary • Pat Nash RF Mentor Coach, Lincoln Elementary • Kristin Orton Research Assistant, University of Oregon • Janet Otterstedt Research Assistant, Pacific Institute for Research • Mary Peake RF Mentor Coach, Humboldt Elementary • Maria Randle RF Mentor Coach, Westside Elementary

  24. Oregon Reading First Curriculum Review Panel Members (cont.) • Michael Rebar, Ph.D. Researcher, Pacific Institute for Research • Connie Robertson RF Mentor Coach, David Hill Elementary • Donna Rodgers RF Mentor Coach, Warm Springs Elementary • Katie Rotz Research Assistant, University of Oregon • Robin Rovers Teacher (ERC), Lincoln Park Elementary • Kathy Ryan RF Mentor Coach, Cherry Park Elementary • Amanda Sanford Research Assistant, University of Oregon • Mary Sharp RF Mentor Coach, Tri City Elementary • Nicole Sherman Brewer RF Regional Coordinator • Mandy Shoemaker RF Mentor Coach, W.L. Henry Elementary • Jerry Silbert Tech. Assistance Provider, Western. Regional RF Tech. Assist. Center • Deborah Simmons, Ph.D. Professor, University of Oregon • Sylvia Smith, Ph.D. Researcher, Pacific Institute for Research • Kimberly Skach RF Mentor Coach, West Powellhurst Elementary • Rea Snyder RF Mentor Coach, Jackson Elementary • Maryann Stalnaker TOSA, Portland Public Schools • Annie Tabshy RF Mentor Coach, Boise-Eliot Elementary • Linda Taylor RF Mentor Coach, Jefferson Elementary • Carrie Thomas Beck, Ph.D. Coordinator, Oregon Reading First Center • Kathy Tosti TOSA, Portland Public Schools

  25. Oregon Reading First Curriculum Review Panel Members (cont.) • Gretchen Van Hoet RF Mentor Coach, Whitcomb Elementary • Jim Walt RF Mentor Coach, Alameda Elementary School • Gloria Weinberg RF Mentor Coach, Lent Elementary • Angela Whalen, Ph.D. Instructor & School Psych Practicum Coord., U of O • Deborah White Oregon Teacher of the Year, Lyle Elementary School • Cynthia Wood RF Mentor Coach, Whitman Elementary School

  26. A Consumer’s Guide to Evaluating Supplemental and Intervention Reading Programs Grades K-3 • ORGANIZATION: • by essential component • items generally ordered from K to 3 • appropriate grades marked with an X • two columns for documentation • Initial Instruction • Additional Evidence • summary and comment pages following each essential component

  27. Breakdown by Essential Component: • Phonemic Awareness - 10 items • Phonics: • Decoding - 13 items • Irregular Words - 6 items • Fluency - 12 items • Vocabulary - 10 items • Comprehension - 10 items

  28. Sample Page:

  29. = Program consistently meets/exceeds criterion • = Program partially meets/exceeds criterion • = Program does not satisfy the criterion Scoring Criteria: Use the following criteria to score each item: When evaluating individual elements, slash ( / ) the respective circle that represents your rating (e.g., ).

  30. Scoring Guidelines • Identify essential components and grade levels that the program targets. • Complete only those items that evaluate the targeted components and grades. • For multi-grade programs that instruct students across grade levels (e.g., a K-1 program), mark one program rating per relevant item. • For grade-specific programs, review each grade level separately and assign a distinct score for each grade for each item. • Complete additional items for intervention programs.

  31. Items for Analysis of K-3 Reading Intervention Programs • INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND EMPHASIS (7 Items) • INSTRUCTIONAL GROUPING (3 Items) • INSTRUCTIONAL ASSESSMENT (4 Items)

  32. INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND EMPHASIS

  33. INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND EMPHASIS (cont.)

  34. Instructional Grouping

  35. Instructional Assessment

  36. Program Assignment • Initially, CRP members were randomly assigned to programs to review. Each member was assigned 4 programs, starting with the high priority programs. • After a couple weeks of reviewing, all incomplete programs were combined into one pool. As reviewers finished a program, the next high priority program was selected from the pool. • The following were taken into consideration for program assignment: • availability of reviewer • length of program • physical size of program • technology needs • location of reviewer • CRP members were not permitted to review any program for which they are an author, consultant, or advisor. (All reviewers signed a statement of disclosure.)

  37. Program Assignment (cont.) • In most cases, each reviewer was assigned to evaluate all levels of a program (e.g., K, 1, 2, and 3). • Each reviewer was not assigned more than 2 programs from the same publisher. • To date, each member has reviewed from 1-14 programs based on reviewer availability and length of programs. • Time to complete a program varied greatly. (e.g., In a group of 10 reviewers who each completed 1 program at the beginning of December, completion time ranged from 3.5 to 25 hours.)

  38. Review Procedures • Each program was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. (Reviewers were assigned code numbers to ensure a blind review.) • Review work was completed at the Oregon Reading First Center or materials were checked out to complete the review off site. • Initial review work was completed between October, 2003 and January, 2004. • 53 programs completed to date.

  39. Review Procedures: Reliability Between Reviewers • Upon completion of a program, scores between the two initial reviewers were compared. • Each rating was assigned a point value: • = 2 points • = 1 point • = 0 points • Items that were off by one were averaged (e.g. full circle and partial circle = 1.5) • For items that were off by more than one (e.g. full circle and empty circle), a third reviewer was asked to reconcile the items.

  40. Review Procedures: Reliability Between Reviewers • Third reviewers assigned to “reconcile” did not conduct the initial review of the program. • Third reviewers examined the documented evidence from the 2 initial reviewers and the program materials to determine which of the two scores best represented the selected item as the final score.

  41. Summarizing Results • Result of the review process is one averaged/ rectified score for each item for a program. • Final Report includes a completed Consumer’s Guide for each program (item by item). • Final Report summarizes results by program and by essential components. • NOTE: Intervention items have not been analyzed yet.

  42. Final Report Oregon Reading First Review of Supplemental and Intervention Programs 1. Table of Contents 2. List of Completed Programs 3. Consumer’s Guide for Each Completed Program (alphabetically by program name) 4. Summary By Big Idea (Essential Component) • Total percentages by grade for PA, phonics, and fluency • Item analyses for each big idea

  43. p. 5

  44. Program Summary

  45. Program Summary: Phonemic Awareness Sample

  46. Program Summary: Phonemic Awareness Example • Kindergarten/ First Grade Phonemic Awareness Instruction • Tally the number of elements with each rating. 11 + 2_3_ + _3_ (2 pts) (1.5 pts) (1 pt) (.5 pts) (0 pts) • Total Points/Total Possible Points 7/20 = 35%

More Related