1 / 61

Dr. Valerie Harrison GCEl February 24-26, 2014

A Study of The Georgia Early Intervention Program Models and Their Effect on Students’ Reading Achievement. Dr. Valerie Harrison GCEl February 24-26, 2014. Outline. Introduction Georgia Early Intervention Program Problem Background Problem Statement Purpose of Study Theoretical Framework

sorley
Download Presentation

Dr. Valerie Harrison GCEl February 24-26, 2014

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. A Study of The Georgia Early Intervention Program Models and Their Effect on Students’ Reading Achievement Dr. Valerie Harrison GCEl February 24-26, 2014 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  2. Outline • Introduction • Georgia Early Intervention Program • Problem Background • Problem Statement • Purpose of Study • Theoretical Framework • Research Questions • Significance of Study • Literature Review • Research Design • Results • Findings • Recommendations Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  3. Introduction Millions of children in the United States have difficulty reading; and have not acquired the skills necessary to become proficient readers (Somers, 2006). Without intervention, most readers who are deficient continue to lag behind and never catch up (Reschly, 2010; Somers, 2006;Torgesen, 2004; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). According to Wanzek & Vaughn (2007), the outcomes are favorable for children who participate in extensive intervention. 8/20/2014 3 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  4. Introduction • The Georgia Early Intervention Program (EIP) is a state funded early intervention initiative for K-5 grades. It was created to meet the requirements of House Bill 1187(GaDOE, 2004). • EIP is designed to support students who are performing below grade level in the area of reading by providing additional resources to eligible students to help them reach grade level performance (GaDOE, 2010). Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  5. One proven way to support low-level readers is to reduce the class size. Implementing smaller class sizes not only improves student achievement, it also improves student/teacher relations and decreases class disruptions, Torgesen, 2004 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  6. Early Intervention Program (EIP) The Georgia Early Intervention Program meets the requirements of Official Code of Georgia 20-2-153, which states, “The Early Intervention Program shall serve students who are at risk of not reaching or maintaining academic grade level.” Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  7. Early Intervention Program (EIP) STAFF: EIP must be staffed by certified teachers. Full-time paraprofessionals may assist Kindergarten EIP teachers for the purposes of reducing the pupil-teacher ratio to meet class size reduction rules. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  8. Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Teacher Early Intervention Program (EIP) ______ _______ Self-Contained Pullout Augmented ReducedClass Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  9. Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Augmented Model (AU) 14 EIP Students Non-EIP Students Teacher Teacher Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  10. Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Pullout Model (PO) 18 EIP Students Teacher 14 EIP Students Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  11. Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Self-Contained Model (SC) 14 EIP Students 18 EIP Students Teacher Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  12. Problem Background • Most children who experience difficulty learning to read during the primary grades will most likely never learn to read adequately (Beswick, Stoat, & Willms, 2007). • Studies revealed that children who have low literacy skills at the end of third grade often need long-term intervention (Reschly, 2010; Beswick, Stoat, & Willms, 2007; Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2001). • In light of these statistics, intensive reading intervention must be a priority for schools particularly those that serve at-risks populations (Menzies, Mahdavi, & Lewis, 2008). 8/20/2014 12 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  13. Problem Background Each year, Georgia allots an average of 600 million dollars a year to serve students who are functioning below grade level. The Georgia General Assembly has expended nearly six billion dollars to serve at- risk learners in grades K-5. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  14. Problem Background In the large urban school district in Georgia where the research was conducted, nearly 300 million dollars have been expended on the Early Intervention Program since 2002. An average of 31 million dollars a year has been allocated to the program. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  15. Problem Statement • The First Line of Defense: Georgia’s Early Intervention Program study, administered by the Georgia Department of Education (2004), revealed the need for more research in all areas of the program, particularly in the area of delivery models, “there has been no systematic data collected on the use of the model types implemented across the state” (p.3). • In a large urban school district in Georgia, millions of dollars have been expended with no systematic assessment of the programs effectiveness. 15 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  16. Problem Statement (GaDOE, 2004) Additionally, the research conducted on reading intervention using the CSR models is limited and leads to no conclusive evidence on which model produced the greatest gains in student achievement. The State Department of Education, school districts, and schools across Georgia want to know if the Georgia Early Intervention Program is effective in improving reading achievement in low performing students. 16 8/20/2014 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  17. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to examine the Early Intervention Program models and student reading achievement in one large urban school district in Georgia, in order to determine the effectiveness of the program in meeting its goal of increasing the academic performance of students in the elementary grades who are reading below grade level. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  18. Theoretical Framework Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  19. Theoretical Framework Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) Piaget’s Maturation Theory Variables in Study The Socialization Theory Augmented Model Pullout Model Reading Achievement Lazear’s Theory of Class Size Self-Contained Model Traditional Instruction Independent Variables Dependent Variable Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  20. Research Questions 8/20/2014 20 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  21. Significance of Study • This thorough examination of the Early Intervention Program could help schools in Georgia make instructional decisions about the most effective model to use to yield the greatest gain in student achievement. • This study could help the school district in Georgia where the study was conducted make important decisions on the effectiveness of the augmented, pullout, and self-contained instructional models. • Research on the effectiveness of EIP could possibly assist the Georgia State Department of Education with program funding concerns. • This study adds to the body of knowledge on effective reading intervention models and improving achievement in at-risk readers. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  22. Review of Literature The purpose of this literature review is to : • Review literature on the Georgia Early Intervention Program • Examine research surrounding early intervention in reading and its effect on improving reading achievement in low performing students • Investigate the research on using class size reduction as a reading intervention to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap • Explore literature on intervention models and their effect on reading achievement Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  23. Summary of Literature Review • When intervention is offered early in the student’s elementary career, they eventually learn to read and achieve grade level status (Beswick, Stoat, & Willms, 2007). Intervention is most effective when it occur before the student enters fourth grade. • One study conducted on the Georgia Early Intervention Program, reveals very positive results for improving student achieve in at-risk readers (Homes, 2009). While another conducted on EIP grouping techniques, resulted in no significant improvement in reading for fifth graders (Davis, 2007). • Reducing class size is a proven way to support below level reader. Class size reduction produces the greatest gains when implemented early. Overall, these studies have revealed that the effects from class size reduction increase as the class size gets smaller. • The success of class size reductions is influenced by the intervention models employed to deliver the services. Literature on reading intervention models reveals that no model is more effective than the other in improving student achievement (Woodward & Talbert-Johnson , 2009). Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  24. Sampling Population: Demographics • This study is being conducted in a large urban school district in Georgia. • The school system’s enrollment consists of 98,616 students: • African-American (70.2%) • Asian (2.2%) • Hispanic (12.0%) • Multiracial (1.5%) • White (10.9%) • Other (.5). Approximately • 69.4% of the students are on free or reduced lunch • 10.7% of the population is served in Special Education • 8.51% of the students are served as English Language Learners • 22.9% of the student population is served in the Early Intervention Program • 70 % of the students are low-socio-economic status • 93% of the schools are Title I (DCSS, 2010) Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  25. Selection of Participants • Purposeful Sampling Method • The study was conducted using EIP eligible reading students in • 9 Title I schools • Grades1-3 • 70 teachers • 534 students • Reading teachers were selected based on their use of the EIP models • Pullout (PO) • Augmented (AU) • Self-contained (SC) • No EIP intervention or traditional instruction (NO) Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  26. Quantitative Research Design Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  27. ResultsResearch Question One Is there a significant difference in the reading achievement post-test score as measured by the benchmark reading post-test between first grade Early Intervention Program students taught using the pullout, augmented, self-contained models, and traditional instruction? • The ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the reading benchmark post-test scores of first grade students receiving EIP instruction using the AU, PO, SC, and NO (traditional instruction) instructional model groups • The ANOVA indicates a significant difference in the instructional model groups, (F (3, 182) = 7.222, p < .05), η2 = 0.106. • Null hypothesis was rejected (F=7.222, p<.05) Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  28. FindingsResearch Question One - Grade 1 • In order to isolate where the differences within the means lie, a post hoc Scheffe pairwise comparison test was conducted • In first grade, below level readers who received instruction using the augmented model or traditional instruction scored significantly higher than students taught using the self-contained or pullout models. • In first grade, the post hoc Scheffe pairwise comparison, indicated that there was a significant difference between • (AU-SC, sig = 0.05 < 0.05) • (NO-PO, sig = 0.04< 0.05) • (NO-SC, sig = 0.00 < 0.05) • The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternate hypothesis was accepted. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  29. ConclusionsResearch Question One – Grade 1 • In First Grade: • The augmented model proved to be significantly more effective when addressing the needs of below level first grade readers. • EIP students taught using the pullout and the self-contained models post-test scores were not statistically significant and would not be the most effective model when addressing the needs of below level reader. • Below level readers who received traditional or no intervention, reading benchmark post-test scores were more statistically significant than students taught using the pullout and self-contained models. 8/20/2014 29 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  30. ConclusionsResearch Question One – Grade 1 • First Grade • First Grade AU PO SC NO • First Grade • First Grade 8/20/2014 30 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  31. ResultsResearch Question Two – Grade 2 Is there a significant difference in the reading achievement post-test score as measured by the benchmark reading post-test between second grade Early Intervention Program students taught using the pullout, augmented, self-contained models, and traditional instruction? • The ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the reading benchmark post-test scores of second grade students receiving EIP instruction using the AU, PO, SC, and NO (traditional instruction) instructional model groups. • The ANOVA indicates a significant difference in the instructional model groups, (F (3, 133) = 8.06, p < .05), η2 = 0.15 • Null hypothesis was rejected (F=8.06, p<.05) Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  32. Research Question TwoFindings • In order to isolate where the differences within the means lie, a post hoc Scheffe pairwise comparison test was conducted. • In second grade, below level readers who received instruction using the augmented and the self-contained models reading achievement was significantly higher than students who received pullout or traditional (no EIP) instruction. • In second grade, the post hoc Scheffe pairwise comparison indicated that there was a significant difference between • (AU-PO, sig = 0.01 < 0.05) • (AU-NO, sig = 0.00< 0.05) • (SC-PO, sig = 0.03 < 0.05) • (SC-NO, sig = 0.03 < 0.05) • The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternate hypothesis was accepted. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  33. ConclusionsResearch Question Two – Second Grade In Second Grade Below average second grade readers who received EIP instruction using the augmented or self-contained models perform better than below average second grade readers who received EIP instruction using the pullout model or traditional instruction. Pullout and traditional models of instruction proved to be an ineffective way to address the needs of below averages readers in second grade. 8/20/2014 33 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  34. ConclusionsResearch Question Two– Grade 2 • Second • Grade • Second • Grade AU PO NO SC • Second • Grade • Second • Grade 8/20/2014 34 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  35. Research Question ThreeResults Is there a significant difference in the reading achievement post-test score as measured by the benchmark reading post-test between third grade Early Intervention Program students taught using the pullout, augmented, self-contained models, and traditional instruction? • The ANOVA revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the reading benchmark post-test scores of third grade students receiving EIP instruction using the AU, PO, SC, and NO (traditional instruction) instructional model groups. • The ANOVA indicates a significant difference in the instructional model groups, (F (3, 207) = 3.03, p < .05), η2 = 0.04 • Null hypothesis was rejected (F=3.03, p<.05) Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  36. FindingsResearch Question Three • In order to isolate where the differences within the means lie, a post hoc Scheffe pairwise comparison test was conducted. • In third grade, below level readers who received EIP instruction using the augmented model reading achievement was significantly higher than students who received instruction using the other models and no EIP instruction. • In third grade, the post hoc Scheffe pairwise comparison, indicated that there was a significant difference between • (AU-NO, sig = 0.04< 0.05) • The null hypothesis was rejected and the alternate hypothesis was accepted. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  37. ConclusionsResearch Question Three -Third Grade In Third Grade The results of the analysis revealed the most significant difference in reading achievement in third grade students occurred in the students that receive EIP instruction using the augmented model. Below average third grade readers who received EIP instruction using the augmented model performed significantly better than below average third grade readers who received traditional instruction. 8/20/2014 37 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  38. ConclusionsResearch Question Two– Grade 3 • Third • Grade • Third • Grade AU PO NO SC • Third • Grade • Third • Grade 8/20/2014 38 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  39. Quantitative Research Design Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  40. FindingsResearch Question Four Pullout Model Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  41. FindingsResearch Question Four Students who are pulled out of the classroom miss instruction and/or time to work on assignments. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  42. FindingsResearch Question Four Reading lessons taught in intervention should match the ones that are taught in the classroom. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  43. FindingsResearch Question Four Augmented Model Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  44. FindingsResearch Question Four Reading Specialists and classroom teachers communicate effectively regarding the readers they work with. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  45. FindingsResearch Question Four Self-contained Model Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  46. FindingsResearch Question Four The same students qualify for reading services every year after year. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  47. FindingsResearch Question Four More state and federal funding of intervention programs will help at-risk readers. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  48. FindingsResearch Question Four • A quantitative analysis was conducted to uncover the themes and patterns revealed from the teachers’ perceptions of the Early Intervention Programs models in improving reading achievement in below average readers. • Positive Themes: • reduced class size and its benefits • individualized tailored instruction • intense focused instruction • Negative Themes: • missed instruction • increased distractions • teacher/student isolation • large student attrition rate • inadequate funding Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  49. ConclusionsResearch Question Four • The augmented model was utilized by 191 students. More students where served by the augmented model than any other model in this study. • Teachers’ perceptions reveals the most positive aspect of the augmented model is, two teachers are in the class environment and the pupil/teacher ratio is reduced. • The negative aspect of the augmented models is teachers seldom have the opportunity to communicate, collaborate, or plan together, making it difficult to adequately prepare for the students. Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

  50. Discussions The results of this analysis was consistent with early intervention reading research that states, early intervention is considered a viable solution for reducing reading difficulties in students who have not experienced success with reading in the elementary grades (Beswick, Stoat, & Willms, 2007; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2007; Vaughn, Wanzek, Murray, Scammacca, Linan-Thompson, & Woodruff, 2009). The results are consistent with the STAR Project (1985) and SAGE Project (1995), all students in the reduced class environment using the augmented intervention instructional model experienced academic benefits in all primary grades (Chapman, Iversen, & Tunmer, 2005; Finn, 2002; Graue, Hatch, Rao, & Oen, 2007; Konstantopulos, 2008; Januszka & Dixon-Krauss, 2008; Molnar, Smith, Zahorik, & et al. 1999; Whitmore-Schanzenbach, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). 8/20/2014 50 Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

More Related