At-Risk Beginning Readers:

1. At-Risk Beginning Readers: Implications for Tier II Economies of Scale

2. University of Utah Reading Clinic (UURC) Kathleen J. Brown, Matthew K. Fields & Grace T. Craig

3. ….with many thanks to Darrell Morris, Appalachian State University

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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 groups

7. 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.

8. Research Question: Readers • Does 1:1 intervention for at-risk 1st graders have an advantage over intervention delivered in a 1:4 group format?

9. 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?

10. 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)

11. 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 year

12. 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.

13. 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)

14. Methods: RLA Criteria (passage reading)

15. 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

16. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost RLA (passage reading) c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .259

17. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA (passage reading)

18. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .032

19. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)

20. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Flash (word rec automaticity) c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .000 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

21. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onFlash (word rec automaticity)

22. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Spelling c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .011 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .009

23. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Passage Comprehension c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .303 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .152

24. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Passage Comprehension

25. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Whole Words Read c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .345 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

26. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read)

27. Discussion: Readers • Extends Vaughn et al., 2003 & Brown et al., 2008 to 1st 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)

28. 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 specialists

29. Implications for Ed Practice • Growing evidence that small groups are effective means of delivering intervention to primary grade struggling readers. • more desirable than 1:1--stretches resources such that more students receive intervention (Title I schools)

30. Implications for Ed Practice • Trained, supervised paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of classroom teacher and literacy coaches. • Sheds new light on the assumptionthat “only the most highly qualified educators should be working with struggling readers.”

31. 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 groups

32. Future Research • Economies of Scale - 1:1 vs. 1:5 or 1:6 advantage? • Intervention that targets earlier phases of development • At-risk pre-alphabetic readers in early K • At-risk partial alphabetic readers in mid K