At-Risk Beginning Readers:

Implications for Tier II Economies of Scale

University of Utah Reading Clinic (UURC)

Kathleen J. Brown, Matthew K. Fields & Grace T. Craig

….with many thanks to

Darrell Morris, Appalachian State University

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)

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)

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

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.

Research Question: Readers

Does 1:1 intervention for at-risk 1st graders have an advantage over intervention delivered in a 1:4 group format?

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?

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)

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

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.

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)

Methods: RLA Criteria (passage reading)

Acc. (%)

Rate (wpm)

Mid GK 6 0 End GK 40 15

Early G1 85 20 Mid G1 90 30 End G1 90 40 Mid G2 93 65 End G2 93 90

Early G3 93 80 Mid G3 95 90 End G3 95 110

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

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post RLA (passage reading)

Variable SE p Intercept 1.300 .097 .000

Pretest RLA Score

.558 .107 .000

Certified/Non -.023 .072 .749 Group/Single .032 .067 .624

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .259

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

RLA (passage reading)

Single Quad

Baseline RLA

M (SD)

.61 (.37)

.81

(.23)

Exit RLA

M (SD)

1.63

(.39) 1.78

(.45)

Average Gain

M (SD)

1.02 (.43)

.97 (.42)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyVariable SE p

Intercept 18.572 4.374 .001

Pretest RLA Score 23.960 4.651 .000

Certified/Non 1.713 3.229 .598 Group/Single 1.868 2.844 .512

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .032

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

DIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)

Single Quad Exit

DIBELS ORF

M (SD)

33.70

(18.54) 40.32

(20.02)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post Flash (word rec automaticity)

Variable SE p

Intercept 1.674 .111 .000

Pretest Flash Score

.723 .135 .000

Certified/Non .005 .113 .962 Group/Single .133 .102 .193

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .000

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

Flash (word rec automaticity)

Single Quad

Baseline Flash

M (SD)

.03 (.20)

.11

(.36)

Exit Flash

M (SD)

1.69

(.70) 1.89

(.70)

Average Gain

M (SD)

1.65 (.67)

1.78 (.66)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post Spelling

Variable SE p Intercept 29.535 1.854 .000

Pretest Spelling Score

.306 .046 .000

Pretest RLA Score 2.443 .861 .005 Number of Sessions -.038 .021 .063

Certified/Non -.576 .530 .283 Group/Single -.123 .535 .818

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .011

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .009

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post Passage Comprehension

Variable SE p

Intercept 10.492 1.424 .000

Pretest Passage Comp. Score

.752 .155 .000

Pretest RLA Score 4.007 1.655 .016

Certified/Non .872 .880 .328 Group/Single 1.274 1.045 .225

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .303

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .152

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

WRMT Passage Comprehension

Single Quad Baseline Passage

Comp.

M (SD) [SS]

2.63 (3.00) [89]

3.51

(2.71) [92]

Exit Passage

Comp.

M (SD) [SS]

15.23

(7.42) [97]

17.91

(6.46) [100]

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for

Post DIBELS Whole Words Read

Variable SE p Intercept -14.260 5.053 .015

Number of Sessions .199 .058 .001 Certified/Non 4.361 1.565 .008

Pretest CLS Score .473 .084 .000 Pretest WWR Score .059 .178 .741

Group/Single 2.640 1.822 .149

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .345

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on

DIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read)

Single Quad

Baseline DIBELS

WWR

M (SD)

.47 (1.93)

.96

(4.27)

Exit DIBELS

WWR

M (SD)

10.67

(9.53) 16.88

(11.12)

Gain 10.20 15.92

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)

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

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)

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.”

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

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