Dr. Valerie Harrison GCEl February 24-26, 2014

DR. VALERIE HARRISON

GCELFEBRUARY 24-26, 2014

A Study of The Georgia Early Intervention Program Models and Their Effect on

Students’ Reading Achievement

Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

IntroductionGeorgia Early Intervention ProgramProblem BackgroundProblem StatementPurpose of StudyTheoretical FrameworkResearch QuestionsSignificance of Study Literature Review Research DesignResultsFindingsRecommendations

OutlineOutline


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.

Introduction

04/22/23 3Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

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).



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

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.”


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.




Teacher

Student Student Student Student



Student Student


Augmented Model (AU)

Student

Student




Student Student

14 EIP Students

Teacher


Student Student Student

Student Student Student

Student Student

Teacher

Non-EIP Students


Teacher

StudentStudent

StudentStudent

Pullout Model (PO)

14 EIP Students

StudentStudent

StudentStudent

StudentStudent

StudentStudentStudent Student


18 EIP Students


Self-Contained Model (SC)

Teacher




Student Student

14 EIP Students

18 EIP Students

Student Student

Student Student


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).


04/22/23 12

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.


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.


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.

15Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

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.

Problem Statement

04/22/23

(GaDOE, 2004)

16Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

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.


Theoretical Framework

Researcher Year Theoretical Understanding

Vygotsky 1978 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development:Children learn in a social environment with a more capable other (Vygotsky, 1978).

Piaget

Agbenyega

1972

2005

The Maturation Theory:Children learn cognitive content when they are developmentally ready or mature. Their maturity level serves as a prerequisite for future learning.

Guillemette, 2005 Socialization Theory :Promotes learning in a social environment through assimilating students into the school and class culture.

Lazear Mishel & Rothsteing, 2002

2001

2002

Theory of Class Size:Students in smaller classes learning is increased due to a decrease in the number of disruptions during class time.


Theoretical Framework

Augmented Model

Pullout Model

Self-Contained Model

Reading Achievement

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Variables in Study

Lazear’s Theory of Class Size

The Socializatio

n Theory

Traditional Instruction


Research Question One

Research Question Two

Research Question Three

Research Question Four

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?

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?

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?

What are the teachers’ perceptions of the Early Intervention Programs models, augmented, pullout, and self-contained in improving reading achievement in below level readers?

04/22/23 20

Research Questions


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.


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


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).


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)


Selection of Participants

Purposeful Sampling Method

The study was conducted using EIP eligible reading students in 9 Title I schools Grades 1-3 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)


Research Question One

Research Question Two

Research Question Three

Research Design



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?

Design - QuantitativeEx-post facto design with an alternative treatment post-test onlyData CollectionHoughton Mifflin Harcourt Benchmark Reading TestsSamplingPurposeful SamplingStatistical TestOne-way within-subject ANOVA with a Scheffe pairwise comparison A p value would was set at the < .05 level

Quantitative Research Design


ResultsResearch Question One


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)

Analysis of Variance of Instructional Models of 1st Students Benchmark Post-Test Reading Scores

Source Dƒ SS MS F Sig. η2

Between Groups 8536.78 3 2845.59 7.222 .000 0.106

Within Groups 71712.28 182 394.02

Total 80249.06 185

*p< .05


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.


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.

04/22/23 29

ConclusionsResearch Question One – Grade 1

Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC04/22/23 30

First Grade

First Grade

First Grade

POPO

First Grade

SCSC

AUAU

NNOO

ResultsResearch Question Two – Grade 2


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 = 0.15Null hypothesis was rejected (F=8.06, p<.05)

Analysis of Variance of Instructional Models of 2nd Students Benchmark Reading Post-Test Scores

Source DF SS MS F

Sig.η2

Between Groups 7996.50 3 2665.50 8.06 .00 0.15

Within Groups 43989.63 133 330.75Total 51986.13 136

*p< .05Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

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)



In Second GradeBelow 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.

ConclusionsResearch Question Two – Second

Grade


ConclusionsResearch Question Two– Grade 2


SecondGrade

SecondGrade

SecondGrade

POPOAUAU

SecondGrade

NNOOSCSC

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 = 0.04Null hypothesis was rejected (F=3.03, p<.05)

Analysis of Variance of Instructional Models of 3rd Students Benchmark

Reading Post-Test Scores

Source DF SS MS F

Sig.η2

Between Groups 2558.86 3 852.95 3.03 .03 0.04Within Groups 58254.2

2 207 281.42

Total 60813.08 210

*p< .05Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLC

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)



In Third GradeThe 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.

ConclusionsResearch Question Three -Third

Grade


ConclusionsResearch Question Two– Grade 3


ThirdGrade

Third Grade

POPO

ThirdGrade

NNOO

ThirdGrade

SCSC

AUAU

Quantitative Research DesignResearch Question Research Design

R4: What are the teachers’ perceptions of the Early Intervention Programs models, augmented, pullout, and self-contained in improving reading achievement in below level readers?

Design - QuantitativeReading Intervention Survey

Data CollectionOpen-ended items on survey, 8, 9, 10, 18, and 19

SamplingPurposeful Sampling

AnalysisCoding for reoccurring patterns and themes of teachers’ positive and negative perceptions to the EIP models. Counting was utilized to calculate the number of times each theme occurred. Percentages were calculated based on the frequency of each theme. Data was summarized and presented in individual excel tables.


FindingsResearch Question Four

Positive Aspects

Pullout Positive Themes Number of Responses

Percent

Small group instruction 24 24%

Individualized or differentiated instruction

24 24%

Focused, intense, specialized instruction

18 18%

Negative Aspects

Pullout Negative Themes Number of Responses

Percent%

Students miss classroom instruction or limited opportunity to work with classroom teachers

17 18.2%

Decreased interaction with peers

16 17.2%

Time lost in transition 12 12.9%

Pullout Model



Students who are pulled out of the classroom miss instruction and/or time to work on assignments.



Reading lessons taught in intervention should match the ones that are taught in the classroom.



Positive Aspects

Augmented Positive Themes Number of Responses

Percent%

Lower pupil-teacher ratio benefits, team teaching, and smaller class size

36 40.9%

Instructional consistency and increased time on task

17 19.3%

Heterogeneous grouping, peer modeling, and support

11 12.5%

Negative Aspects

Augmented Negative Themes Number of Responses

Percent%

Increased distractions and discipline problems

20 24%

Classroom teacher and EIP/reading teacher diversities (such as instructional techniques, classroom management, pedagogy, personality, space and resources)

12 14.6%

Class size too large 9 10.9%

Augmented Model



Reading Specialists and classroom teachers communicate effectively regarding the readers they work with.



Positive Aspect

Self-Contained Positive Themes Number of Responses

Percent%

Instruction is tailored to meet the individual needs of the students, students are taught on their instructional level

21 30.8%

Increased time on task and one-on-one instruction

12 17.6%

Teachers controls class environment and increased teacher-student relations 11 16.1%

Negative Aspects

Self-Contained Negative Themes Number of Responses

Percent%

Teachers and students feel isolated and have limited collaboration with other students and teachers

16 23%

Homogeneous grouping, all students are low 11 15.4%

Inadequate or interior instruction or instruction at slower pace

11 15.4%

Self-contained Model



The same students qualify for reading services every year after year.



More state and federal funding of intervention programs will help at-risk readers.



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.

Negative Themes: ◦ missed instruction◦ increased distractions◦ teacher/student isolation◦ large student attrition rate◦ inadequate funding

Positive Themes: ◦ reduced class size and its

benefits◦ individualized tailored

instruction◦ intense focused instruction


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.


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).

Discussions


Discussions

Contrary to the STAR and SAGE studies, the first grade students in this EIP study who received regular classroom instruction performed better than the students who received instruction in a reduced class environment through the pullout and self-contained models.

In the school district where this study was conducted, the EIP class size for the pullout and the self-contained models were increased from 14 to 18. The EIP class size for the augmented model remained constant at 14. This change may have contributed to the success of the augmented and traditional models of instruction in this study. It may have also accounted for the lack of significant gains in the students using the pullout and self-contained models at the first grade level.


Teachers in this study indicated that the pullout model was the most favorable model of EIP instruction for their below level readers

The results of this study were contrary to the research on class size that revealed the pullout model is an effective way to address the needs of low performing students in the primary grades (Chapman, Iversen , & Tunmer, 2005; Finn, 2002; Konstantopulos, 2008; Januszka & Dixon-Krauss, 2008; Whitmore-Schanzenbach, 2007).

Contrary to teachers perceptions and the research, in this study the pullout model was the least effective model at the second grade level.

Discussions


Discussions

The research is clear regarding the positive effects of class size reduction. When implemented early in a student’s academic career the gains in reading achievement can be significant (Finn, 2002; Finn et al., 2001; Graue, Hatch, Rao, & Oen, 2007; Graue & Rauscher, 2009; Hedges, Konstantopoulos, & Nye, 2004).

The results of a reduced class environment are not only beneficial for students; studies reveal positive effect on teacher performance as well. These studies indicate that reducing class size resulted in increased teacher collaboration, improved job satisfaction, and reduced teacher stress (Finn, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2004).


The results consistently indicated that students taught using the augmented model scored significantly higher on the reading benchmark post-test than students taught using the other models of instruction.

Summary of Findings


Implications for Practice

School administrators should investigate the use of the augmented model to address the needs of their at-risk readers.

Schools using the augmented model should receive training on how to effective work in the augmented or team teaching environment.

Teachers of EIP students should receive yearly professional development on appropriate instructional strategies for below level readers that address students’ individual learning styles and preferences.


School administrators and teachers should receive training on how to effectively implement EIP in accordance with the guidance set by the Georgia Department of Education. Doing so will help schools maximize funding opportunities, generating more funds for EIP teachers.

District administrators should consider reducing the EIP class size for pullout and self-contained to the accepted state number of 14 students.

Implications for Practice


Implications for Research

This study examined only EIP students in grade 1-3. Further research should be conducted as a follow-up study to examine the effects of the intervention models on students in grades Kindergarten, four, and five.

This study explored the use of three of the five possible models used to deliver EIP instruction. Further research should be conducted to determine the effects of the reduced-class and Reading Recovery models of EIP instruction in improving reading achievement.


EIP is a program that addresses the need of student who are performing below grade level in reading and math. Further research should be conduct to examine the success of the program with at-risk math students.

Further research should be conducted regarding the most effecting reading strategies currently being used in the schools in this study that demonstrated success with the augmented model.

Implications for Research


Recommendations

The effectiveness of the program can improve with appropriate teacher training on the use of the augmented model (team teaching).

In addition to teachers receiving training on the effective use of team teaching, school administration must also provide the time within the school day for the augmented teachers to plan and collaborate.

It is evident from the research that intervention for at-risk readers is most effective when it occurs during the early primary grades. Schools should considers putting the instructional support for EIP in the primary grades.

State and local governments should consider reinstating the funding to support reducing class sizes for at-risk readers (Chapman, Iversen & Tunmer, 2005; Januszka & Dixon-Krauss, 2008; Konstantopulos, 2008).


Recommendations

According to research, instruction presented to at-risk readers should be: Delivered in a small group setting Prescribed curriculum focused on all areas of reading taught through

appropriate grade level text Phonemic awareness Phonics Comprehension Vocabulary Fluency

Targeted towards specific deficiencies Intense to accelerate students to grade level performance within an

academic year Tailored to meets the individual learning characteristics of the students Include reading instructional level text daily

Dr. Valerie Harrison, Educationally Yours, LLCAnsalone & Chen, 2008; Bird, Romanelli, Ryan, 2009; Kolb & Kolb, 2009; Torgesen, 2004; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2007;Woodward &Talbert-Johnson, 2009; U.S. Department of Education, 2006

Q & A

Dr. Valerie HarrisonEducationally Yours, LLC

[email protected]

educationallyyoursllc.com


Documents

Dr. Valerie Harrison GCEl February 24-26, 2014