Upload
giona
View
23
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Four: . Early Steps Quads. Research Question: Readers. Do 1:1 and 1:4 intervention formats provide differential benefits to struggling readers? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Four:
Early Steps Quads
Research Question: Readers
Do 1:1 and 1:4 intervention formats provide differential benefits to struggling readers?
Is 1-on-4 grouping format as effective as 1-on-1 for improving the performance of struggling readers?
Research Question: Educators
Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver 1:4 reading intervention as effectively as certified teacher when supervised by an intervention specialist?
Methods: Readers N = 214 14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools Public: rural & urban Grade 1 Diverse SES, ethnicity,
achievement Randomly assigned to 1-on-1 or
quad
Methods: Educators
N = 47 Classroom teachers, literacy
coaches, paraprofessionals, UURC staff
Each pre-certified in Early Steps Each tutored 1:1 and 1:4 Each was observed 7 times over
year
Methods: Intervention 45 minute lessons 80 lessons over year’s time
Methods: Pre-Post Measures Criterion-referenced
Word recognition automaticity (Flash) Passage reading level (RLA) Spelling
Norm-referenced Woodcock Word Attack (WRMT-WA) Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC) DIBELS (NWF-CLS, NWF-WWR, ORF)
Methods: RLA Criteria 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 Certified/Non – Level-2 Variable
Regression analysis Maximum likelihood (not OLS)
Model reduction method Run full model w/ all covariates Remove non-significant covariates Retain variables of interest
Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA
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)
Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA
% Gain Single Quad < 0.5 11.6% 14.6%
≥ 1.0 62.8% 64.9%
≥ 2.0 2.3% 3.5%
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost RLA
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 onFlash
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 forPost Flash
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 onSpelling (DSA)
Single Quad Baseline Spelling
M (SD)
18.21 (7.40)
22.27
(4.42)
Exit Spelling
M (SD)
33.14
(3.46) 34.73
(3.65)
Gain 14.93 12.46
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Spelling
Variable SE p Intercept 29.535 1.854 .000
Pretest Spelling Score .306 .049 .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
Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Word Attack
Single Quad Baseline
Word Attack M
(SD) [GE]
3.30 (3.64) [1.3]
4.88
(3.64) [1.3]
Exit Word Attack
M (SD) [GE]
13.86
(7.65) [2.5]
17.09
(7.17) [3.0]
Gain 1.2 1.7
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost WRMT Word Attack
Variable SE p Intercept 10.360 1.071 .000
Pretest Word Attack Score 1.051 .115 .000 Certified/Non .373 .842 .660 Group/Single 1.539 1.052 .145
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .415
Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Passage Comprehension
Single Quad Baseline Passage
Comp.
M (SD) [GE]
2.63 (3.00) [K.6]
3.51
(2.71) [K.7]
Exit Passage
Comp.
M (SD) [GE]
15.23
(7.42) [1.6]
17.91
(6.46) [1.8]
Gain 1.0 1.1
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost 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 .328
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .303
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .152
Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS CLS (Correct Letter Sounds)
Single Quad Baseline
DIBELS CLS M
(SD) 14.07
(10.62) 17.47
(12.86)
Exit DIBELS CLS
M (SD)
50.67
(21.86) 63.48
(26.91)
Gain 36.60 46.01
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Correct Letter Sounds
Variable SE p Intercept 31.285 17.138 .091
Number of Sessions .006 .200 .976 # of Sessions * Certified/Non .706 .276 .012
Certified/Non -48.067 22.331 .037 Pretest CLS Score 1.019 .194 .000
Group/Single 5.952 4.376 .176
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .037
Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS 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
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost 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 onDIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)
Single Quad Exit
DIBELS ORF M
(SD) 33.70
(18.54) 40.32
(20.02)
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Variable 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
Discussion: Readers Replicates Vaughn et al. 2006
No advantage for 1:1 group size in comparison to 1:4 (quads)
Discussion: Educators Paraprofessionals were able to
deliver quad reading intervention as effectively
…when supervised by an intervention specialist
Implications for Ed Practice Growing evidence that 1:4 is an
effective grouping format for intervention
more efficient use of resources allows more students to receive intervention
Implications for Ed Practice Trained, supervised
paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of classroom teacher and reading specialists in helping struggling readers become more successful
Implications for Ed Practice
>1 group size requires management skill on part of educator
Immutable benefits of 1:1 grouping Professional development opportunity
to focus solely on reading development
Students who “don’t fit” a group Educators who “don’t fit” with groups
Future Research Economies of Scale - 1:4 vs. 1:6
advantage?