Maintaining the Power of One- on-One in a Group of Three: Next Steps Triads (available on:
-
Upload
jessica-eaton -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Maintaining the Power of One- on-One in a Group of Three: Next Steps Triads (available on:
Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Three:
Next Steps Triads
(available on: www.uurc.edu/Educators/Research.php)
Authors
Kathleen J. Brown
Matthew K. Fields
Grace T. Craig
University of Utah Reading Clinic
Darrell Morris
Appalachian State University
Theoretical Frame: Readers
University of Virginia Intervention Assisted reading on instructional level Word study: systematic, isolated Fluency work: repeated readings
2-3x per week; 45 minutes
(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 Prof. Development
Clinical practicum in schools Modeling, Observation, Coaching (36
hours) Tutoring (45 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Elbaum, Vaughn et al., meta-analysis (2002) no advantage for 1:1 over small group 2 unpublished doctoral dissertations Fountas & Pinnell (1996) secondary
finding
Theoretical Frame: Group Size
Vaughn et al., (2003) Assisted reading, phonics Group size: 1:1 vs. 1:3 vs. 1:10 No differences between 1:1 and 1:3;
both more effective than 1:10
Research Question: Readers
Is 1:3 grouping as effective as 1:1 for improving the performance of struggling readers who receive Next Steps?
Research Question: Educators
Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver Next Steps in a 1:3 format effectively--
--when supervised by an intervention specialist?
Methods: Readers
N = 129 14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools Public & parochial; rural & urban Grades 2-8 Diverse SES, ethnicity, ELP At baseline, range = primer to early
2nd Triads matched on instructional level
Methods: Educators
N = 34 Classroom teachers, literacy coaches,
paraprofessionals, UURC staff Each already certified in Next Steps 1:1 71% tutored 1:1 and 1:3 Full lessons observed 7 times over year
Methods: Intervention
45 minute lessons 45 lessons over 1 year
Assisted reading Word study Fluency
Triad: rotating “target student” & partnership
Methods: Pre-Post Measures
Criterion-referenced Word recognition automaticity (Flash) Passage reading level Spelling
Norm-referenced Woodcock Word Attack (WRMT-WA) Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC)
Methods: Passage Reading Criteria
Acc. (% )
Rate (wpm)
Mid G1 90 30 End G1 90 40 Mid G2 93 65 End G2 93 90 Mid G3 93 90 End G3 93 110 Mid G4 95 110 End G4 95 120 Mid G5 95 120 End G5 95 130
Methods: Analyses 3-Level HLM
Student, tutor, school 1:1 vs. 1:3 – Level 1 Variable Certified vs. 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
Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Passage Reading
Variable SE p
Intercept -.387 .484 .438
Grade .612 .173 .001
Grade * Certified/Non -.525 .183 .005
Number of Sessions .024 .007 .001
Pretest Score .252 .200 .211
Pretest Score * Certified/Non .823 .332 .015
Certified/Non -.211 .604 .729
Triad/Single .290 .193 .135
Triad/Single * Certified/Non -.165 .324 .612
p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001
2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500
Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Passage
Reading
Single Triad Baseline
M
(SD) 1.66 (.38)
1.80
(.49)
Exit
M (SD)
2.68
(.85)
2.85
(.91)
Gain M (SD)
1.02 (.57)
1.12 (.81)
Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post
Word Rec Automaticity
Variable SE p Intercept .539 .368 .167
Number of Sessions .027 .007 .000 Pretest Score .769 .074 .000
Certified/Non -.544 .317 .095 Triad/Single -.247 .207 .235
Triad/Single * Certified/Non .620 .347 .076
p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .066
2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500
Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Word Recognition Automaticity
Single Triad Baseline
M
(SD) 1.93 (.89)
2.03
(.88)
Exit
M (SD)
3.03
(.92) 3.03
(1.09)
Gain 1.10 1.00
Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Spelling
Variable SE p Intercept 1.45
8 .319 .000
Number of Sessions .024 .006 .000 Pretest Spelling Score .475 .049 .000
Certified/Non -.263 .275 .346 Triad/Single -.199 .177 .263
Triad/Single * Certified/Non .444 .298 .138
p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .114
2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .142
Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Spelling
Single Triad Baseline
M
(SD) 2.09
(1.31) 1.82
(1.13)
Exit
M (SD)
3.40
(.93) 3.21
(.88)
Gain 1.31 1.39
Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post
WRMT Word Attack
Variable SE p Intercept 12.923 1.563 .000
Pretest Word Attack Score
.642 .057 .000
Certified/Non -1.295 2.152 .551 Triad/Single -.289 1.402 .837
Triad/Single*Certified/Non .050 2.361 .983
p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .052
2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500
Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on WRMT Word
Attack
Single Triad Baseline
M
(SD) [GE]
16.75 (7.58) [2.8]
16.35
(7.73) [2.8]
Exit M
(SD) [GE]
23.25
(6.57) [4.0]
22.58
(7.16) [3.8]
Gain 1.2 1.0
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post WRMT Passage Comprehension
Variable β SE p Intercept 10.088 2.605 .002
Number of Sessions .157 .041 .000 Pretest Passage Comp.
Score .574 .061 .000
Certified/Non .983 1.926 .613 Triad/Single -.817 1.169 .486
Triad/Single * Certified/Non -2.011 2.002 .317
p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001
2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .137
Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on WRMT Passage Comprehension
Single Triad Baseline
M
(SD) [GE]
22.71 (7.21) [2.2]
22.76
(6.55) [2.2]
Exit
M
(SD) [GE]
30.29
(5.53) [3.3]
28.54
(6.17) [2.9]
Gain 1.1 0.7
Discussion: Educators
Replicated Brown, Morris, & Fields (2005)
Paraprofessionals were able to deliver triad reading intervention effectively
…when supervised by an intervention specialist
Implications for Ed Practice
Growing evidence that 1:3 is an effective grouping format for intervention
more efficient use of resources allows more students to receive intervention
Implications for Ed Practice
Paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of certified educators in helping struggling readers improve…
…with training and supervision.
Implications for Ed Practice
>1 group size requires educator management skill & reduces individual attention
Odd-number grouping allows educator to retain some luxury of 1:1 tutorial Address individual student needs Progress monitor
Implications for Ed Practice
Benefits of 1:1 tutorial
Professional development opportunity to focus solely on reading development—not on management issues.
Students who “don’t fit” a group