Report

Maintaining the Power of Oneon-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 Mid GK End GK Early G1 Mid G1 End G1 Mid G2 End G2 Early G3 Mid G3 End G3 Acc. (%) Rate (wpm) 6 40 85 90 90 93 93 93 95 95 0 15 20 30 40 65 90 80 90 110 Methods: Analyses 3-Level HLM School, Tutor, Student Regression analysis Certified/Non – Level-2 Variable 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 on RLA Single Quad Baseline M RLA (SD) .61 (.37) .81 (.23) Exit M RLA (SD) 1.63 (.39) 1.78 (.45) Average M Gain (SD) 1.02 (.43) .97 (.42) Singleton vs. Quad Performance on RLA % Gain < 0.5 Single 11.6% Quad 14.6% ≥ 1.0 62.8% 64.9% ≥ 2.0 2.3% 3.5% Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post RLA Intercept 1.300 SE p .097 .000 Pretest RLA Score .558 .107 .000 Certified/Non -.023 .072 .749 Group/Single .032 .067 .624 Variable 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 Flash Single Quad Baseline M Flash (SD) .03 (.20) .11 (.36) Exit M Flash (SD) 1.69 (.70) 1.89 (.70) Average M Gain (SD) 1.65 (.67) 1.78 (.66) Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Flash Intercept 1.674 SE p .111 .000 Pretest Flash Score .723 .135 .000 Certified/Non .005 .113 .962 Group/Single .133 .102 .193 Variable 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 Spelling (DSA) Single Quad M Baseline Spelling (SD) 18.21 (7.40) 22.27 (4.42) M Exit Spelling (SD) 33.14 (3.46) 34.73 (3.65) 14.93 12.46 Gain Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Spelling SE Intercept 29.535 1.854 Variable Pretest Spelling Score p .000 .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 on WRMT Word Attack Single Quad Baseline M Word Attack (SD) [GE] 3.30 (3.64) [1.3] 4.88 (3.64) [1.3] Exit M Word Attack (SD) [GE] 13.86 (7.65) [2.5] 17.09 (7.17) [3.0] 1.2 1.7 Gain Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post WRMT Word Attack SE Intercept 10.360 1.071 Variable Pretest Word Attack Score 1.051 p .000 .115 .000 .373 .842 .660 Group/Single 1.539 1.052 .145 Certified/Non c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .415 Singleton vs. Quad Performance on WRMT Passage Comprehension Single Quad Baseline M Passage (SD) Comp. [GE] 2.63 (3.00) [K.6] 3.51 (2.71) [K.7] Exit M Passage (SD) Comp. [GE] 15.23 (7.42) [1.6] 17.91 (6.46) [1.8] 1.0 1.1 Gain Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Passage Comprehension SE Intercept 10.492 1.424 Variable Pretest Passage Comp. Score p .000 .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 on DIBELS CLS (Correct Letter Sounds) Single Quad Baseline M DIBELS CLS (SD) 14.07 (10.62) 17.47 (12.86) Exit M DIBELS CLS (SD) 50.67 (21.86) 63.48 (26.91) 36.60 46.01 Gain Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post DIBELS Correct Letter Sounds SE p Intercept 31.285 17.138 .091 Variable 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 on DIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read) Single Quad M Baseline DIBELS WWR (SD) .47 (1.93) .96 (4.27) M Exit DIBELS WWR (SD) 10.67 (9.53) 16.88 (11.12) 10.20 15.92 Gain Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post DIBELS Whole Words Read SE Intercept -14.260 5.053 Variable p .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 ORF(Oral Reading Fluency) Exit M DIBELS ORF (SD) Single Quad 33.70 (18.54) 40.32 (20.02) Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency SE Intercept 18.572 4.374 .001 Pretest RLA Score 23.960 4.651 .000 Variable p 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?