1 / 32

Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Three:

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.

lavernea
Télécharger la présentation

Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Three:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Three: Next Steps Triads (available on: www.uurc.edu/Educators/Research.php)

  2. Authors Kathleen J. Brown Matthew K. Fields Grace T. Craig University of Utah Reading Clinic Darrell Morris Appalachian State University

  3. 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)

  4. 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)

  5. 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Virginia Model • 1:1 tutorial • Elbaum, Vaughn et al., meta-analysis (2002) • no advantage for 1:1 over small group • 2 unpublished doctoral dissertations • Fountas & Pinnell (1996) secondary finding

  6. 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

  7. Research Question: Readers • Is 1:3 grouping as effective as 1:1 for improving the performance of struggling readers who receive Next Steps?

  8. Research Question: Educators • Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver Next Steps in a 1:3 format effectively-- --when supervised by an intervention specialist?

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Methods: Intervention • 45 minute lessons • 45 lessons over 1 year • Assisted reading • Word study • Fluency • Triad: rotating “target student” & partnership

  12. 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)

  13. Methods: Passage Reading Criteria

  14. 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

  15. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Passage Reading c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

  16. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Passage Reading

  17. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Word Rec Automaticity c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .066 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

  18. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Word Recognition Automaticity

  19. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Spelling c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .114 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .142

  20. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Spelling

  21. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post WRMT Word Attack c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .052 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

  22. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on WRMT Word Attack

  23. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost WRMT Passage Comprehension c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .137

  24. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on WRMT Passage Comprehension

  25. Results: Passage Reading Gain

  26. Discussion: Readers • Replicates Vaughn et al., 2003 • No advantage for 1:1 over 1:3

  27. Discussion: Educators • Replicated Brown, Morris, & Fields (2005) • Paraprofessionals were able to deliver triad reading intervention effectively • …when supervised by an intervention specialist

  28. 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

  29. Implications for Ed Practice • Paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of certified educators in helping struggling readers improve… • …with training and supervision.

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. Future Research • Economies of Scale - 1:3 vs. 1:5 advantage? • Intervention that targets earlier phases of development • pre-alphabetic readers? • partial alphabetic readers?

More Related