1. Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Four: Early Steps Quads

2. 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?

3. Research Question: Educators • Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver 1:4 reading intervention as effectively as certified teacher when supervised by an intervention specialist?

4. 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

5. 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

6. Methods: Intervention • 45 minute lessons • 80 lessons over year’s time

7. 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)

8. Methods: RLA Criteria

9. 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

10. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA

11. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA

12. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost RLA c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .259

13. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onFlash

14. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Flash c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .000 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

15. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onSpelling (DSA)

16. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Spelling c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .011 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .009

17. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Word Attack

18. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost WRMT Word Attack c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .415

19. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Passage Comprehension

20. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Passage Comprehension c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .303 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .152

21. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS CLS (Correct Letter Sounds)

22. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Correct Letter Sounds c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .037

23. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read)

24. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Whole Words Read c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .345 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

25. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)

26. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .032

27. Discussion: Readers • Replicates Vaughn et al. 2006 • No advantage for 1:1 group size in comparison to 1:4 (quads)

28. Discussion: Educators • Paraprofessionals were able to deliver quad reading intervention as effectively • …when supervised by an intervention specialist

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. Future Research • Economies of Scale - 1:4 vs. 1:6 advantage?