[PPT] - Reading and Language Reading and Language Intervention Barbara PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Reading and Language Reading and Language Intervention

Barbara Foorman, Ph.D. Florida Center for Reading Research Florida Center for Reading Research Florida State University

SLIDE 2

What is the Issue?

33% below basic on G4th NAEP (53% Blacks;

( 50% Hispanics) ; 17.5% of students are RD

NCLB requires that students at-risk for reading

NCLB requires that students at risk for reading disability receive intervention

The state of the art in reading remediation is
The state of the art in reading remediation is

prevention and early intervention IDEA 2004 ll t 15% f i l

IDEA 2004 allows up to 15% of special

education funds to be used to provide i t ti t t li d b f th f il intervention to struggling readers before they fail to meet grade-level achievement standards.

SLIDE 3

Landmark Studies

Classroom prevention (Foorman et al.,

1998, 2006; Connor et al., 2007) , ; , )

Early intervention (Vellutino et al., 1996;

2003) 2003)

Intensive intervention (Torgesen et al.,

2001) 2001)

SLIDE 4

G ro w th In W o rd R ead in g R aw S co res B y C u rricu lu m

A

1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 f Words

D ire ct C o d e Instructio n E m b e d d e d C o d e Instructio n Im p licit C o d e - Re se a rch Instructio n Im p licit C o d e - S ta nd a rd Instructio n

2 4 6 8 Number of

P red icted G ro w th In W o rd R ead in g S co res B y C u rricu lu m

B

O c to be r D e c e mbe r F e brua ry April S c h o o l Ye a r 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 f Words

D ire ct C o d e Instructio n E m b e dd e d C o d e Instructio n Im p licit C o d e - R e se a rch Instructio n Im p licit C o d e - S ta nd a rd Instructio n

2 4 6 8 Number of O c to be r D e c e mbe r F e brua ry April S c h o o l Ye a r

SLIDE 5

SLIDE 6

Time spent in Reading/LA Activities in 1st grade by Hi vs. Low Rated Implementers

0.2 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 P e rc e n t T im e Hi Low 0.02 0.04 0.06 O r a l L a n g u a g e P r i n t A w a r e n e s s m i c A w a r e n e s s t e r R e c

g

n i t i

n

b e t i c I n s t r u c t i

n

c t u r a l A n a l y s i s W

r

d W

r

k V

c

a b u l a r y v i e w i n g a B

k

l l i n g i n C

n

t e x t R e a d i n g B

k

s h e i r O w n W r i t i n g C

m

p r e h e n s i

n

S p e l l i n g W r i t i n g G r a m m a r ( r e a d i n g r e l a t e d ) R e l a t e d I n s t r u c t i

F

e e d b a c k U n c

d

a b l e O B

k

a n d P r P h

n

e m L e t t e A l p h a b e S t r u c t P r e v S p e l l i R e R e a d i n g T h e R e a d i n g C D i r e c t i n g ( r e N

n
R

e a d i n g R e l

Time spent in Reading/LA Activities in 2nd Grade by Hi vs. Low Rated Implementers

0 08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

e rc e n t T im e

Hi Low 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

l L a n g u a g e t A w a r e n e s s A w a r e n e s s R e c

g

n i t i

n

c I n s t r u c t i

n

r a l A n a l y s i s W

r

d W

r

k V

c

a b u l a r y w i n g a B

k

g i n C

n

t e x t d i n g B

k

s O w n W r i t i n g m p r e h e n s i

n

S p e l l i n g W r i t i n g G r a m m a r d i n g r e l a t e d ) t e d I n s t r u c t i

F

e e d b a c k U n c

d

a b l e P e O r a l L B

k

a n d P r i n t A P h

n

e m i c A L e t t e r R e A l p h a b e t i c S t r u c t u r a W

V
P

r e v i e w i n S p e l l i n g i R e a d i n R e a d i n g T h e i r O R e a d i n g C

m

p G D i r e c t i n g ( r e a d i N

n
R

e a d i n g R e l a t e F e U n

SLIDE 7

A Hypothetical Model of How Teacher Variables Moderate the Impact

f Student’s Initial Reading Ability on Reading and Spelling Outcomes

SLIDE 8

Growth in Total Reading Skill Before, During, and Following Intensive Intervention (Torgesen et al 2001)

95

Following Intensive Intervention (Torgesen et al., 2001)

90 95

d

80 85 LPSP EP

tandard core

75 80

St Sc

P-Pretest Pre Post 1 year 2 year

Interval in Months Between Measurements

SLIDE 9

Time x Activity Analyses for the Two Intervention Approaches

Phonemic Awareness and

LIPS EP

85% 20%

Phonemic Awareness and Phonemic Decoding h d

85% 20%

Sight Word Instruction Reading or

5% 50% 10% 30%

Reading or writing connected text

5% 50%

SLIDE 10

Reading rate remained quite impaired

100 90 Accuracy-91 80 80 Rate-72 70 Pretest Posttest 1-year 2-year

SLIDE 11

Remediation is not a solution!

Reading rate is limited because the proportion of words in grade level p p g passages that children can read “by sight” is less than for average readers. g g Ho do o close the gap hen the How do you close the gap when the student is already 3- 5 years behind?

SLIDE 12

Yet, there are some impressive results

Berninger et al., 2003; Blachman et al., 2004;

Olson & Wise, 2006 ,

Lovett et al. (2000): PHAB/DI + WIST →

PHAST Track Reading Program PHAST Track Reading Program

Wolf, Miller, & Donnelly’s (2002) RAVE-O

SLIDE 13

Effective Early Interventions

Reading Recovery: Schwartz’s (2005) RCT

concludes that 5% of RR graduates don’t g read on grade level.

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS):

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS): Studies show that 5-6% of 1st graders read above 30th %ile above 30 %ile.

Mathes et al. (RRQ; 2005)

SLIDE 14

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies

As a supplement to core reading, PALS has helped K-6

graders improve their phonological awareness phonics graders improve their phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension (e.g., Fuchs et al., 1997; Mathes et al., 1994;

Mathes et al., 1998; Simmons et al., 1994).

Teachers pair their students, creating dyads with one high and one

low performing reader and then train students to follow standard low performing reader, and then train students to follow standard PALS procedures.

Increases students’ practice time and opportunities to p pp respond. Offers structured and reciprocal practice on phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension

SLIDE 15

Mathes et al. (2005) ( )

Children – sampled across 2 years 300 A Ri k R d id ifi d i h h T P i

300 At-Risk Readers identified with the Texas Primary

Reading Inventory - assigned randomly to intervention.

100 Typically Developing Readers

100 Typically Developing Readers Teachers

6 Intervention (3 Proactive & 3 Responsive)
30 General Education 1st-grade Teachers

Schools

6 non- Title 1 elementary schools in a large urban school

6 non Title 1 elementary schools in a large urban school district with an aggressive, long- term reading initiative

SLIDE 16

The Interventions

Enhanced Classroom Instruction All children identified as at-risk by principal, teachers, and parents , p Progress monitored with feedback to principal, teachers, and parents (oral reading probes every teachers, and parents (oral reading probes every 3 weeks) Professional development of classroom teachers Professional development of classroom teachers in strategies for accommodating academic diversity and linking assessment to instructional diversity and linking assessment to instructional planning for struggling readers

SLIDE 17

Comparison of Two Interventions Comparison of Two Interventions

Proactive and Responsive p

40 minutes, 5 days per week,

all school year (30 weeks)

1:3 teacher-student ratio
Taught by certified teachers

h h l l who are school employees, but trained and supervised by researchers by ese c e s

Provided in addition to

enhanced classroom instruction

SLIDE 18

Proactive Intervention Proactive Intervention

Explicit instruction in synthetic

h i i h h i phonics, with emphasis on fluency.

Integrates decoding fluency
Integrates decoding, fluency,

and comprehension strategies.

100% decodable text.
Carefully constructed scope and

sequence designed to prevent ibl f i possible confusions.

Every activity taught to 100%

mastery everyday mastery everyday.

SLIDE 19

Responsive Intervention Responsive Intervention

Explicit instruction in synthetic phonics and in analogy phonics phonics and in analogy phonics. Teaches decoding, using the alphabetic principle, fluency, alphabetic principle, fluency, and comprehension strategies in the context of reading and iti writing. No pre-determined scope and sequence sequence. Teachers respond to student needs as they are observed. y Leveled text not phonetically decodable.

SLIDE 20

The Responsive Intervention The Responsive Intervention

Fluency Work (Repeated Reading) and

Assessment: 8-10 minutes

Word Work: 10-12 Minutes
Supported Reading:

10-12 Minutes

Supported Writing:

8-10 Minutes 8 10 Minutes

SLIDE 21

Predicted Growth in Word Reading by Group - Year 1 & 2 Predicted Growth in Word Reading by Group Year 1 & 2

1 1.5 0.5 1

e

0.5

Z-score

Low Risk Responsive Cl

1

Classroom Proactive

1.5

October December February April Month

SLIDE 22

Predicted growth in CMERS by group

100 70 80 90

Low Risk Responsive Classroom

50 60 70

w Score Classroom Proactive

20 30 40

Raw

10 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Probe

SLIDE 23

R di O t A C iti l D i Reading Outcomes Across Critical Domains

115 110 100 105 Classroom Proactive 90 95 Proactive Responsive Not At-Risk

Bench Benchmark

85 90 80 Word Rec Fluency Comprehension

SLIDE 24

Left Right

At Risk Reader

Kindergarten Left Right Kindergarten First Grade Simos et al., 2006

SLIDE 25

What percent of children don’t respond adequately to quality intervention?

Primary only: 15/92 = 16% (3% of school

l ti )

school population)

Primary + Secondary: Proactive: 1/80 = < 1% (< .2% of school population) p p ) Responsive: 6/83 = 7% (<1.5% of school population) school population)

th

SLIDE 26

Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis (2006; JLD)

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Round 1

Phono-Graphix

Read Naturally

8 weeks 8 weeks 8 weeks

Pre

P RN Round 2 Baseline

Phono-Graphix Read Naturally

Pre Pre

P RN

p y

8 weeks 8 weeks 8 weeks

SLIDE 27

Gains in Basic Skills Standard Score Points During 16-Week Intervention

30 20 25

ns

10 15

d Score Gain

5 10

Standard

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Students

SLIDE 28

Conclusions

Significant improvements in decoding, fluency,

and comprehension after 8 weeks of Phono-

Graphix. Small to moderate effects of Read

N t ll fl l h d t d f Naturally on fluency only, perhaps due to need for more decoding before repeated reading. 7 f th 27 t d t f d t b th 30th

7 of the 27 students performed at or above the 30th

%ile of the WJ-III Basic Reading after 16 weeks

f daily 2 hr intervention (& 4 between the 25th and 30th)
f daily 2-hr.intervention (& 4 between the 25th and 30th).
Nonresponders with Tier 1 + 2 > Tier 1 alone.

D l t f di kill d d t

Development of reading skills dependent on

establishment of LH neural network (Simos et al., 2007, JLD)

SLIDE 29

Are Volunteer Tutors Effective?

Overall mean effect size for tutoring in

several large meta-analyses is .40 (Cohen et g y ( al., 1982; Elbaum et al., 2000).

Average effect size for volunteers was 26;

Average effect size for volunteers was .26; however, in studies describing tutors’ training effect size was 59 (Elbaum et al ) training, effect size was .59 (Elbaum et al.)

SLIDE 30

Effect sizes on components of reading

Word identification: .42 (Baker et al., 2000) to

1.24 (Invernizzi et al., 1997) d k ( d l )

Word attack: .32 (Vadasy et al., 1997) to 1.24

(Vadasy et al., 2000)

Fluency: 48 (Baker et al 2000) to 53 (Baker et
Fluency: .48 (Baker et al., 2000) to .53 (Baker et

al., 2000)

Comprehension: .10 (Vadasy et al., 2002) to .32

p ( y , ) (Baker et al., 2000), .90 (Al Otaiba et al., 2005)

SLIDE 31

Support for community tutors (Wazik, 1998)

Certified reading specialist to supervise tutors

g p p

Ongoing training and feedback for tutors
Structured tutoring sessions that incorporate basic

Structured tutoring sessions that incorporate basic literacy elements

Consistent/intensive tutoring for struggling readers

Consistent/intensive tutoring for struggling readers

Access to high quality materials
Ongoing assessment of student progress
Ongoing assessment of student progress
Monitoring of attendance

C di ti f t t i ith l i t ti

Coordination of tutoring with classroom instruction

SLIDE 32

Multi Multi-

Tiered Reading Instruction

Tiered Reading Instruction

Level 1: Primary Intervention E h d l d i l

If progress is If progress is

Enhanced general education classroom instruction (90 min, uninterrupted).

inadequate, inadequate, move to next move to next level. level.

Level 2: Secondary Intervention Child receives more intense instruction in l d i i ll (30

level. level.

general education in small groups (30 min). Level 3: Tertiary Intervention increases in intensity and d i di l ll (30 i ) duration; remedial, small groups (30+ min.)

SLIDE 33

Who is LD, What is RtI?

The student who does not respond to quality

instruction

Discrepancy relative to the expectation that

ALL children can learn

Requires closer integration of general

education and special education

One system, not two -- all students are

general education students first!

SLIDE 34

IDEA 2004

NCLB and IDEA share the goal of a single well
NCLB and IDEA share the goal of a single, well-

integrated system that connects general, remedial, and special education and considers the learning needs of p g all children.

According to IDEIA, response to intervention (RTI)

g , p ( ) means that a local education agency “may use a process that determines if the child responds to i ifi h b d i i f h scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures” (Pub. L. No. 108-446 § 614 [b][6][A]; § 614 [b] [2 & 3]) [b][6][A]; § 614 [b] [2 & 3]).

SLIDE 35

RtI as a Diagnostic System vs. Multi- Tiered Instructional Model Tiered Instructional Model

It is useful to keep RtI as a diagnostic

system conceptually distinct from RtI as a y p y multi-tiered instructional model because the former is new and has challenging g g measurement implications, whereas the latter has been in existence in public health p and in school reform models.

SLIDE 36

What is RtI?

RTI i h i f (1) idi RTI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention h d d d d ( ) i matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions to guide instruction.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005 2005

SLIDE 37

REFERRAL SCREENING

NEW MODEL

ELIGIBILITY TESTING

MODEL

TREATMENT 1-2 ELIGIBILITY TESTING

Not Eligible Eligible

TREATMENT 1-2

Responders Non-Responders

TREATMENT

Monitor

ELIGIBILITY TESTING

Responders Non-Responders Not Eligible Eligible

TREATMENT 3 TREATMENT 3

Non-Responders Responders

Monitor

SLIDE 38

Three Tier Model

Critical question for special education and

general education is not “What is the label?” or “For what is the child eligible, but what type of

intervention results in change?

Special Education becomes an alternative for students who don’t f respond to quality instruction and need the power/flexibility of IDEA need the power/flexibility of IDEA

SLIDE 39

Implementing 3 tier models

Enhanced core reading instruction is the key
Primary model: begins in the classroom with

y g professional development, assessment, and better materials; alternatives like PALS underutilized

Screening, diagnostic assessments, and progress

monitoring must be in place

Goal is differentiated instruction and monitoring

response to instruction

SLIDE 40

Growth in Oral Reading Fluency for STACY,JUSTIN 3

100 120

Growth in Oral Reading Fluency for STACY,JUSTIN 3

85 WPM

60 80

re

40 60

Sco

20 Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 4 Story 5 Story 6 Story 7 Story 8 Story 9 Story 10 Story 11 Story 12 Story 13 Story 14 Story 15 School Year

21 weeks 21 weeks

SLIDE 41

Implementing 3 Tier models

Second tier is typically small group pull out

Second tier is typically small group pull out instruction, but can represent additional dose in the classroom

Small-group intervention is just as effective as 1:1

intervention (Elbaum et al., 2000) I di t t i th f ff ti

In reading, content is the same as for effective

classroom intervention: explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle, reading for meaning and p p p , g g

pportunities to learn (Foorman & Torgesen,

2001)

SLIDE 42

Implementing 3 Tier models

Third tier is typically special education, but can

represent more intense tutoring in general education

Content significantly different from first 2 levels
Response to Instruction (RtI) should be part of the

criteria for determining eligibility for special d ti education

Should be measured, not surmised
Progress monitoring essential

SLIDE 43

Reading Improvement is a Systemic Undertaking

STUDENT STUDENT TEACHER CONTENT

PELP Coherence Framework

SLIDE 44

The Kennewick, WA Success Story: di i Reading Improvement Requires…

Data: good assessments—benchmark and

Data: good assessments benchmark and normative—and expert use of the data I d di i i l i ddi i l

Increased direct instructional time; additional

time for those behind

Quality instruction in small, fluid, skill groups
Targeted accelerated growth; knowledgeable
Targeted accelerated growth; knowledgeable

reading specialists

Fi ldi K R i 2007 Fielding, Kerr, Rosier, 2007

SLIDE 45

I t ti l l d hi t K i k Instructional leadership at Kennewick

Instructional conferences for all administrators (viewing

videotaped lessons) L i lk ( b l d i d

Learning walks (to observe lesson purpose and rigor and

student engagement; debrief) Th t t l ( d i i t t d 2 h /d 10

The two-ten goal (administrators spend 2 hrs/day or 10

hrs/week on instructionally focused activities)

Literacy coaches at middle and high school (meet weekly
Literacy coaches at middle and high school (meet weekly

with principal to plan instruction & PD; confer regularly with teachers) with teachers)

SLIDE 46

Initial status + Growth = Outcome

Correlation of initial achievement and

ending achievement is .83-.90. g

Students who start ahead, stay ahead;

students who start behind stay behind students who start behind, stay behind.

Schools don’t create the achievement gap;

they inherit it they inherit it.

SLIDE 47

13 higher- SES children SES children (professional) 23 iddl /l 23 middle/lower- SES children (working class)

6 welfare 6 welfare children children children children Age of child in months Age of child in months Hart & Risley, 1995

SLIDE 48

child

Language Experience Language Experience

ssed to c

Professional

ds addres

W ki l

tive word

Working-class

cumulat

Welfare

stimated Es

Age of child in months

Hart & Risley, 1995

SLIDE 49

Table 3 % Independent Reading Minutes Per Day Words Read Per Year Minutes Per Day Year 98 65.0 4,358,000 90 21.1 1,823,000 80 14.2 1,146,000 80 14.2 1,146,000 70 9.6 622,000 60 6.5 432,000 50 4.6 282,000 40 3.3 200,000 30 1.3 106,000 20 0.7 21,000 10 0 1 8 000

Variation in Amount of Independent Reading

10 0.1 8,000 2 0.0

(Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998, adapted from Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding,1988)

SLIDE 50

Early Learning is Crucial

Narrowing the achievement gap before

kindergarten is a powerful, proactive, and doable task.

Build oral language and literacy

development into pre-K classes

Have parents read to their children 20 min.

a day to expose them to rare vocabulary, complex syntax, and rich discussion.

SLIDE 51

For more information….

Foorman, B. R., & Al Otaiba, S. (in press). Reading Remediation: State of the Art. In K. Pugh and P. M C dl (Ed ) H hild l d C i d di i i h i i f McCardle (Eds.), How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice. San Antonio, TX: Pro-Ed.

Go to www.FCRR.org BFoorman@fcrr.org