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

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

What is the Issue? • 33% below basic on G4 th 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 allows up to 15% of special IDEA 2004 ll t 15% f i l education funds to be used to provide i t intervention to struggling readers before they fail ti t t li d b f th f il to meet grade-level achievement standards.

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)

A G ro w th In W o rd R ead in g R aw S co res B y C u rricu lu m 1 6 D ire ct C o d e Instructio n 1 4 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 1 2 f Words 1 0 Number of 8 6 4 2 0 0 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 B 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 1 6 D ire ct C o d e Instructio n E m b e dd e d C o d e Instructio n 1 4 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 1 2 f Words 1 0 Number of 8 6 4 2 0 0 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

Time spent in Reading/LA Activities in 1st grade by Hi vs. Low Rated Implementers 0.2 0.18 Hi Low 0.16 0.14 e 0.12 im t T 0.1 n e rc e 0.08 P 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 g s n ) o d e s s n n k t n o s y o s e i e s o o k x i i g r t k e g e i k t s g a c i s r r o e i t c l a n i t o a o r n n n m a u b n t c y B t W a u e n i W n o e i l r a e u l u l l i e b g a o B l t m s t r g b a h e i r d a r r n C n r d n a o t e p W n o w s A d a g w a g e a w c g r S I c n r c r n e L A o n n n O p G d n A e l o I a W i i i m d i e F U R V w d l t c r g a a n c a r o t i u e n i a r i i r t e e e e O O r r m m e e e e t t i e e C C l l P P c c v v i i h h r r e e b b l l R R e t t u e e l l ( ( R R t a T g d e r p g n r n n L h t P g n o S S g p d i a h n i n l t P A i a c i k d e d e o a a R r e o e D i B R R - n o N Time spent in Reading/LA Activities in 2nd Grade by Hi vs. Low Rated Implementers 0.2 0.18 Hi 0.16 Low 0.14 e im 0.12 t T n 0.1 e rc e e 0 08 0.08 P 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 g o s n ) s n s s n k t n d i e o x o t s i s e e o s k y o i r c e g e e k t g g k n i y r i s i a u i t r o r n t c l a n t c o a t o W n m a b e l B n n r i u a W i a u e n l o i l t a r u o e l t m e s g g r n B l b a r a C h e i n d a t b n r r d n w o s A p W d a e a o w g w g I e a c n g S c A A r c n r r d e e l n n O O G G n e e L L A A I a a o o n n p p n n o o i i e e R R W W i i d d i i F F U U c c r r w w i i g g d d m m l l n t t u V V t t a c r a a t i n a e i o r i m i r e t e e r e c i e e l O P b i l C u v h r t e l R R e a T ( t r e d e p g n h t g S r g n o L P S g n p n n a h n i l d i A t i P i c d k d a e e a o a o e R r e i D R B R - n o N

A Hypothetical Model of How Teacher Variables Moderate the Impact of Student’s Initial Reading Ability on Reading and Spelling Outcomes

Growth in Total Reading Skill Before, During, and Following Intensive Intervention (Torgesen et al., 2001) Following Intensive Intervention (Torgesen et al 2001) 95 95 90 d tandard 85 LPSP core EP 80 80 Sc St 75 P-Pretest Pre Post 1 year 2 year Interval in Months Between Measurements

Time x Activity Analyses for the Two Intervention Approaches LIPS EP 85% 85% 20% 20% Phonemic Awareness and Phonemic Awareness and Phonemic Decoding Sight Word h d 10% 30% Instruction Reading or Reading or 5% 5% 50% 50% writing connected text

Reading rate remained quite impaired 100 Accuracy-91 90 80 80 Rate-72 70 Pretest Posttest 1-year 2-year

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 How do you close the gap when the do o close the gap hen the student is already 3- 5 years behind?

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

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 1 st graders read above 30 th %ile above 30 %ile. • Mathes et al. (RRQ; 2005)

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

Mathes et al. (2005) ( ) Children – sampled across 2 years • 300 At-Risk Readers identified with the Texas Primary 300 A Ri k R d id ifi d i h h T P i Reading Inventory - assigned randomly to intervention. • 100 Typically Developing Readers 100 Typically Developing Readers Teachers • 6 Intervention (3 Proactive & 3 Responsive) • 30 General Education 1 st -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

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

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 who are school employees, h h l l but trained and supervised by researchers by ese c e s • Provided in addition to enhanced classroom instruction

Proactive Intervention Proactive Intervention • Explicit instruction in synthetic phonics, with emphasis on h i i h h i fluency. • Integrates decoding, fluency, • Integrates decoding fluency and comprehension strategies. • 100% decodable text. • Carefully constructed scope and sequence designed to prevent possible confusions. ibl f i • Every activity taught to 100% mastery everyday mastery everyday.

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 writing. iti � No pre-determined scope and sequence sequence. � Teachers respond to student needs as they are observed. y � Leveled text not phonetically decodable.

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

Predicted Growth in Word Reading by Group - Year 1 & 2 Predicted Growth in Word Reading by Group Year 1 & 2 1.5 1 1 0.5 e Z-score 0 Low Risk Responsive -0.5 Cl Classroom Proactive -1 -1.5 October December February April Month