Scalingup Effective Interventions for Preventing Reading Difficulties Patricia

Scaling-up Effective Interventions for Preventing Reading Difficulties Patricia Mathes, Ph. D. Carolyn Denton, Ph. D. Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas

Project Description • Study of “scaling up” 2 first grade reading interventions • 5 -year project • Currently beginning Year 3: Research Implementation

Questions • How can research-supported educational practices be implemented wide-scale in schools? • Will Student-Focused Coaching help support teachers who are implementing interventions with struggling readers?

Previous Research • Proactive Early Reading Instruction and Responsive Reading Instruction • 40 minutes, 5 days per week, 30 weeks • 2 years, 6 schools, 1 urban district • 1: 3 teacher-student ratio • Provided in addition to quality classroom instruction (“Tier 2”) • Taught by certified teachers who were carefully chosen and supervised by research personnel

Proactive Intervention • Explicit instruction in synthetic phonics, with emphasis on fluency and comprehension strategies. • Decodable text • Carefully constructed scope and sequence designed to prevent possible confusions • Daily Lessons are prescriptive • Lessons are fully Specified

Responsive Intervention • Systematic, explicit instruction in synthetic phonics & analogy phonics • Students apply decoding, fluency, & comprehension skills while reading/ writing • Teachers respond to student needs documented through assessment • Leveled text (decodable can be integrated) • “Sounding out” is the primary strategy for word ID; students receive systematic, explicit phonics instruction

Previous Research Results • Students in both interventions performed significantly better than at-risk students in the same school who did not receive the interventions in phonological awareness, word reading, and oral reading fluency • Proactive did better than Responsive in reading nonwords

The Current Project (2005 -06) • 56 Schools in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Austin areas • Farthest North-Farthest South: 255 Miles • Farthest East-Farthest West: 105 Miles • Schools have a choice of intervention • Large urban, suburban, and very small rural districts

Current Design Conditions On-Site 13 Schools 16 Teachers 71 Treatment 89 Comparison Technology-Based On Demand 11 Schools 13 Teachers 65 Treatment 67 Comparison 10 Schools 12 Teachers 60 Treatment 62 Comparison Ns represent 2004 -05 cohort

Student-Focused Coaching • Data-based decision making with primary attention directed to student outcomes • Observations focus on interactions between student and teacher behaviors • Systematic problem-solving focused on improving student outcomes

Technology-Based Coaching • • • The “Virtual Coach” CD-Rom plus interactive interface 1: 1 interactions with coach + team space Interactions not in real-time “Modeling” via video clips, links to PD Provide summarized assessment data for lesson planning • “Observation” via student data and questioning • Systematic Problem-Solving Component • Goal of self-reflection

Achievement Measures Student-Level Pre-Post • • Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Test of Word Reading Efficiency Woodcock-Johnson II Forman IRT- Based Word List Monthly • Oral Reading Fluency • DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency Year-End • SWAN (Behavior/ADHD Scale)

Context Measures Teacher and Coach Variables • ICE-R (observation of both research interventions and alternate supplemental interventions) • Fidelity of Intervention Implementation Observations • Teacher Knowledge Assessments (pre-post) • Fidelity of Coaching Observations • Virtual Coach Pre-Surveys, Transcripts, and Usage Reports • Coaching logs, Coaching records • Intervention Teacher Focus Groups

Context Measures School Variables • School Climate Surveys • Satisfaction With the Intervention Questionnaire • Exit Interview of Principals and Teachers (for schools that leave the project) • School Coordinator logs, Coaching records • Intervention Teacher Focus Groups

Preliminary Year 2 Results • First year of implementation in schools • Wide variation of intervention implementation fidelity, regularity, and quality • Relatively low usage of Virtual Coach • Student performance better than control – on average.

Fidelity to Intervention

Contact Information Patricia Mathes pmathes@smu. edu Carolyn Denton cdenton@mail. utexas. edu Website www. texasreading. org/utcrla/research/scale_up. asp