Maintaining the Power of OneonOne in a Group of Three:

1
Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of
Three

• Next Steps Triads
• (available on www.uurc.edu/Educators/Research.p
  hp)

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
• 11 tutorial
• Elbaum, Vaughn et al., meta-analysis (2002)
• no advantage for 11 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• 2 unpublished doctoral dissertations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 11 vs. 13 vs. 110
• No differences between 11 and 13 both more
  effective than 110

7
Research Question Readers

• Is 13 grouping as effective as 11 for improving
  the performance of struggling readers who receive
  Next Steps?

8
Research Question Educators

• Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver Next
  Steps in a 13 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 11
• 71 tutored 11 and 13
• 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
• 11 vs. 13 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) gt .500
16
Results 11 vs. 13 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) gt .500
18
Results 11 vs. 13 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 11 vs. 13 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) gt .500
22
Results 11 vs. 13 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 11 vs. 13 on WRMT Passage
Comprehension
25
Results Passage Reading Gain
26
Discussion Readers

• Replicates Vaughn et al., 2003
• No advantage for 11 over 13

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 13 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

• gt1 group size requires educator management skill
  reduces individual attention
• Odd-number grouping allows educator to retain
  some luxury of 11 tutorial
• Address individual student needs
• Progress monitor

31
Implications for Ed Practice

• Benefits of 11 tutorial
• Professional development opportunity to focus
  solely on reading developmentnot on management
  issues.
• Students who dont fit a group

32
Future Research

• Economies of Scale - 13 vs. 15 advantage?
• Intervention that targets earlier phases of
  development
• pre-alphabetic readers?
• partial alphabetic readers?