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 We have chosen two reading interventions to compare them further and because we believe that allowing schools a choice of intervention facilitates the process of scaling

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? Children with LD represent about half of the 6.2 million children receiving special education services in the U.S.

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 Fluency Instruction and Assessment: 10 minutes Word Work: 10 Minutes Supported Reading: 10 Minutes Supported Writing: 10 Minutes

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 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 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