Maintaining the Power of One- on-One in a Group of Four: Early Steps Quads

Research Question: Readers Do 1:1 and 1:4 intervention formats provide differential benefits to struggling readers? Is 1-on-4 grouping format as effective as 1-on-1 for improving the performance of struggling readers?

Research Question: Educators Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver 1:4 reading intervention as effectively as certified teacher when supervised by an intervention specialist?

Methods: Readers N = Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools Public: rural & urban Grade 1 Diverse SES, ethnicity, achievement Randomly assigned to 1-on-1 or quad

Methods: Educators N = 47 Classroom teachers, literacy coaches, paraprofessionals, UURC staff Each pre-certified in Early Steps Each tutored 1:1 and 1:4 Each was observed 7 times over year

Methods: Intervention 45 minute lessons 80 lessons over year’s time

Methods: Pre-Post Measures Criterion-referenced Word recognition automaticity (Flash) Passage reading level (RLA) Spelling Norm-referenced Woodcock Word Attack (WRMT-WA) Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC) DIBELS (NWF-CLS, NWF-WWR, ORF)

Methods: RLA Criteria

Methods: Analyses 3-Level HLM School, Tutor, Student Certified/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

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on RLA

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post RLA   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.001  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) =.259

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on Flash

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Flash   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.000  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) >.500

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on Spelling (DSA)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Spelling   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.011  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) =.009

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on WRMT Word Attack

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post WRMT Word Attack   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) >.500  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) =.415

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on WRMT Passage Comprehension

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Passage Comprehension   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.303  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) =.152

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on DIBELS CLS (Correct Letter Sounds)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post DIBELS Correct Letter Sounds   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) >.500  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) =.037

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on DIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post DIBELS Whole Words Read   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.345  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) >.500

Singleton vs. Quad Performance on DIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.001  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) =.032

Discussion: Readers Replicates Vaughn et al No advantage for 1:1 group size in comparison to 1:4 (quads)

Discussion: Educators Paraprofessionals were able to deliver quad reading intervention as effectively …when supervised by an intervention specialist

Implications for Ed Practice Growing evidence that 1:4 is an effective grouping format for intervention  more efficient use of resources allows more students to receive intervention

Implications for Ed Practice Trained, supervised paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of classroom teacher and reading specialists in helping struggling readers become more successful

Implications for Ed Practice >1 group size requires management skill on part of educator Immutable benefits of 1:1 grouping Professional development opportunity to focus solely on reading development Students who “don’t fit” a group Educators who “don’t fit” with groups

Future Research Economies of Scale - 1:4 vs. 1:6 advantage?