Early Steps Intervention in Schools with Explicit Code Instruction Is It Effective? Does Isolated Phonological Awareness Instruction Increase Effectiveness?

University of Utah & Granite School District Salt Lake City, UT Kathleen J. Brown, Veronica Reynolds, Stacey Lowe, Debbie Skidmore, Debbie Van Gorder, Sue Patillo, Connie Weinstein, Julie World, Amy Morris

Theoretical Framework n Early Steps: –repeated instructional level –systematic, isolated code instruction –writing-embedded PA instruction n Early Steps = effective for at-risk in G1 embedded or implicit code classrooms (Morris, 1999; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, in press; Santa & Hoien, 1999

Theoretical Framework n Phonological Awareness (PA) is causally related to early reading success n PA instruction = important part of effective intervention (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes, 1987; Tunmer, Nesdale, & Harriman,1988)

Research Question Is Early Steps effective for at-risk G1 students whose classroom instruction provides: - sys. exp. decoding - sys. exp. PA - literature + decodable texts - spelling dictation, and - writing workshop?

Research Question Once students are aware of initial phonemes, Does isolated PA instruction make Early Steps more effective? - Early Steps writing-embedded PAI = listening for sounds in sentence writing - isolated PAI (strictly oral activities, no text involved)

Method n Students = 31% ethnic minority; 46% free lunch; 18% ESL n Tutors = G1 teachers, RS in training, grad students, Title I aides n Sept. 99-May 00

Method: Intervention Study n At-risk G1 students identified by scores on: –alphabet knowledge –phonological awareness via spelling task n Control group identified by matching baseline scores with tx group Morris, 1992

Method: Intervention Study n N=88 G1 students from 7 Title 1 schools n Early Steps Intervention –30 min. daily, 1-on-1 n Title I Intervention –30-45 min. daily, small group –reinforce Open Court

Method: PAI study n Identified Early Steps students with “moderate alphabet knowledge” and “low PA” n matched on baseline scores n random assignment to conditions

Method: PAI study n N=24 Early Steps students n Embedded + Isolated PA Instruction –writing-embedded PA –PA isolated in oral activities n PA Control –writing-embedded PA only

Results: Intervention Study a = 73rd percentile b = 54th percentile c = 47th percentile d = 27th percentile

Results: PAI Study

Discussion n Early Steps benefits at-risk G1 students receiving explicit code instruction as measured by: –passage reading –word attack –comprehension –spelling

Discussion n Once Early Steps students are aware of initial phonemes, adding isolated PAI does not improve effectiveness –“listening for sounds” during daily sentence writing may be sufficient