1. 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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

9. 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

10. Current Design
Ns represent cohort

11. 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

12. 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

14. 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)

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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.

19. Fidelity to Intervention

20. Contact Information
Patricia Mathes
Carolyn Denton
Website