1. At-Risk Beginning Readers: Implications for Tier II Economies of Scale

2. University of Utah Reading Clinic (UURC) Kathleen J. Brown, Matthew K. Fields & Grace T. Craig

3. …. with many thanks to Darrell Morris, Appalachian State University

4. Theoretical Frame: Readers University of Virginia Intervention Fluency work: repeated readings Word study: systematic, explicit, isolated Assisted reading on instructional level 4-5x per week; 45 minutes, 80 lessons (Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005; Invernizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 2001; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1991; Santa & Hoien, 1995; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2003)

5. Theoretical Frame: Educators University of Virginia P.D. Year-Long Clinical Practicum in schools Modeling, Observation, Coaching (36 hours) Tutoring (80 hours – minimum) (Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1991; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2003)

6. Theoretical Frame: Group Size University of Virginia Model 1:1 tutorial Elbaum, Vaughn et al., meta-analysis 2002 No empirical evidence for 1:1 advantage over groups

7. Theoretical Frame: Group Size Vaughn et al., (2003) G2 Group size: 1:1 vs. 1:3 – n.s.; 1:10 * Brown, Fields, Craig & Morris (2008) G2&3 Group size: 1:1 vs. 1:3 – n.s. Helf et al., (2009) G1 Group size: 1:1 vs. 1:3 – n.s.

8. Research Question: Readers Does 1:1 intervention for at-risk 1 st graders have an advantage over intervention delivered in a 1:4 group format?

9. Research Question: Educators Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver reading intervention as effectively as certified teachers in 1:1 and 1:4 formats… …when supervised by a intervention specialist?

10. Methods: Readers N = 214 14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools Public: rural & urban Grade 1 at-risk Diverse SES, ethnicity Randomly assigned to 1:1 or Quad (1:4)

11. Methods: Educators N = 47 (21 certified; 26 non-certified) literacy coaches, paraprofessionals Each pre-certified in Early Steps Each tutored 1:1 and 1:4 Each was observed 13 times over year

12. Methods: Intervention 45 minute Early Steps lesson 80 lessons over year’s time Identical content in text & word study Students in Quads worked chorally on same materials at same time during their lessons.

13. Methods: Pre-Post Measures Criterion-referenced Word recognition automaticity (Flash) Reading Level Assessment – RLA (passages) Spelling (developmental) Norm-referenced Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC) DIBELS (NWF-WWR, ORF)

14. Methods: RLA Criteria (passage reading)

15. Methods: Analyses 3-Level HLM: School, Tutor, Student 1:1/1:4 – Level 1 Variable Certified/Non – Level 2 Variable Model reduction method Run full model w/ all covariates Remove non-significant covariates Retain variables of interest

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

17. Singleton vs. Quad Performance on RLA (passage reading)

18. 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

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

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

21. Singleton vs. Quad Performance on Flash (word rec automaticity)

22. 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

23. 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

24. Singleton vs. Quad Performance on WRMT Passage Comprehension

25. 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

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

27. Discussion: Readers Extends Vaughn et al., 2003 & Brown et al., 2008 to 1 st graders Extends Helf et al., 2009 to group of 4 No advantage for at-risk G1 students in 1:1 group format over 1:4 (Quads)

28. Discussion: Educators Extends Brown, Morris & Fields (2005), Brown et al., (2008) paraprofessionals as effective as certified educators in delivering intervention. Note: ALL (non-cert & cert) were trained & supervised by intervention specialists

29. Implications for Ed Practice Growing evidence that small groups are effective means of delivering intervention to primary grade struggling readers.  more desirable than 1:1--stretches resources such that more students receive intervention (Title I schools)

30. Implications for Ed Practice Trained, supervised paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of classroom teacher and literacy coaches. Sheds new light on the assumption that “only the most highly qualified educators should be working with struggling readers.”

31. Implications for Ed Practice >1 group size requires management skill on part of educator When to Choose 1:1 group size Students who “don’t fit” a group Educators who “don’t fit” with groups

32. Future Research Economies of Scale - 1:1 vs. 1:5 or 1:6 advantage? Intervention that targets earlier phases of development At-risk pre-alphabetic readers in early K At-risk partial alphabetic readers in mid K