1. Maintaining the Power of One- on-One in a Group of Three: Next Steps Triads (available on: www.uurc.edu/Educators/Research.php)

2. Authors Kathleen J. Brown Matthew K. Fields Grace T. Craig University of Utah Reading Clinic Darrell Morris Appalachian State University

3. Theoretical Frame: Readers University of Virginia Intervention Assisted reading on instructional level Word study: systematic, isolated Fluency work: repeated readings 2-3x per week; 45 minutes (Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005; Invernizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 2001; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1991; Santa & Hoien, 1995; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2003)

4. Theoretical Frame: Educators University of Virginia Prof. Development Clinical practicum in schools Modeling, Observation, Coaching (36 hours) Tutoring (45 hours – minimum) (Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1991; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2003)

5. Theoretical Frame: Group Size University of Virginia Model 1:1 tutorial Elbaum, Vaughn et al., meta-analysis (2002) no advantage for 1:1 over small group 2 unpublished doctoral dissertations Fountas & Pinnell (1996) secondary finding

6. Theoretical Frame: Group Size Vaughn et al., (2003) Assisted reading, phonics Group size: 1:1 vs. 1:3 vs. 1:10 No differences between 1:1 and 1:3; both more effective than 1:10

7. Research Question: Readers Is 1:3 grouping as effective as 1:1 for improving the performance of struggling readers who receive Next Steps?

8. Research Question: Educators Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver Next Steps in a 1:3 format effectively-- --when supervised by an intervention specialist?

9. Methods: Readers N = 129 14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools Public & parochial; rural & urban Grades 2-8 Diverse SES, ethnicity, ELP At baseline, range = primer to early 2nd Triads matched on instructional level

10. Methods: Educators N = 34 Classroom teachers, literacy coaches, paraprofessionals, UURC staff Each already certified in Next Steps 1:1 71% tutored 1:1 and 1:3 Full lessons observed 7 times over year

11. Methods: Intervention 45 minute lessons 45 lessons over 1 year Assisted reading Word study Fluency Triad: rotating “target student” & partnership

12. Methods: Pre-Post Measures Criterion-referenced Word recognition automaticity (Flash) Passage reading level Spelling Norm-referenced Woodcock Word Attack (WRMT-WA) Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC)

13. Methods: Passage Reading Criteria

14. Methods: Analyses 3-Level HLM Student, tutor, school 1:1 vs. 1:3 – Level 1 Variable Certified vs. 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

15. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Passage Reading   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.001  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) >.500

16. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Passage Reading

17. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Word Rec Automaticity   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.066  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) >.500

18. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Word Recognition Automaticity

19. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Spellin g   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.114  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) =.142

20. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Spelling

21. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post WRMT Word Attack   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.052  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) >.500

22. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on WRMT Word Attack

23. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post WRMT Passage Comprehension   p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) =.001  2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) =.137

24. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on WRMT Passage Comprehension

25. Results: PassageReading Gain

26. Discussion: Readers Replicates Vaughn et al., 2003 No advantage for 1:1 over 1:3

27. Discussion: Educators Replicated Brown, Morris, & Fields (2005) Paraprofessionals were able to deliver triad reading intervention effectively …when supervised by an intervention specialist

28. Implications for Ed Practice Growing evidence that 1:3 is an effective grouping format for intervention  more efficient use of resources allows more students to receive intervention

29. Implications for Ed Practice Paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of certified educators in helping struggling readers improve… …with training and supervision.

30. Implications for Ed Practice >1 group size requires educator management skill & reduces individual attention Odd-number grouping allows educator to retain some luxury of 1:1 tutorial Address individual student needs Progress monitor

31. Implications for Ed Practice Benefits of 1:1 tutorial Professional development opportunity to focus solely on reading development—not on management issues. Students who “don’t fit” a group

32. Future Research Economies of Scale - 1:3 vs. 1:5 advantage? Intervention that targets earlier phases of development pre-alphabetic readers? partial alphabetic readers?