Reading and Language
Intervention
Barbara Foorman, Ph.D.
Florida Center for Reading Research
Florida State University
What is the Issue?
• 33% below basic on G4th NAEP (53% Blacks;
50% Hispanics) ; 17.5% of students are RD
• NCLB requires that students at-risk for reading
disability receive intervention
• The state of the art in reading remediation is
prevention and early intervention
• IDEA 2004 allows up to 15% of special
education funds to be used to provide
intervention to struggling readers before they fail
to meet grade-level achievement standards.
Landmark Studies
• Classroom prevention (Foorman et al.,
1998, 2006; Connor et al., 2007)
• Early intervention (Vellutino et al., 1996;
2003)
• Intensive intervention (Torgesen et al.,
2001)
A
G ro w th In W o rd R e a d in g R a w S c o re s B y C u rric u lu m
16
D ire c t C o d e Ins truc tio n
E m b e d d e d C o d e Ins truc tio n
14
Im p lic it C o d e - R e s e a rc h Ins truc tio n
Im p lic it C o d e - S ta nd a rd Ins truc tio n
N u m b e r o f W o rd s
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
O c to be r
D e c e m be r
F e brua ry
April
S c h o o l Ye a r
B
P re d ic te d G ro w th In W o rd R e a d in g S c o re s B y C u rric u lu m
16
D ire c t C o d e Ins truc tio n
14
E m b e d d e d C o d e Ins truc tio n
Im p lic it C o d e - R e s e a rc h Ins truc tio n
Im p lic it C o d e - S ta nd a rd Ins truc tio n
N u m b e r o f W o rd s
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
O c to be r
D e c e m be r
F e brua ry
S c h o o l Ye a r
April
oo
k
an Ora
d
l
P L
P rin an
ho t gu
ne A w ag
m a e
ic re
Le A ne
tte wa ss
A
lp r R ren
ha e e
be co ss
t gn
S ic I iti
tru ns on
ct tru
ur
al ctio
A n
n
W al y
or si
d s
W
P
re Vo or
vi ca k
e
b
S win ula
pe g
ry
lli
ng a B
R
o
ea
i
di R n C ok
ng ea o
d n
R
ea Th ing tex
di eir
B t
ng O oo
w
ks
C
om n W
pr rit
eh in
en g
si
o
S n
pe
D
l
lin
N
on irec
W g
-R tin
rit
ea g
i
di (re Gr ng
ng a am
di
R ng m
a
el
at re r
ed la
t
In ed
st )
ru
F cti
ee o
d n
U bac
nc k
od
ab
le
B
Percent Time
oo
k
an
d
O
ra
l
P
L
Pr a ng
in
ua
t
ho
A
ge
w
ne
ar
m
en
ic
es
Aw
s
Le
ar
tte
en
rR
es
A
lp
s
ha e c
b e og
n
tic
iti
on
In
S
st
tru
r
uc
ct
ur
tio
al
n
A
na
ly
si
W
or s
d
W
or
V
k
oc
P
re
ab
vi
u
ew
la
ry
in
S
g
pe
a
lli
B
ng
oo
in
k
R
C
ea
R
on
ea
di
te
ng
di
xt
Th ng
B
R
oo
e a e ir
O
ks
di
w
ng
n
W
C
om
rit
in
pr
eh g
en
si
on
S
pe
lli
ng
D
W
i
r
rit
N
o n ect
in
in
g
-R
G
g
r
ea
(r
am
ea
di
m
ng
di
ar
ng
R
el
re
at
ed late
d)
In
st
ru
ct
i
Fe o n
ed
ba
c
U
nc k
od
ab
le
B
Percent Time
Time spent in Reading/LA Activities in 1st grade by Hi vs. Low Rated
Implementers
0.18
0.2
0.16
Hi
0.14
Low
0.12
0.08
0.1
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Time spent in Reading/LA Activities in 2nd Grade by Hi vs. Low Rated
Implementers
0.18
0.2
0.16
Hi
0.14
Low
0.12
0.08
0.1
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
A Hypothetical Model of How Teacher Variables Moderate the Impact
of Student’s Initial Reading Ability on Reading and Spelling Outcomes
Growth in Total Reading Skill Before, During, and
Following Intensive Intervention (Torgesen et al., 2001)
95
Standard
Score
90
85
LPSP
EP
80
75
P-Pretest
Pre Post
1 year
2 year
Interval in Months Between Measurements
Time x Activity Analyses for the Two
Intervention Approaches
LIPS
EP
Phonemic Awareness and
Phonemic Decoding
85%
20%
Sight Word
Instruction
10%
30%
Reading or
writing
connected text
5%
50%
Reading rate remained quite impaired
100
Accuracy-91
90
80
Rate-72
70
Pretest
Posttest
1-year
2-year
Remediation is not a solution!
Reading rate is limited because the
proportion of words in grade level
passages that children can read “by
sight” is less than for average readers.
How do you close the gap when the
student is already 3- 5 years behind?
Yet, there are some impressive results
• Berninger et al., 2003; Blachman et al., 2004;
Olson & Wise, 2006
• Lovett et al. (2000): PHAB/DI + WIST →
PHAST Track Reading Program
• Wolf, Miller, & Donnelly’s (2002) RAVE-O
Effective Early Interventions
• Reading Recovery: Schwartz’s (2005) RCT
concludes that 5% of RR graduates don’t
read on grade level.
• Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS):
Studies show that 5-6% of 1st graders read
above 30th %ile.
• Mathes et al. (RRQ; 2005)
Peer Assisted Learning Strategies
• As a supplement to core reading, PALS has helped K-6
graders improve their phonological awareness, phonics,
fluency, and comprehension (e.g., Fuchs et al., 1997; Mathes et al., 1994;
Mathes et al., 1998; Simmons et al., 1994).
• Teachers pair their students, creating dyads with one high and one
low performing reader, and then train students to follow standard
PALS procedures.
Increases students’ practice time and opportunities to
respond.
Offers structured and reciprocal practice on phonological
awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension
Mathes et al. (2005)
Children – sampled across 2 years
• 300 At-Risk Readers identified with the Texas Primary
Reading Inventory - assigned randomly to intervention.
• 100 Typically Developing Readers
Teachers
• 6 Intervention (3 Proactive & 3 Responsive)
• 30 General Education 1st-grade Teachers
Schools
• 6 non- Title 1 elementary schools in a large urban school
district with an aggressive, long- term reading initiative
The Interventions
Enhanced Classroom Instruction
All children identified as at-risk by principal,
teachers, and parents
Progress monitored with feedback to principal,
teachers, and parents (oral reading probes every
3 weeks)
Professional development of classroom teachers
in strategies for accommodating academic
diversity and linking assessment to instructional
planning for struggling readers
Comparison of Two Interventions
Proactive and Responsive
• 40 minutes, 5 days per week,
all school year (30 weeks)
• 1:3 teacher-student ratio
• Taught by certified teachers
who are school employees,
but trained and supervised
by researchers
• Provided in addition to
enhanced classroom
instruction
Proactive Intervention
• Explicit instruction in synthetic
phonics, with emphasis on
fluency.
• Integrates decoding, fluency,
and comprehension strategies.
• 100% decodable text.
• Carefully constructed scope and
sequence designed to prevent
possible confusions.
• Every activity taught to 100%
mastery everyday.
Responsive Intervention
 Explicit instruction in synthetic
phonics and in analogy phonics.
 Teaches decoding, using the
alphabetic principle, fluency,
and comprehension strategies in
the context of reading and
writing.
 No pre-determined scope and
sequence.
 Teachers respond to student
needs as they are observed.
 Leveled text not phonetically
decodable.
The Responsive Intervention
• Fluency Work (Repeated Reading) and
Assessment: 8-10 minutes
• Word Work: 10-12 Minutes
• Supported Reading:
10-12 Minutes
• Supported Writing:
8-10 Minutes
Predicted Growth in Word Reading by Group - Year 1 & 2
1.5
1
Z-score
0.5
0
Low Risk
Responsive
Classroom
Proactive
-0.5
-1
-1.5
October
December
February
Month
April
Predicted growth in CMERS by group
100
90
Low Risk
Responsive
Classroom
Proactive
80
Raw Score
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Probe
7
8
9
10
11
Reading Outcomes Across Critical Domains
115
110
105
Classroom
100
Proactive
95
Responsive
Benchmark
Not At-Risk
90
85
80
Word Rec
Fluency
Comprehension
At Risk Reader
Left
Right
Kindergarten
First Grade
Simos et al., 2006
What percent of children don’t respond
adequately to quality intervention?
Primary only: 15/92 = 16% (3% of
school population)
Primary + Secondary:
Proactive: 1/80 = < 1% (< .2% of
school population)
Responsive: 6/83 = 7% (<1.5% of
school population)
Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis (2006; JLD)
Wave 1
Round 1
Pre
Wave 2
Phono-Graphix P
8 weeks
Round 2
Pre
Baseline
8 weeks
Wave 3
Read Naturally
8 weeks
Pre
RN
Phono-Graphix
8 weeks
P
Wave 4
8 weeks
Read NaturallyRN
8 weeks
Gains in Basic Skills Standard Score Points During 16-Week
Intervention
30
Standard Score Gains
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-5
Students
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Conclusions
• Significant improvements in decoding, fluency,
and comprehension after 8 weeks of PhonoGraphix. Small to moderate effects of Read
Naturally on fluency only, perhaps due to need for
more decoding before repeated reading.
• 7 of the 27 students performed at or above the 30th
%ile of the WJ-III Basic Reading after 16 weeks
of daily 2-hr.intervention (& 4 between the 25th and 30th).
• Nonresponders with Tier 1 + 2 > Tier 1 alone.
• Development of reading skills dependent on
establishment of LH neural network (Simos et al., 2007, JLD)
Are Volunteer Tutors Effective?
• Overall mean effect size for tutoring in
several large meta-analyses is .40 (Cohen et
al., 1982; Elbaum et al., 2000).
• Average effect size for volunteers was .26;
however, in studies describing tutors’ training,
effect size was .59 (Elbaum et al.)
Effect sizes on components of reading
• Word identification: .42 (Baker et al., 2000) to
1.24 (Invernizzi et al., 1997)
• Word attack: .32 (Vadasy et al., 1997) to 1.24
(Vadasy et al., 2000)
• Fluency: .48 (Baker et al., 2000) to .53 (Baker et
al., 2000)
• Comprehension: .10 (Vadasy et al., 2002) to .32
(Baker et al., 2000), .90 (Al Otaiba et al.,
2005)
Support for community tutors (Wazik, 1998)
• Certified reading specialist to supervise tutors
• Ongoing training and feedback for tutors
• Structured tutoring sessions that incorporate basic
literacy elements
• Consistent/intensive tutoring for struggling readers
• Access to high quality materials
• Ongoing assessment of student progress
• Monitoring of attendance
• Coordination of tutoring with classroom instruction
Multi- Tiered Reading Instruction
If progress is
inadequate,
move to next
level.
Level 1: Primary Intervention
Enhanced general education classroom
instruction (90 min, uninterrupted).
Level 2: Secondary Intervention
Child receives more intense instruction in
general education in small groups (30
min).
Level 3: Tertiary
Intervention increases in intensity and
duration; remedial, small groups (30+ min.)
Who is LD, What is RtI?
• The student who does not respond to quality
instruction
• Discrepancy relative to the expectation that
ALL children can learn
• Requires closer integration of general
education and special education
• One system, not two -- all students are
general education students first!
IDEA 2004
• NCLB and IDEA share the goal of a single, wellintegrated system that connects general, remedial, and
special education and considers the learning needs of
all children.
• According to IDEIA, response to intervention (RTI)
means that a local education agency “may use a
process that determines if the child responds to
scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the
evaluation procedures” (Pub. L. No. 108-446 § 614
[b][6][A]; § 614 [b] [2 & 3]).
RtI as a Diagnostic System vs. Multi-Tiered
Instructional Model
• It is useful to keep RtI as a diagnostic
system conceptually distinct from RtI as a
multi-tiered instructional model because the
former is new and has challenging
measurement implications, whereas the
latter has been in existence in public health
and in school reform models.
What is RtI?
RTI is the practice of (1) providing
high-quality instruction/intervention
matched to student needs and (2) using
learning rate over time and level of
performance to (3) make important
educational decisions to guide
instruction.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education,
2005
REFERRAL
SCREENING
ELIGIBILITY TESTING
Not Eligible
Eligible
TREATMENT
Responders
Non-Responders
NEW
MODEL
TREATMENT 1-2
Responders
Monitor
Non-Responders
ELIGIBILITY TESTING
Not Eligible
Eligible
TREATMENT 3
Responders Non-Responders
Monitor
Three Tier Model
• Critical question for special education and
general education is not “What is the label?” or
“For what is the child eligible, but what type of
intervention results in change?
Special Education becomes an
alternative for students who don’t
respond to quality instruction and
need the power/flexibility of IDEA
Implementing 3 tier models
• Enhanced core reading instruction is the key
• Primary model: begins in the classroom with
professional development, assessment, and better
materials; alternatives like PALS underutilized
• Screening, diagnostic assessments, and progress
monitoring must be in place
• Goal is differentiated instruction and monitoring
response to instruction
Growth in Oral Reading Fluency for STACY,JUSTIN
3
120
85 WPM
100
Score
80
60
40
20
0
Story
1
Story Story
2
3
Story Story
4
5
Story Story
6
7
Story
8
Story Story
9
10
School Year
21 weeks
Story Story
11
12
Story Story
13
14
Story
15
Implementing 3 Tier models
• Second tier is typically small group pull out
instruction, but can represent additional dose in
the classroom
• Small-group intervention is just as effective as 1:1
intervention (Elbaum et al., 2000)
• In reading, content is the same as for effective
classroom intervention: explicit instruction in the
alphabetic principle, reading for meaning and
opportunities to learn (Foorman & Torgesen,
2001)
Implementing 3 Tier models
• Third tier is typically special education, but can
represent more intense tutoring in general
education
• Content significantly different from first 2 levels
• Response to Instruction (RtI) should be part of the
criteria for determining eligibility for special
education
• Should be measured, not surmised
• Progress monitoring essential
Reading Improvement is a Systemic Undertaking
STUDENT
TEACHER
CONTENT
PELP Coherence Framework
The Kennewick, WA Success Story:
Reading Improvement Requires…
• Data: good assessments—benchmark and
normative—and expert use of the data
• Increased direct instructional time; additional
time for those behind
• Quality instruction in small, fluid, skill groups
• Targeted accelerated growth; knowledgeable
reading specialists
Fielding, Kerr, Rosier, 2007
Instructional leadership at Kennewick
• Instructional conferences for all administrators (viewing
videotaped lessons)
• Learning walks (to observe lesson purpose and rigor and
student engagement; debrief)
• The two-ten goal (administrators spend 2 hrs/day or 10
hrs/week on instructionally focused activities)
• Literacy coaches at middle and high school (meet weekly
with principal to plan instruction & PD; confer regularly
with teachers)
Initial status + Growth = Outcome
• Correlation of initial achievement and
ending achievement is .83-.90.
• Students who start ahead, stay ahead;
students who start behind, stay behind.
• Schools don’t create the achievement gap;
they inherit it.
13 higherSES children
(professional)
23 middle/lowerSES children
(working class)
6 welfare
children
Age of child in months
Hart & Risley, 1995
Estimated cumulative words addressed to child
Language Experience
Professional
Working-class
Welfare
Age of child in months
Hart & Risley, 1995
Table 3
%
98
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
Independent
Reading
Minutes Per Day
65.0
21.1
14.2
9.6
6.5
4.6
3.3
1.3
0.7
0.1
0.0
Words Read Per
Year
4,358,000
1,823,000
1,146,000
622,000
432,000
282,000
200,000
106,000
21,000
8,000
0
Variation in Amount of Independent Reading
(Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998, adapted from Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding,1988)
Early Learning is Crucial
• Narrowing the achievement gap before
kindergarten is a powerful, proactive, and
doable task.
• Build oral language and literacy
development into pre-K classes
• Have parents read to their children 20 min.
a day to expose them to rare vocabulary,
complex syntax, and rich discussion.
For more information….
Foorman, B. R., & Al Otaiba, S. (in press). Reading Remediation: State of the Art. In K. Pugh and P.
McCardle (Eds.), How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of
cognition, neurobiology and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice. San Antonio, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Go to www.FCRR.org
[email protected]
Thank you!
Descargar

Slide 1