The Virginia Intervention Model: Evaluating Its Effectiveness for Struggling Readers Who Speak...

The Virginia Intervention Model:

Evaluating Its Effectiveness for Struggling Readers Who Speak English as a Second Language

1

University of Utah Reading ClinicGranite School District

Kathleen J. Brown, Darrell Morris, Matt Fields, Stacey Lowe, Debbie Skidmore, Debbie Van Gorder, Connie Weinstein,

Julie Robertson, & Ursula Brock

2

Theoretical Framework Virginia Model of Intervention:

Early Steps/Book Buddies = effective for at-risk G1 students in embedded, implicit, and explicit code classrooms

Next Steps/Howard St. = effective for struggling G2-3 students when delivered by volunteers, certified teachers, or teacher aides

(Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2002; Brown et al., 2000; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1990; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2000; Santa & Hoien, 1999)

3

Theoretical Framework

Virginia Model of Intervention:

– guided reading @ instructional level– systematic, isolated code instruction– fluency instruction

– (for ES, add p.a. instruction)– (for NS, add “read to” for comp/vocab)

(Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2002; Brown et al., 2000; Invernizzi, Rosemary, Juel, & Richards, 1997; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1990; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2000; Santa & Hoien, 1999

4

Research History:

1999/2000 - Early Steps pilot

2000/01 – Early Steps Follow-up; Next Steps pilot

2001/02 - Next Steps w/ strictly ELL

5

Research Questions:

Is Next Steps effective for struggling readers above G1 who are classified as ELL?

Can Next Steps be delivered effectively to ELL students by non-certified educators, who are supervised by an intervention specialist?

6

Method N = 111 G2-G6 students from 8 Title 1

schools identified by school as ELL

92% ethnic minority; 78% free or reduced lunch; 100% ELL

NS and Control students equivalent at baseline; reading level = “primer”

7

Method Next Steps Intervention (Tx)

– 1-on-1 45 min. 2x per week– guided reading at instructional level– word study– fluency training (rate + accuracy)– “read to” for comprehension/vocab dev.

Title 1 Intervention (Control)– 45-60 min. daily small group, some 1-on-1– reinforce Open Court

8

Research Questions:

Is Next Steps effective for struggling readers above G1 who are classified as ELL?

9

Method Measures

– NSSI Passage Reading• 90% accuracy, grade level rate, comprehension

– WRMT (Woodcock Reading Mastery Test)

ANCOVA– Pretest scores used as covariates– Analyses:

• Next Steps Treatment vs. Control• Certified vs. Non-Certified Instructor• Non-Certified Instructor vs. Control

10

Passage Reading Level Coding

Pre-PrimerReading Level

Primer1.2 (late G1)

2.1 (early G2)

2.2 (late G2)

3.0

123456

Code #

12

Results: Next Steps vs. ControlNextSteps

Control F P Effectsize

NSSI Passage MReading (SD)

4.7a

(1.5)3.9b

(1.9)8.62 <.0041* .56

WRMT MWord Attack (SD)

26.3(8.3)

24.7(8.9)

7.34 <.0079* .52

WRMT Passage MComprehension(SD)

27.5(6.0)

24.5(8.2)

17.49 <.0001* .81

a almost end G2 b almost early G2

Note: pretest scores used as covariates

11

Results: WRMT Percentiles

WRMT Word Attack

Next Steps Control

Grade

Average Raw

Score Percentile Equivalent Grade

Average Raw

Score Percentile Equivalent

2

26.7

79th

2

25.1

75th

3

26.2

62nd

3

22.6

51st

14

Results: WRMT Percentiles

WRMT Passage Comprehension

Next Steps Control

Grade

Average Raw

Score Percentile Equivalent Grade

Average Raw

Score Percentile Equivalent

2 26.4 47th 2 23.6 38th

3 28.9 37th 3 22.4 18th

15

Discussion Next Steps is effective at helping ELL readers

above G1--even in Open Court classrooms

Next Steps students gained approximately 1 year’s growth in reading ability in only 45 sessions

Contrast this with control students who gained only 1/2 year’s growth in well over 100 sessions

16

Discussion

What makes Virginia model effective?– 1-on-1– targets instructional level – systematic, isolated decoding instruction– fluency work– pacing: “raise the bar” ASAP– time on task (packed 45 min.-->1 hour/week

reading aloud on level w/feedback)

Limitations intervention format differences

– tx = all 1-on-1– control = some 1-on-1; mostly small grp

• FAVORS TX GROUP!

– Control = 120+ sessions@45-60 minutes– tx = 45 sessions@45 minutes

• FAVORS CONTROL GROUP!

21

Research Questions:

Can Next Steps be delivered effectively to ELL students by non-certified educators, who are supervised by an intervention specialist?

17

Results: Non-Certified vs. Control

Non-Certified

Control F P Effectsize

NSSI Passage MReading (SD)

4.5a

(1.5)3.9b

(1.9)7.42 <.0077* .59

WRMT MWord Attack (SD)

25.7(8.2)

24.7(8.9)

6.20 <.0146* .54

WRMT Passage MComprehension (SD)

27.7(5.9)

24.5(8.2)

17.09 <.0001* .89

a middle G2 b almost early G2

18

Results: Certified vs. Non-Certified

Certified Non-Cert

F P Effectsize

NSSI Passage MReading (SD)

4.9a

(1.7)4.5b

(1.5)0.02 .8924 n.s.

WRMT MWord Attack (SD)

27.7(8.6)

25.7(8.2)

0.01 .5079 n.s.

WRMT MComprehension (SD)

26.9(6.3)

27.7(6.0)

.45 .3243 n.s.

a almost end G2 b middle G2

19

Discussion Next Steps can be delivered effectively to ELL

students by non-certified educators

– with supervision from intervention specialist

Next Steps students tutored by non-certified educators significantly outperformed control students on all measures

No significant differences between Next Steps students tutored by certified and noncertified educators

20

Discussion

What accounts for effectiveness of non-certified personnel?– all participants supervised by IS– high experience level – practicum model = ongoing mentoring

• modeling• observation• feedback

2222

Discussion ELLs present complex issues; must resist

“label”– Porfirio: G3 = late G1 reader--> 1 yr

of NS-->late G2 reader-->no intervention-->now in G5 = G6 reader

– Juan: G5 = late G1 reader--> 1 yr of NS -->still late G1-->1 yr of OG-->now in G6 = late G2 reader

2222

Future Research Does performance trajectory continue at desired

levels when Early Steps is followed by Next Steps in grade 2?

How does the “size of the group” impact the effectiveness of the Virginia Model? To what extent is it effective in pairs? small group?

Does group size interact with severity of reading difficulty? Who really needs 1-on-1 and who can “make it” with pair or even small group instruction?

21