Scaling-Up Interventions for Preventing Reading Problems

Patricia Mathes, Ph.D.Live Chat, December 15, 2008

Presentation Goals

Participants will leave this session with: a deeper understanding of the

challenges of maintaining and sustaining research proven instructional practices across time.

a plan for action to ensure instructional innovations continue into the future.

Life Cycle of Scaling

Implementation (year 1)

Sustaining (year 2)

Maintaining (year 3)

Institutionalization (year 4)

What is Being Scaled-Up

Tier 1: Quality CoreEnhanced general education classroom instruction.

Tier 2: Secondary InterventionChild receives more intense intervention in general education, presumably in small groups.

Tier 3: TertiaryIntervention increases in intensity and duration. Support typically needed across years.

If progress is If progress is inadequate, inadequate, move to next move to next

level.level.

StudyHours of

InstructionIntervention

Type

Reading %tile for inclusion as At--Risk

% of Students below the

30th%tile at end of study*

Foorman et al, 1998

whole year Whole Class 18th 5%

Mathes et al., 2005

whole year Whole Class 18th 3%

Mathes et al., 2001 40

Peer Tutoring 25th 7%

Mathes et al., 2003 40

Peer Tutoring 25th 5%

Allor et al., 2001 40-55Peer

Tutoring 25th 6%

         

Tier 1 -- Alone

*extrapolated to entire population

Adding on Tier 2

StudyHours of

InstructionIntervention

Type

Reading %tile for

inclusion as at--risk

% of Studentsbelow the

30th%tile at end

of study*

Torgesen et al., 2000

Whole Year

small groups

of 3-5 18th 1.4%

Torgesen et al., 2003

Whole Year

small groups

of 3-5 18th 0.8%

Mathes et al., 2005a

(Early Interventions in Reading)

Whole Year

small groupsof 3 18th 0.02%

Mathes et al., 2005b

(Responsive Reading)

Whole Year

small groups

of 3-5 18th 1.7%

Chard & Harn., 2007

Whole Year

small groups

of 3-5 15th 0.93%

         

*extrapolated to entire population

5 Year Olds Before Learning 5 Year Olds Before Learning To ReadTo Read

Right RightLeft Left

Simos, P.G., Fletcher J.M., Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Castillo, E.M., Davis, R.N., Fitzgerald, M., Mathes, P.G., Denton C. & Papanicolaou, A.C. (2002). Brain activation profiles during the early stages of reading acquisition. Child Neurology.

AfterIntervention

LeftLeftRightRight

normalized

Good Intervention Normalizes Brain Activation Patterns

Before Intervention

CTOPP

Blending Words .44 -.19

Blending Non Words .47 -.10

TOWRE

Word .51 -.14

Phonetic decoding .42 -.13

WJIII

Word ID .88 -.12

Word Attack .24 -.26

Passage Comp .57 -.10

Spelling .60 -.30

SBRR vs. nonSBRR intervention

nonSBRR Intervention vs. core only

Data presented as Effect Sizes – anything over .20 is educationally relevant

Science Matters!Science Matters!

The Real World: Tier 2

Study

Hours of Instructio

nInterventio

n Type

Reading %tile for inclusion

as At--Risk

% of Students below the 30th%tile at end of study*

Mathes & Denton, 2008a 25 weeks

Small group 15th 4.30%

Mathes & Denton, 2008b 25 weeks

Small group 15th 4.31%

a = Early Interventions in Reading

b = Responsive Reading

Questions

What are barriers and facilitators to research-supported educational practices be implemented wide-scale in schools?

Scaling Two InterventionResponsive Intervention (Denton & Hocker, 2005) 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)

Early Interventions in Reading (Mathes & Torgesen, 2005)

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**Prepublication title = Proactive Reading.

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

The Current Project(2004-08)

78 Schools in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Austin areas across 4 years.

Farthest North-Farthest South: 255 Miles

Farthest East-Farthest West: 105 Miles Schools had a choice of intervention Large urban, suburban, and very small

rural districts

Factors that Impact Outcomes1. Quantity of

implementation2. Quality of

instruction3. Quantity has

more power than than quality!

4. Both are important!

Critical Components for high levels of Quality and Quantity

Student

Outcomes

Coaching

LeadershipTeaching Expertise

Scientifically-Based

Curriculum

The Real World

What are the barriers to getting results?– Teacher mobility– Teacher Support– Leadership Support– Infrastructure

Teacher mobility over is a huge obstacle!

2004-05 = 45 teachers2005-06 = 19 returning teachers (58% loss)2006-07 = 8 returning teachers (83% total loss)2007-08 = 4 returning teachers (92% total loss)

Teacher Support

Staff Development is not enough.

High teach mobility results in needs for ongoing support for teachers who are new implementers

Even highly expert teachers are faced with challenges.

All teachers need ongoing support.

CoachingCoachingConditionsConditions

On-SiteOn-Site Virtual CoachingVirtual Coaching On DemandOn Demand

56 Teachers 41 Teachers41 Teachers 46 Teachers46 Teachers

Ns represent 2004-07 cohorts

Student Focused Coaching

Data collection

and review

classroom observations

conferencingReferencing teacher resources as needed

Virtual CoachingData-Based and Student focused Classroom Observations

Teacher Resources Communications

Communications Coaches facilitate

communication in multiple ways– My coach

(one-on-one discussions)

– My team (group discussions)

– Teleconferencing/videoconferencing (personal coaching)

Coaching Results

On-site Coaching = to Virtual Coaching on all measures.

Both Coaching Models > On-Demand on measures of Phonemic Awareness, Alphabetic Decoding and Word Recognition

Teachers in both coaching conditions had higher implementation scores than teachers in the On-Demand Condition.

Leadership

School leadership has to support the instructional model.– Protecting time.– Building infrastructure

InfrastructureEffective Model Intervention

teacher(s) provides small group in addition to core through-out the day.

Special education, Title1, and general education work together seamlessly.

Ineffective Model General education

teacher provides both core and Tier 2 intervention.

Special services don’t become involved until Tier 3.

Life Cycle of Scaling

Implementation (year 1)

Sustaining (year 2)

Maintaining (year 3)

Institutionalization (year 4)

Life cycle of scaling

Implementation (year 1)

Sustaining (year 2)

Maintaining (year 3)

Institutionalization (year 3)

Planning for the Future

How will you ensure that the instructional innovations implemented are sustained?

1. Ongoing Implementation activities?2. Ongoing teacher support systems?3. Leadership development and support?4. Creative funding (Title 1; Special

Education – RTI)?

For further information, contact:

pmathes@smu.edu

Institute for Reading Research http://www.smu.edu/irr