Reading First Reading First and Interventionsand Interventions
Stuart GreenbergStuart GreenbergERRFTACERRFTAC
[email protected]@fcrr.org
Georgia Reading First Conference
Acknowledgements
• ERRFTAC/FCRR• CRRFTAC• WRRFTAC
Today’s PresentationToday’s Presentation
Two Parts
1. What’s possible in our schools
2. Facilitators and Barriers
Current UnderstandingCurrent Understanding
• High quality classroom instruction can significantly reduce the numbers of children who struggle with reading
• Intervention in addition to classroom instruction is very effective.
Reading ComprehensionOne Model: A Thought To Ponder
Fundamental Skills (phonological awareness, Alphabetic Principal)
Word Reading
ReadingComprehension
Listening Comprehension
Verbal Language Skills
(Receptive & Expressive)Fluency
Intervention: A School Wide FocusIntervention: A School Wide Focus
Step 1: Quality CoreEnhanced general education classroom instruction.
Step 2 : Supportive InstructionChild receives more intense intervention in general education, presumably in small groups.
Step 3 : Intensive Intervention Intervention increases in intensity and duration. Support typically needed across years.
Evidence from one school that we can do substantially better than ever before
School Characteristics:
70% Free and Reduced Lunch (going up each year)
65% minority (mostly African-American)
Elements of Curriculum Change:
Movement to a more balanced reading curriculum beginning in 1994-1995 school year (incomplete implementation) for K-2Improved implementation in 1995-1996
Implementation in Fall of 1996 of screening and more intensive small group instruction for at-risk students
Proportion falling below the 25th
percentile in word reading ability at the end of first grade 10
20
3031.8
20.4
10.96.7
3.7
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Average Percentile 48.9 55.2 61.4 73.5 81.7for entire grade (n=105)
Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years
Screening at beginning of first grade, with extra instruction for those in bottom 30-40%
Proportion falling below the 25th
Percentile 10
20
30
Proportion falling below the 25th
Percentile 10
20
30
31.8
20.4
10.96.7
3.7
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Average Percentile 48.9 55.2 61.4 73.5 81.7
14.5
9.05.4 2.4
1996 1997 1998 1999
Average Percentile 58.2 67.1 74.1 81.5
Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years
Hartsfield Elem. State Average
10
15
20
25
30
35
40Level 2Level 1
FCAT Performance in Spring, 2003FCAT Performance in Spring, 2003
AssumptionsAssumptions
• The numbers of children who appear to be struggling is related to the quality and intensity of instruction.
• Some children will require more high quality instruction in smaller groups in order to respond well.
• Some children will not respond adequately, even with the best intervention.
1.Difficulty learning to read words accurately and fluently
2. Insufficient vocabulary, general knowledge, and reasoning skills to support comprehension of written language
3. Absence or loss of initial motivation to read, or failure to develop a mature appreciation of the rewards of reading.
Potential Stumbling Blocks to Becoming a Good Reader (NRC Report, 1998)
High Quality InstructionHigh Quality Instruction
Study
Hours of Instruction
Student/
Teacher Ratio
Reading %tile for Identification of Risk Status
% of Students Still At-Risk at End of
Study
Foorman et al., 1998
174 classroom 18 5%
Mathes et al., 2001
35 Classroom
(peer tutoring)
25 7%
Allor et al, 2002
35-55 Classroom
(peer tutoring)
25 6%
Mathes et al, in press
35 Classroom
(peer tutoring or small group)
25 5%
The Impact of Intervention OnlyThe Impact of Intervention Only
StudyHours of
InstructionStudent/Teacher
RatioReading %tile for Identification of
Risk Status
% of Students Still At-Risk at End of Study
Felton, 1993
340 1:8 16 3.8%
Vellutino et al., 1996
35-65 1:1 15 4.5%
Torgesen et al., 2000
92 1:3 18 1.4%
Instruction + Intervention in First Instruction + Intervention in First GradeGrade
StudyHours of
InstructionStudent/Teacher
Ratio
Reading %tile for
Identification of Risk Status
% of Students Still At-Risk at End of Study
Mathes et al., 2005
(Responsive Intervention)
120 1:3 18 1.7%
Mathes et al., 2005
(Proactive Intervention)
120 1:3 18 .02%
Torgesen et al., 2003
120 1:3 18 .8%
Double Dose ReadingDouble Dose Reading
Core Reading Core Reading InstructionInstruction
InterventiInterventionon
Very small groups
Looking Inside The Brain ImagingLooking Inside The Brain Imaging
5 Year Olds Before Learning To 5 Year Olds Before Learning To ReadRead
Right RightLeft Left
AfterIntervention
LeftLeftRightRight
normalized
Good Intervention Normalizes Brain Good Intervention Normalizes Brain Activation PatternsActivation Patterns
Before Intervention
Answers – In a perfect worldAnswers – In a perfect world
What percentage of children require secondary intervention?
7% or less
What percentage of children don’t respond adequately to quality instruction and supportive intervention?
2% or less
How much time is need to determine if intensive intervention is warranted?
Around 30 weeks
The Real World
What are the barriers to getting these results?
Barrier 1: ExpertiseBarrier 1: Expertise
• Teaching reading is a job for an expert.
Barrier 2: InfrastructureBarrier 2: Infrastructure
• Teaching students in very small groups is more beneficial than in medium or whole groups.
• An intervention teacher can only work with 3 to 5 children during each instructional session.
• Children need to be grouped according to shared needs and groupings should be modified across the year.
• School leadership has to support small group intervention.
InfrastructureInfrastructure
Effective Model• Intervention teacher(s) provides small group
in addition to core through-out the day. • Special education, Title1, and general
education work together seamlessly.
Barrier 3:Time
Use time wisely, because every minute counts
This means
• carefully choosing instructional materials based on what research suggests is most effective.
• reducing downtime.
• Arranging instruction that increases each individual child’s time actively engaged in reading and reading related activities.
Every Minute Counts
This means
• carefully choosing instructional materials based on what research suggests is most effective.
• reducing down time.
• using strategies that increase each individual child’s time actively engaged in reading and reading related activities.
The consensus view of most important instructional features for interventions
Provide ample opportunities for guided practice of new skills
Provide a significant increase in intensity of instruction
Provide systematic cueing of appropriate strategies in context
Provide systematic and explicit instruction on whatever component skills are deficient: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension strategies
Interventions are more effective when they:
Provide appropriate levels of scaffolding as children learn to apply new skills
Each year skills and knowledge required to meet standards increases
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th
Must learn to recognize many new words accurately and automatically
Must acquire many new vocabulary words
Must learn to deal with longer sentences and more complex ideas
Must be able to draw upon more extensive background knowledge
Anything you’d like to add?
That’s it – enjoy the rest of your day!
Top Related