1 / 32

Optimizing Reading Intervention: Comparing One-on-One vs. Quad Grouping for Struggling Readers

This research study explores the effectiveness of one-on-one vs. quad grouping for struggling readers and the role of paraprofessionals in delivering reading intervention. Findings suggest that quad grouping can be as beneficial as one-on-one, enabling more students to receive support efficiently. Supervised paraprofessionals enhance reading interventions, extending the reach of classroom teachers and specialists. Implications include the need for effective group management, professional development, and further exploration of group size benefits.

giona
Download Presentation

Optimizing Reading Intervention: Comparing One-on-One vs. Quad Grouping for Struggling Readers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Four: Early Steps Quads

  2. Research Question: Readers • Do 1:1 and 1:4 intervention formats provide differential benefits to struggling readers? • Is 1-on-4 grouping format as effective as 1-on-1 for improving the performance of struggling readers?

  3. Research Question: Educators • Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver 1:4 reading intervention as effectively as certified teacher when supervised by an intervention specialist?

  4. Methods: Readers • N = 214 • 14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools • Public: rural & urban • Grade 1 • Diverse SES, ethnicity, achievement • Randomly assigned to 1-on-1 or quad

  5. Methods: Educators • N = 47 • Classroom teachers, literacy coaches, paraprofessionals, UURC staff • Each pre-certified in Early Steps • Each tutored 1:1 and 1:4 • Each was observed 7 times over year

  6. Methods: Intervention • 45 minute lessons • 80 lessons over year’s time

  7. Methods: Pre-Post Measures • Criterion-referenced • Word recognition automaticity (Flash) • Passage reading level (RLA) • Spelling • Norm-referenced • Woodcock Word Attack (WRMT-WA) • Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC) • DIBELS (NWF-CLS, NWF-WWR, ORF)

  8. Methods: RLA Criteria

  9. Methods: Analyses • 3-Level HLM • School, Tutor, Student • Certified/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

  10. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA

  11. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA

  12. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost RLA c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .259

  13. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onFlash

  14. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Flash c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .000 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

  15. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onSpelling (DSA)

  16. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Spelling c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .011 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .009

  17. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Word Attack

  18. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost WRMT Word Attack c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .415

  19. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Passage Comprehension

  20. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Passage Comprehension c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .303 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .152

  21. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS CLS (Correct Letter Sounds)

  22. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Correct Letter Sounds c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .037

  23. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read)

  24. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Whole Words Read c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .345 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

  25. Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)

  26. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .032

  27. Discussion: Readers • Replicates Vaughn et al. 2006 • No advantage for 1:1 group size in comparison to 1:4 (quads)

  28. Discussion: Educators • Paraprofessionals were able to deliver quad reading intervention as effectively • …when supervised by an intervention specialist

  29. Implications for Ed Practice • Growing evidence that 1:4 is an effective grouping format for intervention • more efficient use of resources allows more students to receive intervention

  30. Implications for Ed Practice • Trained, supervised paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of classroom teacher and reading specialists in helping struggling readers become more successful

  31. Implications for Ed Practice • >1 group size requires management skill on part of educator • Immutable benefits of 1:1 grouping • Professional development opportunity to focus solely on reading development • Students who “don’t fit” a group • Educators who “don’t fit” with groups

  32. Future Research • Economies of Scale - 1:4 vs. 1:6 advantage?

More Related