1 / 33

Reducing Reading

Reading Failure. Early intervention at the preschool and kindergarten levels is increasingly embraced as a means to reduce reading and special education risk for all children (Fuchs

corby
Download Presentation

Reducing Reading

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. Reducing Reading/Special Education Risk for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Low-Income Urban Learners: A Longitudinal Follow-up Gwendolyn Cartledge (cartledge.1@osu.edu) Lefki Kourea (kourea.1@osu.edu) The Ohio State University Amanda Yurick (a.l.yurick@csuohio.edu) Cleveland State University

    2. Reading Failure Early intervention at the preschool and kindergarten levels is increasingly embraced as a means to reduce reading and special education risk for all children (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) Low-income children who are racial/ethnic minorities and/or English language learners (ELLs) evidence special risk factors w/ lower achievement & higher special education placements (Ortiz et al., 2006; Valenzuela et al., 2006) Problems in reading is principal reason for special education referral National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP, 2003) 71% students with disabilities read below basic; in urban areas 79% reading at lowest levels The especially poor reading performance of African American males is well documented in the research literature (Tatum, 2006)

    3. Reading Failure English Language Learners (ELLs) are at increased risk for underachievement, grade retention, attrition, and reading failure (August & Hakuta, 1997; Haagar, & Mueller, 2001) 10-20% of school-aged children are diagnosed with reading disabilities, with the most common cause of disabilities being phonological processing deficits (Harris & Sipay, 1990) Deficits in phonological awareness are most often due to insufficient educational experiences or inadequate instruction (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002) Good evidence that systematic and explicit interventions centered on phonological awareness can reduce risk (Simmons, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2006).

    4. Why intervene early? Is more effective and efficient than later intervention and remediation for ensuring reading success (Lyon & Fletcher, 2001) Federal mandates (IDEA 2004 & NCLB) Studies with systematic, explicit phonics-based instruction improved the reading skills of at-risk young students (e.g., Foorman et al., 1998; Vaughn et al., 2003; O’Connor, 2000) Converging evidence suggests that the principles of effective reading intervention for non-ELLs is the same for ELLs (Gersten & Baker, 2000) Instruction needs to be explicit, intensive, & systematic (NRP, 2000)

    5. Multi-Year Project Session presents research of early reading intervention with young urban learners: native English speakers and English Language Learners (ELLs) Particular attention to African American males Research began w/ single-subject pilot study of 7 African American Kindergarten students: 7 males, 1 female

    6. Benchmark Results

    7. A two-year longitudinal project Objectives: 1. Investigate the responsiveness to an explicit PA training of at-risk urban learners 2. Define the characteristics of non-respondents to PA training

    8. Year 1’s Investigation in Kindergarten

    9. Purpose of study in Year 2 Investigate the effects of Year’s 2 reading intervention on PA skills of treatment students, who failed to meet benchmarks in Year 1 Investigate whether treatment students, who met benchmarks in Year 1, would be able to maintain treatment gains without additional intervention in Year 2 Compare the performance of the Comparison Group with the other two groups

    10. Methods Participants and settings 61 follow-up students from 3 urban schools Sample attrition/retention rate: 34.4% (n=32) Treatment group’s attrition rate: 37.7% (n=23) Comparison group’s attrition rate: 28.1% (n=9) Student group assignment ERI-Treatment => students who failed to meet end-of-year’s 1 benchmark goals ERI-Control => students who met end-of-year’s 1 benchmark goals Comparison => students who received only classroom instruction in Year 1

    11. Methods

    12. Year 2’s Investigation in Grade 1

    13. Methods Dependent variables Primary: Pre/Post Measures WJ-III: Letter Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage Comprehension CTOPP subtests (e.g., Elision, Rapid Color Naming, etc) DIBELS Benchmarks (Spring 2006 & 2007) Secondary: Tri-weekly Measures DIBELS progress monitoring probes on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Oral Reading Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency

    14. Methods Independent variable Early Reading Intervention Scripted supplemental reading program with high degree of explicitness and code emphasis (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2003) It targets core beginning reading skills (Phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, word reading, writing, spelling) Fluency-building activity Use of decodable stories (increase in difficulty and length as students progress) Included 4 components: (a) sight-word acquisition practice, (b) teacher modeling and guided practice, (c) partner reading, and (d) testing Implemented 4-5 days per week for 20-35min per session Delivered by 6 trained IAs (4 paraprofessionals & 2 GA’s) Integrity checks collected 1-2 times per week

    15. Results

    16. Results

    17. Results

    18. Results

    19. Results

    20. Results

    21. Looking into our ERI-Treatment group

    22. Looking into our ERI-Treatment group

    23. Looking into our ERI-Treatment group

    24. Conclusions Year 2’s PA training for ERI-treatment group: Produced greater decoding gains than Year 1’s Produced greater overall gain outcomes (WA & LWID) for our ELL treatment group ERI-Comparison students not only maintained Year 1’s treatment gains but also surpassed their comparison peers on WA & LWID standardized measures Comparison students maintained a slight edge in comprehension but continued to lag behind in LWID & WA

    25. Implications Phonemic awareness instruction (i.e. ERI) effective in helping students acquire and maintain skills from kindergarten intensive instruction Students in 2nd year interventions may benefit from more fluency and comprehension instruction. These students warrant more intensive study Instruction effective for ELL as well as non-ELL students Non-treatment students would benefit from more instruction on phonemic/phonological awareness

    26. Progress by African American Males Over Two-Year Period

    27. Experimental Condition by Gender for African-American Students ONLY

    28. PSF for ERI-Treatment over 2 years

    29. NWF for ERI-Treatment over 2 years

    30. PSF for ERI-Comparison over 2 years

    31. NWF for ERI-Comparison over 2 years

    32. Implications Both groups received intervention during kindergarten (1st year), but only ERI Treatment received PA intervention the second year during first grade African American males made progress, but the data are mixed, especially for NWF African American males appeared to fare less well than females in the study. The small numbers limit interpretation of data. More research needed to study specific instructional needs of young African American males.

    33. References August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Foorman, B.R., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Schatschneider, C.S., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to interventions: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 411), 93-99. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (January/February/March, 2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 93-99. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470. Haager, D., & Windmueller, M.P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English language learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 235-250. Lyon, G.R., & Fletcher, J.M. (2001). Early warning systems. Education Next, 1(2), 22-29. Mathes, P. G., & Torgesen, J. K. (1998). All children can learn to read: Critical care for the prevention of reading failure. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3&4), 317-340. National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. U.S. department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service & National Institute of Child Health & Human Development Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm

    34. O’Connor, R.E., & Klingner, K.K. (2007, April 20). RtI: Who still needs help when interventions have failed? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Council for Exceptional Children, Louisville, KY. Ortiz, A.A., Wilkinson, C., Roberson-Courtney, P., & Kushner, M.I. (2006). Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 53-63. Simmons, D. (2006). What research says about RTI as early intervention and as a method of LD identification. Paper presented at the national convention for Council for Exceptional Children, Salt Lake City, Utah. Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Official website: http://www.scottforesman.com/eri/index.cfm Tatum, A.W. (2006). Engaging African American males in reading. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 44-49. Valenzuela, J.S., Copeland, S.R., Qi, C.H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425-441. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-409. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P., Crino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56-73. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S., & Fanuelle, D.P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157-169. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing

More Related