Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Three:

1. Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Three: Next Steps Triads (available on: www.uurc.edu/Educators/Research.php)

2. Authors Kathleen J. Brown Matthew K. Fields Grace T. Craig University of Utah Reading Clinic Darrell Morris Appalachian State University

3. Theoretical Frame: Readers • University of Virginia Intervention • Assisted reading on instructional level • Word study: systematic, isolated • Fluency work: repeated readings • 2-3x per week; 45 minutes (Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005; Invernizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 2001; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1991; Santa & Hoien, 1995; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2003)

4. Theoretical Frame: Educators • University of Virginia Prof. Development • Clinical practicum in schools • Modeling, Observation, Coaching (36 hours) • Tutoring (45 hours – minimum) (Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1991; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2003)

5. Theoretical Frame: Group Size • University of Virginia Model • 1:1 tutorial • Elbaum, Vaughn et al., meta-analysis (2002) • no advantage for 1:1 over small group • 2 unpublished doctoral dissertations • Fountas & Pinnell (1996) secondary finding

6. Theoretical Frame: Group Size • Vaughn et al., (2003) • Assisted reading, phonics • Group size: 1:1 vs. 1:3 vs. 1:10 • No differences between 1:1 and 1:3; both more effective than 1:10

7. Research Question: Readers • Is 1:3 grouping as effective as 1:1 for improving the performance of struggling readers who receive Next Steps?

8. Research Question: Educators • Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver Next Steps in a 1:3 format effectively-- --when supervised by an intervention specialist?

9. Methods: Readers • N = 129 • 14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools • Public & parochial; rural & urban • Grades 2-8 • Diverse SES, ethnicity, ELP • At baseline, range = primer to early 2nd • Triads matched on instructional level

10. Methods: Educators • N = 34 • Classroom teachers, literacy coaches, paraprofessionals, UURC staff • Each already certified in Next Steps 1:1 • 71% tutored 1:1 and 1:3 • Full lessons observed 7 times over year

11. Methods: Intervention • 45 minute lessons • 45 lessons over 1 year • Assisted reading • Word study • Fluency • Triad: rotating “target student” & partnership

12. Methods: Pre-Post Measures • Criterion-referenced • Word recognition automaticity (Flash) • Passage reading level • Spelling • Norm-referenced • Woodcock Word Attack (WRMT-WA) • Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC)

13. Methods: Passage Reading Criteria

14. Methods: Analyses • 3-Level HLM • Student, tutor, school • 1:1 vs. 1:3 – Level 1 Variable • Certified vs. 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

15. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Passage Reading c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

16. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Passage Reading

17. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Word Rec Automaticity c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .066 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

18. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Word Recognition Automaticity

19. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post Spelling c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .114 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .142

20. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on Spelling

21. Results: Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for Post WRMT Word Attack c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .052 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

22. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on WRMT Word Attack

23. Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost WRMT Passage Comprehension c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001 c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .137

24. Results: 1:1 vs. 1:3 on WRMT Passage Comprehension

25. Results: Passage Reading Gain

26. Discussion: Readers • Replicates Vaughn et al., 2003 • No advantage for 1:1 over 1:3

27. Discussion: Educators • Replicated Brown, Morris, & Fields (2005) • Paraprofessionals were able to deliver triad reading intervention effectively • …when supervised by an intervention specialist

28. Implications for Ed Practice • Growing evidence that 1:3 is an effective grouping format for intervention • more efficient use of resources allows more students to receive intervention

29. Implications for Ed Practice • Paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of certified educators in helping struggling readers improve… • …with training and supervision.

30. Implications for Ed Practice • >1 group size requires educator management skill & reduces individual attention • Odd-number grouping allows educator to retain some luxury of 1:1 tutorial • Address individual student needs • Progress monitor

31. Implications for Ed Practice • Benefits of 1:1 tutorial • Professional development opportunity to focus solely on reading development—not on management issues. • Students who “don’t fit” a group

32. Future Research • Economies of Scale - 1:3 vs. 1:5 advantage? • Intervention that targets earlier phases of development • pre-alphabetic readers? • partial alphabetic readers?