will that work for us interpreting research from the memphis striving readers project msrp n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Will That Work for Us? Interpreting Research from The Memphis Striving Readers Project (MSRP) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Will That Work for Us? Interpreting Research from The Memphis Striving Readers Project (MSRP)

Will That Work for Us? Interpreting Research from The Memphis Striving Readers Project (MSRP)

136 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Will That Work for Us? Interpreting Research from The Memphis Striving Readers Project (MSRP)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Will That Work for Us? Interpreting Research from The Memphis Striving Readers Project (MSRP) Presented by Ric Potts, MCS; J. Helen Perkins, U of M; Elizabeth Heeren, MCS; Rorie Harris, MCS; and Jill Feldman, RBS 2008 International Reading Association Research Conference Atlanta, GA

  2. Session Overview • Introduction to the Striving Reader’s grant • Overview of Memphis SR research design • Year One Impact Analyses • Collection of implementation fidelity data • implications for practitioners and researchers • Planned (Ongoing) Analyses • Q & A /Group Discussion

  3. Introduction: Memphis Striving Readers Project (MSRP) Ric Potts, PI – MSRP Memphis City Public Schools

  4. Memphis-The City • The City of Memphis has a population of 642,251. • 63.1% African American • 31.3% Caucasian • 4.1% Hispanic

  5. And one Elvis

  6. Approximately 70 percent of adolescents struggle to read. The young people enrolled in middle and high school who lack the broad literacy skills to comprehend and learn advanced academic subjects will suffer serious social, emotional, and economic consequences. Reading at Risk: The State Response to the Crisis in Adolescent Literacy, Oct. 2005

  7. Urban Child InstituteThe State of Children in Memphis and Shelby County2006 “Under-educated children have no future.”

  8. Urban Child InstituteThe State of Children in Memphis and Shelby County2006 • by U.S. standards roughly 75 percent of students in Tennessee fail to meet national grade appropriate standards, and Memphis is at the bottom in Tennessee. . . . Memphis is one of theleast-educated cities in America.

  9. Motivation behindMemphis Striving Readers Project • Memphis is among the poorest and least-educated cities in the US • 30.1% of all children live in poverty • 24.3% of adults have less than a HS education • 36.7% have HS diploma or equivalent • 30.5% have Assoc. or some college • 8.5% have at least a BA • MCS is 21st largest K12 district in US >116,000 students • Over 95% of MCS’ 196 schools are Title I schools • 71% of MCS students qualify for free/reduced price lunch • MCS students are 87% AA; 9% White; 4% “other” • In 85% of MCS schools, 33% of students change schools during year • In 2003-04, the system-wide graduation rate was 61 percent • 71% of students in grades 6-8 scored below the 50th percentile on TCAP (Reading/Language Arts)

  10. Striving Readers – A Federal Response • In 2005, the Department of Education called for proposals for the Striving Readers grant. • In March, 2006, Memphis was one of eight sites awarded the grant.

  11. Memphis Striving Reader Program Targeted Schools

  12. The Whole School Intervention: Memphis Content Literacy Academy (MCLA) Overview presented by J. Helen Perkins, SR Co-PI University of Memphis

  13. A Change Model

  14. A Capacity-Building Model for Teacher Development (Cooter & Cooter, 2003) Expertise & Ability to Coach Others Refined and Expanded Capacity Practice with Coaching Deeper Learning with Limited Capacity First Exposure No Knowledge Emphasis: “Deep Training” (180 hours over two years) …

  15. Memphis Content Literacy AcademyInfusing Simultaneously Across Core Subject Areas Scientifically-based Reading Research (SBRR) Strategies in… Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Reading Fluency

  16. Benefits to Teacher – “Laureates”… • Advanced Training (180 hours) on scientifically-based reading instruction (SBRR) for urban children • A Master Teacher “Coach” to Assist (30 hours) with Implementing New Strategies (in their own classrooms!) • Twelve (12) Graduate Semester Hours of Credit from University of Memphis (FREE) (applicable to an advanced degree) • Can Seek “Highly Qualified” Endorsement in Reading • Books and Materials (FREE) • Successin Helping Children Achieve “AYP” • Principal Support

  17. Fluency Choral Reading Paired reading Guided, repeated, oral reading (pairs) MCLA Year 1: Selected Strategies

  18. Comprehension • Question Generation • Three- Level Retelling • Oral • Graphic Organizor • Written • Comprehension monitoring • Expository Text Patterns • Multiple Strategies

  19. Vocabulary Development • Pre-instruction of vocabulary • Repeated, multiple exposures • Semantic Maps

  20. CREDE Standards Whole class v. collaborative small group Reading Next Elements Classroom Organizational Tools & Strategies: Year 1 • Use of leveled materials • (e.g., National Geographic)

  21. CREDE Formatting of Professional Development Training

  22. Classroom Action Plans (CAPs)Spring 2008Science, Social Studies, & ELAYour task is to develop a series of class lessons where you teach academic vocabulary in a unit of your choice.You must have at least one vocabulary learning strategy/activity that occurs:1. BEFORE students read the assigned text,2. DURING the reading assignment, and3. AFTER the reading assignment

  23. MCLA Classroom Model • Gradual release of responsibility (teacher modeling, guided practice, independent practice, independent use) • Integration of 12 literacy strategies (vocabulary, fluency & comprehension) • Development of Classroom Action Plans (CAPs) (content area lesson plans for strategy implementation including procedures for student assessment) • On-site support provided by coaches • Use of Curriculum Resource Center (CRC) materials

  24. The Principals’ Fellowship • Literacy Leadership Practices • Real World Problem Solving • Create “Literacy Materials Centers” • Early Identification w/ Intense/Focused Remediation • Research-Informed Decision Making • Involve Families • Needs-Based Scheduling • Matching the Most Successful Teachers with “Critical Condition” Kids

  25. READ 180, Our Targeted Intervention Overview provided by Elizabeth Heeren, SR Grant Coordinator Memphis City Schools

  26. Program Components Support materials for differentiated instruction in small group rotation Tools for student placement and assessment Student workbooks for Independent Practice in small and whole group rotations

  27. Key Elements of READ 180 • Fidelity of Implementation • 90 minute classes • Certified teachers (LA or Reading) • District Instructional Support • District Technological Support • Scholastic training (site-based and on-line)

  28. R180 Correlations to Reading Next Recommendations for Adolescent Literacy • Direct, explicit comprehension instruction • Motivation and self-directed learning • Strategic tutoring • Differentiated texts (levels and topics) • Technology component • Ongoing formative assessment • Extended time for literacy • Professional development (long-term and on-going)

  29. Memphis Implementation • We have 8 schools in the Striving Readers Grant, with up to 120 randomly selected R180 students at each school. • Students receive R180 instruction for 2 years. • Each student placed in R180 falls in the lowest quartile of TCAP (Reading score). • Each student in R180 is paired with a similar student from the lowest quartile who does not receive the treatment (for impact comparison).

  30. MSRP Research Design Overview presented by Jill Feldman, SR Research Director Research for Better Schools

  31. Overall MSRP Goals To determine: • The effects of MCLA on core subject teachers’ knowledge and use of SBRR 2. The separate and combined effects of MCLA and Read 180 on students’ reading achievement levels, especially students who are identified as struggling readers 3. The separate and combined effects of MCLA and Read 180 on students’ achievement in core subjects, especially students who are identified as struggling readers

  32. MCLA Program Logic Model Outputs Long-term Outcomes Short–termOutcomes Funding, staff, curriculum resource center, facilities, incentives, research materials Principals 45 hours of Principal Fellowship participation 100% of principals incorporate plan for using MCLA strategies in SIP 100% attendance of key MCLA events 80% of principals report actively supporting the program 100% of MCLA schools have allocated space for the CRC Teachers 90 of hours of MCLA training/yr for 2 years (180 hours) Engage in weekly coaching sessions or as needed to meet teachers’ differentiated needs 8 CAP “cycles” completed each year for two years 100% of teachers complete performance measures identifying supplemental resources available/those necessary to support content area instruction Students 50% of students attend 4 classes taught daily by teachers participating in MCLA Students learn to use 7 of 8 MCLA CAP strategies Principals Awareness of and interest in staff implementation of MCLA concepts and strategies Increased advocacy for school-wide use of MCLA strategies Teachers Increased knowledge about MCLA strategies Improved preparedness to use research-based literacy strategies to teach core academic content Increased use of direct, explicit instruction to teach research-based comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary strategies in content area classes Integrated use of multiple MCLA strategies to support ongoing development of content-related instructional units Students Increased familiarity with and use of MCLA strategies when engaging with text Increased internalization of literacy strategies Increased confidence engaging with content related texts Increased interest in school/learning Principals Improved school climate School-wide plans include focus on content literacy Improved instructional leadership Teachers Increased effectiveness supporting students’ content literacy development Continued collaboration among community of teachers to develop and implement CAPs Students Improved reading achievement and content literacy: 10% increase in students scoring proficient in Reading/LA and other subject areas of TCAP mean increase of five NCEs on ITBS Increased performance on gateway and EOC exams Principals Attend 45-hour sessions/yr (2 yrs) Participate in motivational, recruitment and celebratory events Discuss MCLA at faculty meetings Conduct walkthrough observations Provide opptys for teacher collab Allocate space for CRC materials Teachers Attend 30 weekly 3-hour MCLA training sessions/yr (2 years) Develop and implement 8 CAPs per year in collab content-area groups Meet with coaches for feedback to improve impl of MCLA strategies Learn to use of leveled texts to support SR content literacy needs Students Learn to use MCLA strategies to read/react to content related text ( Higher Quality Teaching Higher Student Achievement

  33. Study Design MCLA: Evaluate teacher and student outcomes experimental design randomly assigning schools (to treatment and control conditions) Teacher outcomes include preparedness frequency of literacy strategy use Analytic Approach MCLA: Two-level HLM spring ITBS and TCAP scores as a function of teacher and school variables Study Design and Analytic Approach: MCLA

  34. Analytic Decisions • Missing Data • students missing pretest score(s) deleted from impact analysis on relevant measure(s) • teachers missing pretest score deleted from impact analysis on measure • Covariates • include all student- and school-level covariates in the model • run the model • eliminate the school covariate with the lowest significance level (highest p-value) not less than 0.2 • repeat steps 2 and 3 until the remaining covariates had p-values less than 0.2 • repeat steps 2-4 for the student covariates

  35. MCLA: Random Assignment of Schools

  36. Demographic Characteristics of Year 1 MCLA Student Sample

  37. Baseline Comparisons of Students in MCLA Treatment and Control Schools

  38. Selected Characteristics of the Year 1 Teacher Sample for MCLA Impact Analyses

  39. All Variables Included in MCLA Impact Analytical Models for Year 1

  40. READ 180 Logic Model

  41. Study Design: Evaluate student outcomes using RCT based on random assignment of students to conditions across schools Student outcome measures: reading achievement (ITBS) core content areas (TCAP) Analytic Approach: Cross-sectional ITT analyses of reading and core content area achievement Two-level models using spring ITBS and TCAP scores as a function of student and school variables R180 Study Design Analytic Approach

  42. READ 180: Enrolled Students

  43. Variables Included in READ 180 Impact Analytic Models (Year One):Dependent and Independent

  44. Variables Included in READ 180 Impact Analytic Models (Year One): Covariates

  45. Year One Impact

  46. Comparison of Teachers in MCLA Treatment and Control Schools on Year-End Indices for Preparedness and Frequency of Use

  47. MCLA Impacts on Students (Year One)

  48. READ 180 Impacts on Students (Year 1)

  49. Collection of Data about Implementation Fidelity