Transcript No Slide Title

Early Literary Success: Effective
Intervention for Kindergarten Students at
Risk for Reading Difficulties
Washington Education Research Association
22nd Annual Washington State Assessment Conference
December, 6-8 2006
SeaTac
Mike Jacobsen-Assessment & Curriculum DirectorWhite River School District
Janel Keating-Director of Student Learning-White River
School District
Bari Olson-Para-Educator-Mountain Meadow
Elementary
Early Intervention in Literacy: What do we know
• Word recognition skills at the end of first grade were strongly
related to reading proficiency a the end of fourth grade- Nine of ten
children who were deficient in first grade were also poor readers in fourth
grade
– Juel (1988)
• Eight of ten children with severe reading problems at the end of
first grade performed below the average range at the beginning of
third grade
– Torgeson (1997)
•
WRSD DIBELS data indicated that poor performing students in
kindergarten tended to remain as poor performing students in latter
grades and were often referred for LAP/Title or Special Education
services
Early Intervention in Literacy: What do we know
• Felton (1993) Concluded that five elements were critical to
a beginning reading program for children at risk of reading
failure;
–
–
–
–
1. Direct instruction in language analysis
2. Explicit teaching of the alphabetic code
3. Reading and spelling must be taught simultaneously
4. Reading instruction must be sufficiently intense for learning
to occur
– 5. Use of decodable words and texts enhanced automaticity
What Predicts Successful Reading at the Beginning of
First Grade?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fathers occupational status
Amount of reading by parents
Preschool
Parents reading to children
Phonemic awareness
Library membership
Child’s gender
Amount of time watching TV
Oral language (PPVT)
Knowledge of the alphabet
Number of books child owns
Teacher prediction of reading success
What Predicts Successful Reading at the Beginning of
First Grade?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Phoneme segmentation
Letter names
Kindergarten teacher predictions
Performance on the PPVT
Number of books child owns
Amount that parents read to child
Gender
Amount that parents read
Preschool attendance
Parents occupational status
Library membership
.62
.58
.50
.39
.25
.25
.18
.11
.05
-.30
?
Early Reading Intervention Pilot
• ERI-Developed through a Federal grant with University of Oregon
and Bethel School District, Eugene Oregon.
• Purpose is to provide intensive early literacy intervention services
to kindergarten students at risk for developing reading difficulties
• Initial research indicated that 97% of kindergarten students who
were taught with ERI experienced faster achievement rates and
sustained these rates into second grade
• ERI-30 minutes of daily, explicit instruction
– 15 minutes on select phonological awareness skills, alphabet
understanding,and word reading
– 15 minutes on further development of phonological awareness writing
development, and integrating phonologic awareness and orthography
( letter-sound to whole word writing)
Early Reading Intervention Pilot
• Grant awarded and training January
• Pilot Implemented March
• 42 students from Foothills/Mountain Meadow
– 30 General education kindergarten students- 3x per week-1:5 groups
– 4-Special education kindergarten students
– 8-General education first grade students
• Each experimental group had a matched control group
• Summary of outcomes
– All experimental groups significantly outgained controls on DIBELS
phonemic segmentation winter to spring,
– Gen. ed kindergarten=W PS=2.5/S PS=22.5 to W PS=5/S PS=10.5
–
Statistically significant
– Sped=W PS=4/S PS=11 to W PS=4.5 to S PS=.5
– Gen. Ed. First=W ORF=7/S ORF=20 to W ORF=3 to S PS-12
– One control group outgained the experimental group in DIBELS,
letter names.
– Gen. Ed. Kindergarten=W L=10/S L 27 to W L=10.5/S L=18
Early Reading Intervention:04-Winter to Spring
Phonemic Segs./ Letter Names
Growth, General Ed Kindergarten
30
20
10
0
Experimental
Control
W PS
S PS
WL
SL
2.5
22.5
10.5
18
5
10.5
10
27
Early Reading Intervention: 04-Winter to Spring Growth,
Kindergarten Special Education
30
Phonemic Seg./Letter Names
25
20
15
10
5
0
Experimental
Control
W PS
S PS
WL
SL
4
11
0
7
4.5
0.5
6
26
Early Reading Intervention:04-Winter to Spring Growth, First
Grade General Ed
Phonemic Seg./Letter Names
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fall ORF
Winter ORF
Spring ORF
Experimental
2
7
20
Control
0
3
12
Early Reading Intervention Pilot
• Teacher evaluations
– Five returned, three instructional para’s and two certs
– Overall rating 9 on a 1-10 scale, comments on the whole were very
positive-”best instructional materials I have ever used for
kindergarten students”, very structured, students enjoyed the
materials, looking forward to using it next year, takes considerable
time for preparation, subs would have a difficult time rapidly picking
it up
• Summary comments
–
–
–
–
–
–
Strong staff support
Strong empirical support in phonemic segmentation
Less support in growth in letter names
Limited time of pilot March-May
Every other day implementation likely reduced effectiveness
Students were only exposed to less than a 1/4 of the 126 units
Early Reading Intervention Pilot
• Recommendations
– Implement ERI systematically with low performing kindergarten
students following September DIBELS screening
– Consider use of ERI placement test as the second level test for
kindergarten students
– Follow ERI pilot students for next year in district CBM assessment
system
– Identify a new ERI cohort group and implement during the 2004-2005
school year
– Implement ERI for special education/LAP/Title students in
kindergarten/first grade who are not responding to Read Well
intervention
Pilot Group Three Years Later
• Kindergarten
– Experimental Group=76% above 25th PR as
third graders in ORF Fall 2006
– Control Group=57% above 25th PR as third
graders in ORF Fall 2006
• First Grade
– Experimental Group=80% above 25th PR as
fourth graders in ORF Fall 2006
– Control Group=0% above 25th PR as fourth
graders in ORF Fall 2006
Pilot Group Three Years Later
• Kindergarten
– Experimental Group=30% referred to
special education next year as first graders
– Control Group=36% referred to special
education as first graders
• First Grade
– Experimental Group=28% referred to
special education as second graders
– Control Group=60% referred to special
education as second graders
WRSD Kindergarten Winter/Spring Growth Phonemic
Segmentations 2005-2006
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Gains
FD/ERI
FD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI
HD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI/X2/mwf
HD/ERI/X2m-f
All Kind
22
17
23
19
11
25.5
21
WRSD Kindergarten Winter/Spring Growth Phonemic
Segmentations
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FD/ERI
FD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI
HD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI/X2/mwf
HD/ERI/X2m-f
All Kind
WPS
17
37
17
26
28
10
24
SPS
39
54
40
45
39
32
44
WRSD Kindergarten Fall-Spring Growth Letter Names 20052006
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Gains
FD/ERI
FD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI
HD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI/X2/mwf
HD/ERI/X2m-f
All Kind
39
34
33
30
40
31.5
34
WRSD Kindergarten Fall/Spring Growth Letter Names 20052006
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FD/ERI
FD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI
HD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI/X2/mwf
HD/ERI/X2m-f
All Kind
Fall Let
4
25
5
15
5
6
9
Win Let
26
48
22
35
30
27
31
Spr Let
43
59
38
45
45
39
44
WRSD Kindergarten Fall/Winter Initial Sound Fluency Growth
2005-2006
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Gains
FD/ERI
FD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI
HD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI/X2/mwf
HD/ERI/X2m-f
All Kind
12.5
12.5
9
11
10
8
10
WRSD Kindergarten Fall/Winter Growth Initial Sound Fluency
2005-2006
25
20
15
10
5
0
FD/ERI
FD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI
HD/Non-ERI
HD/ERI/X2/mwf
HD/ERI/X2m-f
All Kind
Fall ISF
5.5
10.5
5
11
10
7
10
Win ISF
18
23
14
22
20
15
20
Description of Current Program
• What it looks like district wide
–
–
–
–
Half day ERI
Full day ERI
Half day non-ERI
Full day non-ERI
Description of Current Program
• What it looks like district wide
• What it looks like at MM