Transcript What Kind of Intervention for Whom, and When?

What Kind of Intervention for
Whom, and When?
Responses of English Language
Learners to Intervention
Dr. Kathleen J. Brown, Director
University of Utah Reading
Clinic
5282 South 320 West, Suite D110
Murray, UT 84105
801-265-3951
www.uurc.org
email: [email protected]
Are Porfirio, Juan, & Saul Reading
Below Grade Level?

Given sufficient b.k., on a grade
level passage, they should:


be at least 90% accurate
read with sufficient speed
G1 = 40-70 wpm G4 = 95-120 wpm
 G2 = 60-90 wpm G5 = 110-140 wpm
 G3 = 80-110wpmG6 = 110-150 wpm


comprehend at least 70%
(Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2003; Hasbrouck & Tindal,
1992; Leslie & Caldwell, 2000; Morris, 1999)
Are Bill, Porfirio, Juan, & Saul
Reading Below Grade Level?


15-40% depending on SES
(Allington, 1994)
2002 NAEP data


31% Utah 4th graders “below basic”
Probability unsuccessful G1 readers
still unsuccessful in G4 = .88 (Juel,
1988)
Problem: Porfirio et al. More Likely
to Struggle Than Bill


63% of ELLs & 58% of Hispanics “below
basic” on G4 Reading (NAEP, 2005)
40% ELL students “drop out” vs. 10%
from English-only homes (Gengras &
Careaga, 1989)

ELL students “at-risk” for reading
difficulties (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998)
Problem: Current Trend to “Niche”
Porfirio et al.


Everything from misbehavior to poor
academic achievement explained by
“He’s ELL…”
Need an “Act of Congress” to qualify
an ELL child for resource or to retain
Porfirio et al. Need Help; Now What?

Guided reading at instructional level





(w/comprehension & vocab work)
pacing in controlled, leveled text
explicit, sequenced word study & p.a.
fluency work
educators with clear understanding of
reading DEVELOPS and how
instruction can LEAD that development
Porfirio et al. Need Help; Now What?



time on task... a.k.a. “consume” as
much text as possible
in an effective format (small group,
pairs, 1-on-1)
for as long as he needs it… a.k.a.
“there is no quick fix”
Will This Really Help Porfirio et al.?


At-risk G1 students who received
95 sessions of Early Steps finished
the year reading between primer
and late-G1.
Matched control G1 students who
received 135 sessions of regular
Title 1 intervention finished the year
at preprimer.
(Brown, Reynolds, & Sinatra, 2000; also see Morris,
Tyner, & Perney, 2000 & Santa & Hoien, 1999)
Will This Really Help Porfirio et al.?


G2 & G3 ELL students who started the
year at primer and received 45
sessions of Next Steps, made 1 year
of progress as readers (to early-G2).
Matched control ELL G2 & G3 students
who received 135 sessions of regular
Title 1 intervention made 1/2 year’s
progress (to late-G1).
Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2002; Brown, Morris & Fields, 2003
How long will Porfirio et al. Need Help?


G2 students who received Early
Steps in G1, and no intervention in
G2 had made 1/2 year’s progress
by March (to early-G2).
Matched control G2 students who
received no intervention in G2
made 1/2 year’s progress by
March (between primer & lateG1).
Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2001
What Do These Data Mean for
Porfirio et al.?


Intervention can help them make
substantial progress as readers
They may need more than 1 year of
intervention to get to/maintain grade
level performance

remember Dominique & Shelby!!!
Porfirio – pre NS
Name
Grade
3
School
Age
Date
9
Examiner
DVG
Test
NSSI
Wilmington
WORD
RECOGNITION
TEST
ORAL
READING
ACCURACY
(%)
RATE
(WPM)
COMP
(%)
PP
94
X
X
Primer
97
63
100
L-G1
95
56
100
E-G2
84
38
33
FLASH
(%)
L-G2
3
4
5
6
7
UNTIMED
(%)
8/22/00
LISTENING
COMP
(%)
SPELLING
(/66)
Porfirio – post NS
Name
Grade
3
School
Age
Date
10
Examiner
DVG
Test
NSSI
Wilmington
WORD
RECOGNITION
TEST
ORAL
READING
ACCURACY
(%)
RATE
(WPM)
COMP
(%)
PP
100
99
X
Primer
99
109
100
L-G1
97
90
100
E-G2
97
82
67
L-G2
95
92
67
3
94
66
100
4
96
69
86
5
95
55
86
FLASH
(%)
6
7
UNTIMED
(%)
5/28/01
LISTENING
COMP
(%)
SPELLING
(/66)
Name
Porfirio
Grade
5
Date
Age
11
Examiner
KJB
Test
NSSI
St. Mary’s
School
WORD
RECOGNITION
TEST
ORAL
READING
ACCURACY
(%)
RATE
(WPM)
COMP
(%)
E-G2
100
154
100
L-G2
99
130
100
3
98
136
100
4
99
131
86
5
99
113
100
6
99
112
71
FLASH
(%)
UNTIMED
(%)
PP
Primer
L-G1
7
6/01/03
LISTENING
COMP
(%)
SPELLING
(/66)
Name
Juan
Grade
5
School
Date
Age
10
Examiner
Wilmington
Test
WORD
RECOGNITION
TEST
RATE
(WPM)
COMP
(%)
PP
84
X
X
Primer
95
82
100
L-G1
94
50
100
M-G2
82
47
67
L-G2
3
4
5
6
7
UNTIMED
(%)
CM
NSSI
ORAL
READING
ACCURACY
(%)
FLASH
(%)
8/14/01
LISTENING
COMP
(%)
SPELLING
(/66)
Juan – post NS
Name
Grade
5
School
Date
Age
11
Examiner
Wilmington
Test
WORD
RECOGNITION
TEST
FLASH
(%)
UNTIMED
(%)
READING
ACCURACY
(%)
RATE
(WPM)
COMP
(%)
X
X
Primer
96
125
100
L-G1
94
90
100
E-G2
80
67
100
L-G2
83
81
100
3
84
70
100
4
77
65
14
6
7
JR
NSSI
ORAL
PP
5
5/22/02
LISTENING
COMP
(%)
SPELLING
(/66)
Juan – post Wilson
Name
Grade
6
School
Age
Date
12
Examiner
KJB
Test
NSSI
Wilmington
WORD
RECOGNITION
TEST
FLASH
(%)
UNTIMED
(%)
ORAL
READING
ACCURACY
(%)
PP
RATE
(WPM)
COMP
(%)
X
X
Primer
98
130
100
L-G1
96
95
100
E-G2
94
90
100
L-G2
94
80
100
3
89
71
100
4
5
6
7
6/05/03
LISTENING
COMP
(%)
SPELLING
(/66)
Saul – pre NS
Name
Grade
2
School
Age
7
FLASH
(%)
Primer
L-G1
E-G2
L-G2
3
4
5
6
7
Examiner
Petal Ridge
Test
WORD
RECOGNITION
TEST
PP
Date
UNTIMED
(%)
9/21/02
BH
NSSI
ORAL
READING
ACCURACY
(%)
N/A
RATE
(WPM)
COMP
(%)
LISTENING
COMP
(%)
SPELLING
(/66)
Saul – post ES
Name
Grade
2
School
Date
Age
8
Examiner
Petal Ridge
Test
WORD
RECOGNITION
TEST
RATE
(WPM)
COMP
(%)
PP
82
N/A
N/A
Primer
73
23
100
L-G1
E-G2
L-G2
3
4
5
6
7
UNTIMED
(%)
BB
NSSI
ORAL
READING
ACCURACY
(%)
FLASH
(%)
5/19/03
LISTENING
COMP
(%)
SPELLING
(/66)
What Do These Data Suggest re: ELL
Struggling Readers?




Some ELL are “curriculum casualties”
and just need basic intervention
(Porfirio)
Some ELL are truly LD and need
intensive, ongoing intervention (Juan)
Some ELL are “garden variety poor
readers” and need intensive, ongoing
intervention (Saul)
BEWARE OF POLITICS & LABELS!!!
What Needs to Be in Place to Help
Porfirio et al? ...

Materials


lots of controlled, leveled text (carefully
selected little books and controlled
basal selections)
Enough Trained Bodies for Each
Student

educators who understand reading
development and know how to deliver
effective intervention efficiently
What Do Educators Need?

Clinical Experience/Practicum

watch mentor model with student

work 1-on-1 with a student


get “on-line” feedback & theoretical
framework from mentor
observe other tutors and students
Critical Issues: Time & 1-on-1

Clinical Experience/Practicum


1-on-1 clears management issues so
educators can see reading
development “up close and personal”
over time
intensive and ongoing:
tutoring needs to happen 2-5x/week for
1 year to see reading development
happen from ground zero (no words to
independence (primer or better)
 on-line mentoring needs to happen
weekly or at least monthly

Goal = Develop a“Team Approach”



teachers group for reading to allow
students to function at instructional
level AMAP
in non-Title I schools, staff +
volunteers build a tutoring program
in Title I schools, paraprofessionals
are effective intervention tutors

remember Granger Elementary!!
What Role Do Universities Play?


Develop courses that focus on what
we know from research about reading
development and how instruction
leads it
Help students develop an
understanding of rigorous empirical
research methods (quan + qual) vs.
random, preferred anecdote
What Role Do Universities Play?



Resurrect a “clinical tradition” in
graduate coursework
Build a “clinical tradition” in
undergraduate coursework
Require methods professors have
“clinical experience”