The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI): A Classroom Teacher Tier 2 Intervention to Help Struggling Readers in Early Elementary School.

1
The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) A
Classroom Teacher Tier 2 Intervention to Help
Struggling Readers in Early Elementary School.
Lynne, Vernon-Feagans, Steve Amendum, Kirsten
Kainz, Marnie Ginsberg Tim Wood and Amanda Bock

• Peg Burchinal
• Jason Rose
• Tim Wood
• Jeanne Gunther
• Mandy Peters
• Iris Padgett

2
The Targeted Reading Intervention

• Background
• Rural Context
• Struggling Readers
• Previous Interventions
• Theoretical Framework
• Unique elements of the TRI
• Research Design and Results

3
The Rural Context(Vernon-Feagans, 2008)
Assets
Challenges

• Children are poorer
• Children have lower pre-readiness skills
• Housing is poorer
• Distances to services and schools are greater
• Jobs are lower paying and in the service sector
• Bus rides are longer
• Teachers are less skilled
• Tax base is lower

• Children are exposed to less random violent crime
• More two parent families
• More home ownership
• More child school stability
• Teachers know many of the families of the
  children they teach
• Teachers have more experience
• Families rate teachers more favorably

4
Background on Struggling Readers

• Childrens early success in reading is critical
  for their later schooling success (Juel, 1988
  Foorman et al., 1998)
• Research shows that by the end of first grade
  childrens trajectories are set for school
  (Alexander Entwisle, 1988)

5
Groups most at Risk for Reading Failure

• Low income children are the large group least
  responsive to interventions (Foorman Torgesen,
  2001 Torgesen et al., 2006)
• Children who have phonological processing
  problems who are often identified as reading or
  learning disabled are also less responsive to
  intervention (Foorman Torgesen, 2001)
• Children who have phonological awareness deficits
  and children who have rapid naming deficits
  (Wolf Bowers, 1999 Boscardin et al., 2008)

6
Effective Interventions for Struggling
Readers(Foorman Torgesen, 2001 Snow et al,
1998, Connor et al., 2007 2008)

• 1. Explicit Instruction
• 2. Early Intervention in first few grades
• 3. One on one and small group instruction
• 4. Effective classroom teacher/child
  relationships
• 5. Diagnostic Teaching

7
(No Transcript)
8
Aligned with goals/needs of rural teachers

• Can be accomplished without many material or
  people resources.
• Can Be used with any curricula
• Is supportive of the professional development of
  isolated teachers
• Is sustainable with current Title 1 funding

9
Purpose of this Study

• To examine the effectiveness of the Targeted
  Reading Intervention (TRI) that was designed to
  improve the literacy teaching strategies of
  teachers in low wealth rural communities, using
  an individualized diagnostic teaching model, with
  a specific focus on teaching strategies that are
  effective with struggling readers who do not make
  reading gains using traditional reading
  instruction.

10
Targeted Reading Intervention (Tier 2
Intervention)

• Collaborative consultation in the regular
  classroom setting with the classroom teacher ever
  other week
• Intensive, diagnostic reading instruction in one
  on one sessions for each struggling reader by the
  classroom teacher
• Instructional match in each teacher/child
  interaction
• Integration of word attack skills within the
  context of words and text and in guided oral
  reading
• Daily instruction 15 minutes per day until child
  makes rapid progress

11
Integrating Word Work with Rereading for Fluency
and Guided Oral Reading
12
Research Design

• Randomly assigned schools to the intervention and
  the control condition. Pair matched schools on
  free and reduced lunch, minority, school size,
  and Reading First. All kindergarten and first
  grade classrooms were involved
• 5 focal children in each classroom were randomly
  selected from those children identified by the
  teacher as struggling learners
• 5 non-focal children in each classroom were
  randomly selected from those children identified
  by the teacher as not struggling learners

13
Fidelity

• Teacher report of weekly use of the TRI by child
• Literacy consultant biweekly rating of fidelity
  quality by child (when teacher is working with
  that child)
• Moderate fidelity implementation

14
Face to Face Reading Consultation Model 5
elementary schools 14 experimental 18
control classrooms 132 kindergarten
children 144 first grade children
15
Questions

• What skill characteristics were most associated
  with gains in
• Phonological Awareness
• Rapid Naming

• Was there an intent to treat effect for the TRI
  on basic reading (LWI and WA from the WJTA, III)?
• What demographic characteristics were associated
  with the most or least gain in reading
• Ethnicity
• SES
• Gender

16
Child Characteristics
EXP
CON
Race African American European American Other 61 32 7 33 37 31
Gender Male Female 73 27 63 37
Parents Married 46 54
Maternal Education M 11.8 yrs M 13.3 yrs
17
Teacher Characteristics
of years teaching M 18 yrs
Teacher Age M 43 yrs
Teacher Race White Black Other 65 30 5
National Board Certification 5
Certification type Temp Regular Specific grade certification 10 40 50
18
Child Outcomes (Fall and Spring Testing)
Phonological Awareness (CTOPPS) 3 subtests (Blending, Elision, and Sound Matching) (If children had scores on two of the three, we used that score as their Phonological Awareness score)
Word Attack (Woodcock Johnson) Use W scores (IRT transformations)
Letter/Word Identification (Woodcock Johnson) Use W scores (IRT transformations)

19
Letter Word ID Findings
B SE p d
Male 3.850446 2.125832 0.0707 -
Mothers Ed. -0.709680 0.547419 0.1956 -
Grade -11.392580 3.435163 0.0009 -
White 4.363675 2.209372 0.0483 -
F Exp vs F Control 9.823895 4.450911 0.0296 .57
Exp vs Control 8.616490 3.495111 0.0160 .50
RCNFEvsFC -0.069668 0.101597 0.5005 -
PAFEvsFC 4.789295 5.132476 0.3509 -
20
(No Transcript)
21
Word Attack Findings
B SE p d
Male -2.245992 2.946662 0.4478 -
Mothers Ed. -0.984551 0.721418 0.1735 -
Grade -11.574137 5.382240 0.0345 -
White 0.466447 2.931778 0.8736 -
F Exp vs F Control 10.568869 5.851149 0.0714 - non-sig
Exp vs Control 12.229150 4.639457 0.0086 .41
RCNFEvsFC 0.235240 0.107925 0.0305 See Plot
PAFEvsFC 13.112315 6.736151 0.0516 See Plot
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
Conclusions

• Regular classroom teachers with consultation from
  literacy consultants can be effective in helping
  struggling readers progress in reading,
  especially when they used assessment based
  intervention like the TRI.

• In addition, they may also be able to help
  children who have particular deficits that have
  been shown to be difficult to remediate, such as
  phonological awareness deficits and rapid naming
  deficits

26
Thank You
Targeting instructional match in every
interaction