| Date post: | 02-Jan-2016 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | nelson-copeland |
| View: | 214 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Individualizing Student Literacy Instruction: Exploring causal implications of child X instruction interactions
Carol McDonald Connor, Christopher SchatschneiderFlorida State University/FCRR
Barry Fishman, and Frederick J. MorrisonUniversity of Michigan
Institute for Education SciencesJune, 2008
Thanks and Acknowledgments Principals, Teachers, Students and Administrators ISI Team
Elizabeth Crowe Shayne Piasta Stephanie Glasney Phyllis Underwood And everybody
US Department of Education IES National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development
Research behind the studyIn our research, we have found that the effect of
specific instruction strategies appear to depend on students’ language and literacy skills phonics, phonological awareness, comprehension,
vocabulary, book reading, sustained silent reading, etc.
These are child by instruction interactions Correlational evidence from preschool through 3rd
grade
Attending to the instructional needs of all children
Research Questions Can teachers individualize instruction? What is the effect of individualizing instruction?
Intent to treat• Study 1, N = 616 students in 47 classrooms in 10 schools• Study 2, N = 443 students in 26 classrooms in 7 schools
Is there a dosage effect? I.e., When teachers individualizing with greater precision, do their children show stronger reading skill growth? Treatment of the treated
• This is where we relied on the video-taped classroom observations• Study 1, N = 461 students in 47 classrooms
Does accessing assessment results affect student outcomes?
Schools School
Treatment School?
Reading First?
Total number first grade classrooms
Core Curriculum
% of students on FARL
A No Yes 3 Reading Mastery
93
B Yes Yes 6 Open Court 96
C No Yes 6 Open Court 88
D Yes Yes 5 Reading Mastery
82
E No Yes 5 Open Court 57
F Yes No 4 Open Court 69
G Yes No 5 Open Court 67
H No No 7 Open Court 37
I No No 6 Open Court 24
J Yes No 5 Open Court 29
Study 1: 22 treatment teacher and 25 control teachers, 616 children
Schools Study 2: 14 treatment and 12 control
teachers, 443 children
School T or C F/R Lunch
Level 3 & Above FCAT
3rd Grade Reading
Number of Students
Reading First
A T 87% 45% 99 Yes
B C 60% 69% 94 Yes
C T 38% 83% 120 No
D C 33% 83% 109 No
E C 12% 98% 96 No
F C 9% 81% 145 No
G T 4% 89% 156 No
The InterventionBoth Treatment and Control
Dedicated and uninterrupted language arts block of about 120 minutes
Access to DIBELS scores 4 times per yearInstruction
Conceptualize instruction multi-dimensionally• TM Instruction in small groups or individually using
homogenous skill based groups• Attending to the assessed skill levels of the group
Provide A2i algorithm recommended amounts***Professional Development
2 workshops and monthly meetings Classroom-based support bi-weekly
Assessment to Instruction (A2i) software
A2i was designed to make Individualizing Instruction using assessment results easier for teachers
A2i uses model algorithms based on our research to compute recommended amounts and types of instruction for each child in the classroom based on his or her assessed reading and vocabulary skills
Algorithm results: Effective patterns of instruction
TM-CF
CM-MF
TM-CF
Procedures Student Assessments
3 times during the school year – fall, winter, and spring Woodcock Johnson-III
• Picture Vocabulary• Letter-word Identification• Passage Comprehension
Classroom observation Video-taped 3 times per year – fall, winter, and spring Field notes Noldus Observer Pro
• Coded classroom activities for randomly selected subsample of children
HLM: Intent to treat results
TreatmentControl
460
462
464
466
468
470
Spri
ng P
assa
ge
Com
preh
ensi
on W
Sco
re
TreatmentControl
460
462
464
466
468
470
Spri
ng L
ette
r-W
ord
Rec
ogni
tion
W S
core
Treatment Control
Year 1 (2005-2006) Year 2 (2006-2007)
Output from A2iSession
ID Date & Time URL to
URL to Area
URL to Subarea Comments
25048 10/24/2006
6:50 /A2I/ClassroomView.aspx A2I Classroom View Arrived at Classroom View
25048 10/24/2006
6:50 /A2I/admin/UserAccess/Child_AddEdit.aspx A2I Child Information Arrived at Child Information
25048 10/24/2006
6:51 /A2I/ClassroomView.aspx A2I Classroom View Arrived at Classroom View
25048 10/24/2006
6:52 /A2I/admin/UserAccess/Child_AddEdit.aspx A2I Child Information Arrived at Child Information
26994 1/10/2007
7:13 /A2I/Home.aspx A2I iSi Content Arrived at Home.aspx
26994 1/10/2007
7:13 /A2I/resourcesHome.aspx A2I iSi Content Arrived at resourcesHome.aspx
26994 1/10/2007
7:14 /A2I/assess.aspx A2I iSi Content
Arrived at Using Assessment to Guide Instruction: Introduction
26994 1/10/2007
7:14 /A2I/assess_cba.aspx A2I iSi Content
Arrived at Using Assessment to Guide Instruction: Initial Sound Fluency
A2i Use and Reading Comprehension
HLM fitted growth curves controlling for fall vocabulary, letter-word reading, curriculum, FARL, and Reading First status. 464 = GE 1.8, 468 = GE 2.0,
460
462
464
466
468
470
472
Control 90 min 180 min 270 min 360 min
Sprin
g Co
mpr
ehen
sion
W S
core
AE = 8.2 years
AE = 6.0 years
Treatment teachers use of A2i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Teacher
0.00
500.00
1000.00
1500.00
2000.00
To
tal T
ime
us
ing
A2
i (m
inu
tes)
Mean use = 527 minutes versus 180 minutes in Study 1
Classroom view mean = 148 minutes
Minutes using Classroom View and Total A2i were correlated
r = .86, p < .001
Teachers’ use of Child Information Screen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Teacher
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
Ch
ild In
form
ati
on
Sc
reen
Us
e (m
inu
tes
)
Mean Use = 50 minutes
No significant relation between classroom view and child information screen use.
HLM Results
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
Control 25 50 75 100 125
Child Information Screen Access (minutes)
Sp
rin
g L
ett
er-
wo
rd W
Sc
ore
Control
Child Information ScreenAccess (minutes)
Conceptualizing Classroom Instruction Student versus Classroom level
Most observations are conducted at the classroom level Student level observations – children who share a
classroom experience different learning opportunities (Connor, Morrison & Slominski, 2006)
Multiple Dimensions of Instruction Teacher/child-managed versus Child-managed
• student-teacher interactions Meaning versus Code focused or Explicit vs Implicit
• Content of instruction Whole class, small group, or individual
• Context Change across the school year
• Time on task across and within the school year
Teacher/child managed (TM) Peer & child managed (CM)
Code-focused (CF)
Meaning-focused (MF)
Code-focused (CF)
Meaning-focused (MF)
Whole Class or classroom level
(TM-CF) The teacher writes ‘run’ on the board and asks students to break the word into
/r/ /u/ /n/ and then blend the sounds together to form /run/.
(TM-MF) The teacher reads a book aloud to the class. Every so often he stops to ask the children to predict what is going to happen next.
(CM-CF) All students complete a workbook page on word families (e.g., cat, bat, sat) while the teacher sits at her desk and reviews assessment results.
(CM-MF) All students write in their journals while the teacher writes in her journal.
Small Group & Pair
(TM-CF) The teacher reads a list of words aloud and the small group or pair of students put their thumbs up if they hear the long ‘o’ sound and thumbs down if they do not hear the sound.
(TM-MF) While reading a book to a small group of children (or pair), the teacher asks students to make predictions about what will happen next.
(CM-CF) Two students take turns testing each other on reading sight words on flash cards.
(CM-MF) A group of students work together at a center using flash cards to make compound words, which they then define and use in a sentence.
Indivi-dual
(TM-CF) The teacher works with an individual student and is timing how long it takes him to read a list of sounds. She then provides feedback on word attack and sight word strategies
(TM-MF) During a shared reading activity, the teacher assists a student individually on using comprehension strategies to enhance understanding
(CM-CF) A student completes a worksheet where he must color the pictures for which each name includes the long ‘a’ sound.
(CM-MF) After listening to a book on tape, a student fills out a worksheet that asks her to answer questions about the characters and to provide a summary of the story.
ISI Coding SchemeChild-managedPair4.1. Literacy Codes:
4.1.2. Phoneme Awareness4.1.3. Syllable Awareness4.1.4. Morpheme Awareness4.1.5. Onset/Rime Awareness4.1.6. Word ID/Decoding4.1.7. Word ID/Encoding4.1.8. Fluency4.1.9. Print Concepts4.1.10. Oral Language4.1.11. Print Vocabulary4.1.12. Reading Comprehension4.1.13. Text Reading4.1.14. Writing4.1.15. Library4.1.16. Assessment
4.1.2. Phoneme Awareness
4.1.2. Phoneme Awareness4.1.2.2. Blending4.1.2.3. Elision/Initial4.1.2.4. Elision/Final4.1.2.5. Elision/Vowel4.1.2.6. Elision/Medial4.1.2.7. Substitution/Initial4.1.2.8. Substitution/Final4.1.2.9. Substitution/Vowel4.1.2.10 Substitution/Medial4.1.2.11 Segmenting/Counting
TCM Small-group Code-focused
Distance from RecommendationsObserved – A2i recommended amounts
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
TCM-CF TCM-MF CM-CF CM-MF
Treatment
Control
Simple Differences
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Min/Day
TCM-CF CM-MF
Treatment
Control
Absolute Values
*
ES (d) = .42 for TCM-CF and .41 for CM-MF
*
ResultsTotal amounts of small group and individual
instruction did not predict student literacy growth TM-CF CM-MF CM-CF
Total amount of TM-MF positively predicted students’ passage comprehension skill growth
What about DFR?
Distance from Recommendations (SS)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
10 20 30
DFR (minutes)
Stan
dard
Sco
re
TM-CF predicting LW TM-CF predicting PC
Distance from Recommendations (SS)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
10 20 30
DFR (minutes)
Stan
dard
Sco
re
CM-MF predicting LW CM-MF predicting PC
What about children’s behavior?Behavioral Regulation – Study 1
Head to Toes Task• Attention , working memory and task inhibition
Positively correlated with teacher-reported social skills
Negatively correlated with behavior problems Fall skills predict reading and vocabulary A high proportion of children with weak BR skills is
systematically related to weaker growth in reading skills
What effect does ISI have on students’ BR skills?
24.18
26.48
28.78
31.08
33.39
Sp
rin
g B
ehav
iora
l R
egu
lati
on
0 71.25 142.50 213.75 285.00
A2i Use from Fall to Spring (minutes)
FHTKST = 0
FHTKST = 10
FHTKST = 20
FHTKST = 30
Weaker Fall HTKS Raw Score
Stronger Fall HTKS Raw Score
Upcoming Challenges
Progress monitoring assessment of reading and language/vocabulary skills for all students
Semantic-matching task Word Match Game
Paired Samples Test
.6079 10.1318 1.0621 -1.5022 2.7180 .572 90 .569
.00043 1.67538 .17563 -.34849 .34934 .002 90 .998
Sp_PV_W - WM_WPair 1
Sp_PV_AE - WM_AEPair 2
Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error
Mean Lower Upper
95% ConfidenceInterval of the
Difference
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Future Plans
Implications Child X instruction interactions appear to be
causally implicated in the widely varying achievement observed within and between classrooms
Individualizing student instruction may promote students’ reading and language skills
It also seems to have an effect on their BR
Instruction varies between classrooms Instruction varies for students within
classrooms
ImplicationsWe can make using assessment to guide
instruction more accessible to teachers. When this information becomes more
accessible, we can potentially increase the efficacy of their classroom practices enhance students’ outcomes.
Within the context of a randomized control field trial conducted in a diverse group of schools including high poverty schools Causal implications of child-by-instruction interactions Assessment-guided individualized instruction may
promote stronger literacy outcomes.
Thank you! And [email protected]
