The Targeted Reading Intervention

The Targeted Reading Intervention

Measuring the Match between Teacher Literacy Instruction and Child Literacy Skills: The Importance of Individualized Instruction

Mary Bratsch-Hines, Justin Garwood, Cheryl Varghese, & Lynne Vernon-Feagans LRA December 4, 2013

Symposium Purpose

• Provide context:o Why we should capture instructional matcho The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI)

• Describe TRI’s IM measure:o How we collected datao How we coded data

• Provide a video example of an actual IM task• Break into small groups to discuss our measure

and IM more generallywww.targetedreadingintervention.org

Targeted Reading InterventionUNCFPG CHILD DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

www.targetedreadingintervention.org


Teachers and Their Struggling Readers

• Early reading achievement is critical for children’s later schooling success (Juel, 1988; Foorman et al., 1998).

• Yet, 74% of fourth-graders who scored below the 25th percentile in reading came from low-income families (NAEP, 2011).

• Classroom teachers are the professionals who deliver most of the reading instruction and are on the front line of the tiered system of intervention (Haager et al, 2007).

• Yet, studies show that the classroom teacher may not be very effective in helping struggling readers (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Garet et al., 2008).



The Importance of Individualizing Instruction

• Growing evidence supports individualizing instruction and ongoing literacy support as key ways to help classroom teachers deliver better instruction to struggling readers (Scanlon et al., 2008).

• We define this as Instructional Match (IM): Teacher’s individualized instruction matched to children’s reading skill level.

• The concept of IM moves teachers beyond scripted instruction to differentiated instruction.



Benefits of Instructional Match• Why IM is important:

o Within a classroom, children have a range of skills and respond differently to different types of instruction (Connor et al., 2009).

o Child skill level accelerates at different rates across the year, and effective teachers differentially respond to that growth (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000; Connor et al., 2009).

• Global measures of IM have demonstrated strong literacy gains in young children (Connor et al., 2009; Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000).

• IM may be especially beneficial for children living in poverty or for children who have lower skill levels (McCartney et al., 2009).



Challenges of Instructional Match

• As a field, we don’t fully understand teacher’s use and effectiveness of IM strategies:o Few reliable measures of instructional match are

available.o Capturing IM is challenging.



Research Questions

1. Does the implementation of TRI reading strategies in experimental classrooms improve the instructional match strategies that teachers use in working one-on-one with struggling readers compared to control teachers over a one year period?

2. Do gains in child reading correlate with gains observed in the teacher’s instructional match (Garet et al., 2008; Guskey, 1986; Risko et al., 2008)?



The Targeted Reading Intervention• The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) is a Tier II professional

development program for classroom teachers that uses biweekly literacy coaching to promote optimal literacy growth for individual struggling readers (Vernon-Feagans & Ginsberg, 2011).

• TRI coaching is delivered via webcam technology, where the coach can see and hear the teacher working with an individual struggling reader and give the teacher real-time feedback on her teaching.

• A series of TRI randomized controlled trials have shown dramatic gains for struggling readers (Amendum et al., 2011; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2010, 2012, 2013).



TRI Participants• Ten schools in the rural Southeastern United States• Randomized into treatment and control classrooms at the

classroom level • Teacher participants:

o Year 1: First grade teacherso Year 2: First grade and kindergarten teacherso Year 3 (ongoing): Kindergarten teacherso Each teacher was asked to complete task at 5 time points

First time point was pre-randomization

• Student participants:o 3 struggling readers, 3 non-struggling readers per yearo 2 non-identified students selected to do IM at each time point



IM Part 1: Preparation

• Research assistants with TRI asked teachers to identify 3-4 struggling readers not in the study

• Administered DIBELS to these children• Two children chosen based in part on the

DIBELS• Teachers provided with DIBELS scores



IM Part 1, Continued

• Teachers were told TRI was interested in how they “teach word identification strategies for this particular student and help the student read and understand a book.”

• Research assistants provided materials:o Letter cardso White boardo Markerso Leveled books



IM Materials



IM Part 2: Videotaping

• Conducted at least 3 days after Part 1 to allow teacher to prepare

• Laptops used to video-record the IM session

• Research assistant monitored class if needed



IM Session

• 15 minuteso Word studyo Book reading



IM Measure

• Coded desired and undesired teacher and student behaviors as relevant to teacher instructional match:1. Frequency codes (whether or not behaviors

were observed every 15 seconds2. Binary codes (whether or not behaviors were

observed at all during the session)3. Global codes (degree of match, distraction, and

attention)

Frequency of BehaviorsCode Description Type

Teacher Talks Teacher verbalizations outside of reading

Frequency

Student Talks Student verbalizations outside of reading

Frequency

Manipulation Student physically engages with books or letter tiles

Frequency

Student Writes Student is engaged in any type of writing activity

Frequency

Reading Words Any reading by the student outside of fluent reading

Frequency

Reading Text Student fluently reads a book on their own

Frequency

Teacher Reads Any reading done by the teacher to the student

Frequency

Irrelevant Anything not related to Word Study or Book Reading

Frequency

Undesired BehaviorsCode Description Type

Letter Names Teacher does not connect letter names to sounds

Undesired Binary

Ignores Errors Teacher does not intervene as student struggles

Undesired Binary

Does the Work Teacher completes a task asked of the student

Undesired Binary

Relies on Context

Teacher uses pictures or sight words to help decode

Undesired Binary

Book Walk The child takes a book walk before reading

Undesired Binary

Desired BehaviorsCode Description Type

Fluency Time Teacher gives the student a chance to practice reading

Desired Binary

Multi-Sensory At least two of audio, visual, and tactile are present

Desired Binary

Teacher Defines Teacher defines or elaborates on word meanings

Desired Binary

Summary The student is requested to summarize the book

Desired Binary

Questions Comprehension questions are asked during reading

Desired Binary

Letter Sounds The sounds of letters are emphasized by the teacher

Desired Binary

Level of MatchCode Description Type

Word Study Challenge

Degree to which teacher matches lesson to child ability

Global

Book ReadingChallenge

Degree to which teacher matches lesson to child ability

Global

1. Frustration/Too Difficult2. Instructional/Just Right3. Independent/Too Easy

Level of DistractionCode Description Type

Interruption or Distraction

Degree to which teacher attention is taken away from the lesson

Global

Child Attention How focused and on-task the student is throughout the lesson

Global

1. None/Low (0-1 occurrences)2. Medium (2-3 occurrences)3. High (4 or more occurrences)



Process of Coding

• Master coder with 2 other coders • Used a project-developed computer

program (Snapshot) • Cohen’s Kappa used to determine

reliability o Reliability checks for 15% of videos o Minimum Kappa levels of 0.70



Audience Discussion Questions – Instructional Match Measure

1. Of the codes in our measure, which do you think are most important in capturing IM?

2. Do you see any pattern of how individual codes may fit together to support the concept of instructional match?



Audience Discussion Questions – Instructional Match

1. Is there any construct or behavior relevant to individualized instruction that we have not included?

2. What are the most important child variables to consider when differentiating instruction (e.g., test scores, behaviors)?

3. Is it possible to fully individualize instruction to meet student needs? Why or why not?



Audience Discussion Questions – Instructional Quality

1. Do you think this measure captures high-quality teacher instruction in reading? If so, which components? If not, why not? What would you add?

2. How do you think this measure accounts for teacher responsiveness toward an individual child?

3. How do you think this measure can help understand student-teacher relationships within the context of high quality reading instruction?

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant # R305A100654-11 to Lynne Vernon-Feagans, PI, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Thank you!

Questions or comments, contact [email protected]

Date post:	23-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	zalman
View:	61 times
Download:	0 times

The Targeted Reading Intervention

Documents