1/14/15

1

Classroom-Based Early Reading Intervention and Situated

Professional Learning

Steve Amendum Meghan Liebfreund

NC State University

Session Information

http://goo.gl/nZxKC OR

steve_amendum@ncsu.edu mkliebfr@ncsu.edu

•  Funding provided by: –  Friday Institute for Educational Innovation –  ChildTrust Foundation

1/14/15

2

Purpose •  To investigate a model of professional

development and classroom-based early reading intervention –  Early diagNostic Reading Intervention through

CoacHing (ENRICH) –  Based on earlier work with rural schools as part of

the Targeted Reading Intervention (Amendum, Vernon-Feagans, & Ginsberg, 2011; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2010, 2012)

•  Provides early grades teachers with: –  Ongoing embedded professional development –  Early intervention instructional model

Research Questions Student-Level •  How does intervention affect struggling kindergarten, first-,

and second-grade readers’ reading performance across the school year?

•  How do the reading gains of struggling kindergarten, first-, and second-grade students who received intervention compare to those of their non-struggling peers?

Teacher-Level •  What are teachers’ perceptions of literacy learning and

instruction while implementing the ENRICH model? •  What do teachers say about the effectiveness of the

intervention for students and the ENRICH professional development?

1/14/15

3

Research Design

•  A multilevel mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007)

Level 2: Teacher

QUAL interviews, observations, document review

Level 1: Student QUAN

reading assessment battery

Overall

Interpretation

Theoretical Framework

•  Situated learning theory (Brown et al., 1989; Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991)

•  Social constructivist theory (Vygotsky, 1978), focused on scaffolding

1/14/15

4

Related Literature •  Persistent literacy achievement gaps exist for students

(Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2007; Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005)

•  Need for classroom teachers to provide instructional support for their struggling readers within the regular classroom (U. S. Department of Education, 2002; IDEA, 2004)

•  High-quality professional development for teachers has been called for by both researchers and policy makers (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Duncan, 2010)

•  Many questions remain about the processes and relationships that create effective professional development for teachers (Greene, 2004)

School Context & Teacher Participants

•  K-5 school serving 808 students –  48% Caucasian, 31% African American, 14% Latino/

a, and 8% Asian (NC DPI, 2008-2009)

–  Approximately 35% of the schools’ students received free/reduced lunch

•  23, K-2 teachers and specialists –  6 kindergarten –  7 first-grade –  6 second-grade –  4 literary specialists/coaches/curriculum specialist

1/14/15

5

Student Participants

•  125 student participants: –  74 intervention students –  51 comparison students

•  We randomly selected a maximum of 5 intervention students and 3 comparison students from each classroom

Student Data Sources •  Pre- and post-test scores on 4 subtests of the

Woodcock-Johnson Diagnostic Reading Battery-III (Woodcock, Mather, & Schank, 2004) –  Word Attack –  Letter/Word Identification –  Spelling of Sounds –  Passage Comprehension

1/14/15

6

Teacher Data Sources

•  Semi-structured interviews at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention

•  Observations of intervention instruction

•  Teacher artifacts/documents

•  Questionnaires to gather information about teachers’ demographics

Intervention and Professional Development

•  For K-2 students having difficulty in reading

•  Daily, intensive, diagnostic reading instruction

•  Same intervention for classroom teacher or specialist

•  One-on-one model •  Accelerated reading

growth

1/14/15

7

Intervention and PD

Familiar Re-Reading

(2-5 minutes)

Word Study (4-8 minutes)

Teacher-Guided Reading

(4-8 minutes)

Additional Learning

Opportunities Across the School Day

I n t e r v e n t I o n S e s s i o n

Intervention and Professional Development

•  Initial professional development (1.5 days)

•  Ongoing coaching –  Weekly visit with each teacher –  Modeling, coaching, feedback during the session or

immediately following –  Debriefing after session

1/14/15

8

Fidelity •  Intensity - frequency

–  Target of 85 lessons; 6 teachers (26%) met –  Mean number of lessons = 69 (SD = 46)

•  Faithfulness –  adherence of teachers was 84.4% (SD=9.5) –  interrater agreement on all videos was within 6

percentage points

Preliminary Analysis of Student Data

•  For each outcome, ANOVA, using gain score as outcome

•  Factor of interest: Status (intervention vs. comparison)

•  Also Grade (K, 1, 2) – to reduce error variance –  Only interpreted if interacted with Status

•  Used W scores for analysis

1/14/15

9

Preliminary Analysis of Teacher Data

•  Reviewed interview transcriptions, observation videotapes, and documents while coding (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994)

•  Categorized meaningful sections of data and codes

•  Drafted a team “portrait” –  Perceptions of literacy teaching and learning,

perceptions of intervention and PD

Preliminary Student Results

RQ 1: How does intervention affect struggling students’ reading performance across the school year?

•  Intervention students made gains (W-score points): –  Letter-Word Id: 30.77 –  Word Attack: 22.77 –  Spelling of Sounds: 7.75 –  Passage Comprehension: 27.73

1/14/15

10

Preliminary Student Results

RQ 2: How do the reading gains of struggling students who received intervention compare to those of their non-struggling peers?

•  For Letter Word Id, students made significantly greater gains across the school year than their non-struggling peers (η2 = .05) –  Main effect for Status, F (1,119) = 11.59, p < .001

•  For the other 3 outcomes the relationship was more complex –  Grade mattered

Preliminary Student Results: Word Attack

1/14/15

11

Preliminary Student Results: Spelling of Sounds

Preliminary Student Results: Passage Comprehension

1/14/15

12

Teacher Results: Literacy Teaching & Learning RQ 3: What are teachers’ perceptions of literacy learning and instruction while implementing the ENRICH model?

“I think they all learn to read differently…at different times…they need different, they all use different strategies for learning to read. And the kids that we are working with in ENRICH need some specific strategies…I first of all have to know, each child's strength, each child's weakness… finding out what works for each kid” (Classroom Teacher 1, final interview)

Teacher Results: PD & Intervention RQ 4: What do teachers say about the effectiveness of the intervention for students and the ENRICH professional development? •  Teachers noted student performance, enhanced reading

instruction –  “Well, I have learned a lot about strategies, orders of strategies,

the way it really should be taught because honestly when I was in school, and I know as I have said before (laughing), I didn't really have formal training like this. So, I have learned a lot about that…I really appreciate the strategies that have been used and taught to me.” (Classroom Teacher 6, final interview)

•  Teachers noted the situated nature of the PD related to everyday reading instruction

1/14/15

13

Implications and Future Research •  Embedded professional development can impact

teachers’ perceptions of literacy learning and instruction. •  Classroom teachers are able to give effective one-on-

one early literacy intervention with the proper support (e.g., Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002)

•  The positive responses to the PD might suggest teachers’ preference toward a model of situated learning (e.g., Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991)

•  The mixed methods research design reflects the complex context of intervention and PD while at the same time documenting student growth

Questions/Comments

•  For more information:

steve_amendum@ncsu.edu

mkliebfr@ncsu.edu