effects of two grouping conditions on students who are at risk for reading failure

This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 10 December 2014, At: 09:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Childrenand YouthPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20

Effects of Two Grouping Conditions on Students Who Are atRisk for Reading FailureShawnna Helf a , Nancy L. Cooke b & Claudia P. Flowers ba Behavior and Reading Improvement Center, University of North Carolina, Charlotteb University of North Carolina, CharlottePublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Shawnna Helf , Nancy L. Cooke & Claudia P. Flowers (2009) Effects of Two Grouping Conditions on Students WhoAre at Risk for Reading Failure, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53:2, 113-128, DOI: 10.3200/PSFL.53.2.113-128

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.2.113-128

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3200/PSFL.53.2.113-128

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3200/PSFL.53.2.113-128

http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.2.113-128

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Effects of Two Grouping Conditions on Students Who Are at Risk for Reading Failure

Shawnna Helf, Nancy L. Cooke, and Claudia P. Flowers

ABSTRACT: Schools face many decisions on how to maximize instructional time and provide support for students who are at risk for failure in reading. Instructional grouping plays an important role. The authors used a true group experimental design to compare 2 grouping conditions—1:1 (1 tutor to 1 student) and 1:3 (1 tutor to 3 students)—on the reading achievement of 1st-grade students who were identified as at risk and the efficiency of delivering instruction. The results indicate that students made comparable progress and gains in reading when instructed in small groups of 3. Because the 1:3 condition uses resources more efficiently, it may be preferable to the 1:1.

KEYWORDS: early intervention, grouping formats, reading, sup-plemental instruction

OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS, researchers have made a great deal of progress in understanding how children learn how to read (Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), why many children have trouble learning to read (Mathes & Torgesen, 1998; Torgesen, 2000), and what types of instructions are most likely to ensure that the greatest number of children will be successful in learn-ing how to read (Adams; Snow et al.; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). The goal of the Reading First initiative, a cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) Act, is to support states in making every child a proficient reader by the end of the third grade. The legislation requires the use of evidence-based practices that explicitly and systematically provide instruction on the big ideas of beginning reading (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension). NCLB significantly increases the fed-eral investment in scientifically based reading instruction programs in the early grades. This legislation provides an impetus to school systems for selecting core reading pro-grams that include systematic, explicit phonics instruction to serve as the foundation for primary reading instruction (NCLB; Torgesen & Mathes, 1998).

Despite instruction in core reading programs that embrace evidence-based practices, some children fail to acquire basic skills and are likely to be considered at risk for reading fail-ure (Foorman & Torgesen 2001; O’Connor, 2000; Torgesen, 2000). Therefore, Reading First grant applications also require second-tier (i.e., supplemental) programs to support and extend the core reading program. In addition to students receiving instruction in their core reading program, supple-mental instruction provides more practice on the skills that need more support (Simmons & Kame’enui, 2003).

Teachers face many decisions on how to best provide supplemental instruction for students who are at risk for reading failure. Denton, Vaughn, and Fletcher (2003) iden-tified two factors related to effective reading instruction: (a) the extent to which general education teachers have the time, skills, knowledge, and interest in providing appropri-ate education for students who experience difficulty; and (b) the extent to which other personnel are able to provide explicit and systematic daily instruction to a small group of students. To address the needs of the increasing number of students who experience difficulties learning to read, teach-ers need to decide how to maximize their instruction time (Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, & Elbaum, 2001).

Instructional grouping plays an important role in facilitat-ing effective implementation (O’Connor, 2000; Polloway, Cronin, & Patton, 1986; Vaughn et al., 2001). Generally, whole-class instruction has been the dominant approach (Baker & Zigmond, 1990; Elbaum, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1997); however, small-group instruction provides an environ-ment in which students have more opportunities to practice skills and receive increased feedback from the teacher.

113

Address correspondence to Nancy L. Cooke, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, College of Education, Special Education and Child Development, 9201 University City Boulevard, Char-lotte, NC 28223, USA; [email protected] (e-mail). Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

114 Preventing School Failure Vol. 53, No. 2

Few studies have been conducted that compare 1:1 instruction with small-group instruction (Vaughn et al., 2001). In addition, we found only one study (Vaughn et al., 2003) that held the session duration and instructional content of the reading intervention constant. Vaughn et al. (2001) compared the reading gains of struggling sec-ond-grade readers by holding the amount of time and components of supplemental reading instruction constant. Students were assigned to different instructional grouping conditions (i.e., 1:1, 1:3, 1:10). The teachers who provided instruction attended training sessions on instructional ele-ments, identified appropriate activities for intervention components, and developed a guide for designing lesson plans. Results indicated that 1:1 was superior to 1:10 on all measures; however, the 1:1 condition was not superior to the 1:3 condition. These findings suggest that both 1:1 and 1:3 grouping conditions have effective group sizes for supplemental reading instruction. Although Vaughn et al. (2003) controlled the amount of time of instruction and the instructional content in all grouping conditions, the teach-ers developed their own lesson plans from topics that the researchers provided, introducing the possibility that the teachers’ characteristics and past experiences may have influenced the findings.

We designed the present study to supplement Vaughn et al.’s (2003) findings regarding the efficiency of instruction on the basis of grouping conditions by more tightly controlling the intervention and teacher effects. We did this by providing the instructors (i.e., tutors) with scripted text to minimize lesson design differences among them. In addition, we con-trolled other differences in tutor experience and effectiveness by using the same tutor for both grouping conditions. We designed the present study specifically to determine differ-ences by grouping conditions in (a) reading gains, (b) effi-ciency of delivering instruction, (c) behavior of the students, and (d) tutor preferences and perceptions of effectiveness.

Method

Participants

Of all first-grade students enrolled in three elementary schools, we selected 54 participants. As part of the school district’s assessment initiative, we screened all first-grade students (N = 271) using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). We randomly selected 54 students who (a) placed into the instructional level labeled strategic–additional intervention on the basis of their scores on the DIBELS fall benchmark, (b) had no identified disabil-ity, and (c) were in classrooms in which the primary reading program was Open Court (2000). Of the 54 participants, 55% (n = 27) were boys and 45% (n = 22) were girls. In terms of race, 2% (n = 1) of the participants indicated American Indian or multiracial, 4% (n = 2) indicated Asian, 63% (n

= 31) indicated African American, 25% (n = 12) indicated Hispanic, and 6% (n = 3) indicated White.

The 1:1 and 1:3 grouping conditions comprised 27 stu-dents each. Of the 54 students, 49 completed the treatment. During the course of the present study, 5 participants trans-ferred schools. When a student transferred, we replaced him or her with a student with similar characteristics (i.e., level in supplemental program) to maintain the group dynamic. However, we did not collect or report data for those 5 replacement participants.

Setting

For the present study, we used three elementary schools in a large urban school district in the southeast United States. These schools were participating in a federally funded grant designed to investigate strategies for prevent-ing failure through early intervention. We selected the three schools to participate because each had a sufficient number of first-grade students who required supplemental interven-tion in reading, permission of the principal, and sufficient staff to serve as tutors. Each school served students in kin-dergarten through fifth grade.

Tutors

To provide supplemental reading instruction, the school principal selected nine reading tutors on the basis of atten-dance record, positive record of providing reading instruc-tion, school schedule, and willingness to participate in the present study. Of the nine tutors, four had high school degrees, three had associate degrees, and two had baccalau-reate degrees. Their teaching experience averaged 10 years (range = 2–20 years), and their experience implementing scripted programs averaged 3 years (range = 1–6 years).

Materials

The Early Reading Tutor (ERT; Gibbs, Campbell, Helf, & Cooke, 2007) is a supplemental reading intervention for students who are not performing at the expected level in primary instructional reading programs. ERT is generally implemented for kindergarten and first-grade students who were identified at the supplemental level of a three-tiered reading model (i.e., core, supplemental, intensive levels of instruction) that the Reading First initiative recommended.

Trained classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, or tutors presented the 110 lessons. ERT was developed using the principles of effective curriculum design that Simmons and Kame’enui (2003) defined. They include big ideas, conspicuous strategies, mediated scaffolding, strategic integration, primed background knowledge, and judi-cious review. In addition, ERT followed the formats and instructional sequence that the authors of Direct Instruc-tion Reading recommended (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Winter 2009 Helf, Cooke, & Flowers 115

ERT provides scripted text instruction to address phone-mic awareness, explicit phonics, passage reading, spelling, and fluency. The phonemic awareness instruction includes blending, segmenting, and using onset rimes. Explicit pho-nics instruction addresses letter–sound correspondences, the reading of phonetically regular words, reading different word types (e.g., consonant–vowel–consonant, consonant– vowel–consonant–silent e, words containing digraphs, double vowels, vowel diphthongs), and reading decodable passages. Students are given orthographic support with the use of macrons and underlines, signaling irregular words. In each lesson, students are given opportunities to read short passages containing the letter–sound corre-spondences and word types they have mastered in the ERT lessons. Irregular words (i.e., words that students cannot read by applying letter–sound knowledge) are introduced and reviewed in ERT lessons in a flashcard game.

Measures

DIBELS is an individually administered set of standard-ized measures of early literacy development (Good & Kaminski, 2002). These measures have been established as quick, reliable, and valid indicators of early literacy skills (Kaminski & Good, 1996). First-grade students are assessed using the three DIBELS subtests described below.

Phoneme segmentation fluency (PSF). In the PSF task, the testing administrator verbally presented the child with a series of words, one at a time, and asked the child to iden-tify the individual sounds in each word (Good & Kaminski, 2002). For example, the examiner said, “Tell me the sounds in ‘mop’” and the child should respond, “/m/ /o/ /p/.” Words were presented for 1 min and the number of correct pho-nemes (i.e., sounds) produced per minute as calculated.

Nonsense word fluency (NWF). In the NWF task, the child was asked to read a series of nonsense words that were phonologically correct on the basis of the rules of English grammar (Good & Kaminski, 2002). The child was pre-sented with a page of printed nonsense words (e.g., tif, op) and asked to either say aloud the sound of each letter in the word or read the whole word. We calculated the total num-ber of correct sounds per minute (cspm).

Oral reading fluency (ORF). In the ORF task, the child was asked to read aloud for 1 min from each of the three differ-ent first-grade level passages (Good & Kaminski, 2002). We calculated the total number of correct words read per minute (cwpm) and recorded the median score. The end-of-year benchmark goal for all first-grade students was 40 cwpm or greater on grade-level material.

Progress Monitoring

In addition to DIBELS pretest and posttest measures, we monitored student progress on NWF and ORF weekly using

parallel forms of these subtests. We did not collect progress-monitoring data on PSF because it is a key skill for kinder-garten. Each student had a progress-monitoring booklet. The winter benchmark goal for NWF was at least 50 cspm; the winter benchmark goal for ORF was at least 20 cwpm. Progress-monitoring sessions occurred in a small tutoring classroom at each respective school, and the assessments followed the same administration and scoring procedures used during pretest and posttest measures.

Treatment Fidelity

We used a treatment fidelity checklist to ensure the accuracy of implementation across tutors and fidelity of the intervention. We divided each checklist into two parts. We used the first part to record tutor accuracy of implementing ERT. The observer recorded the length of the instructional session and the tutor’s adherence to scripts and procedures for each component as specified in ERT. We used the sec-ond part of the fidelity checklist to record information on behavior management. The observer recorded the number of behavioral disruptions during the instructional session.

Each tutor was observed for at least 20% of the sessions, and observations were distributed evenly across tutors and grouping conditions. For the 1:1 grouping condition, we used an 18-item checklist (see Appendix A) to measure the integrity of delivering ERT to individual students. Results indicated that we implemented ERT with a mean accuracy of 98.7% (range = 91–100%) for the individual format.

For the 1:3 grouping condition, we used a 25-item check-list (see Appendix B) to measure the integrity of delivering ERT to a small group. In addition to the items included for the 1:1 grouping condition, we recorded whether the tutor gave students opportunities to respond individually. Results indicated that we implemented ERT with a mean accuracy of 96% (range = 85–100%) for the small group format.

Research Design

In the present study, we used a true experimental group design with students randomly assigned to either the 1:1 or 1:3 grouping condition. We used three mixed-factorial analyses of variance (ANOVA) to examine the effect of grouping condition for the dependent variables (i.e., PSF, NWF, ORF). Each ANOVA included a between-subjects factor (i.e., tutor), a within-subject factor (i.e., pretest, post-test), and a nested factor (i.e., grouping conditions nested within tutors). The statistical test of interest for examining the effect of grouping condition was the interaction term between the nested and within-subject factors; that is, we were interested in the equivalence of the slope of the lines between pretest and posttest for each grouping condition. We hypothesized that both grouping conditions would demonstrate mean score gains from pretest to posttest. For progress-monitoring measures (i.e., cspm, cwpm), we used

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


two repeated measures ANOVAs with one between-subjects factor (grouping conditions) and one within-subject fac-tor (time across the 10 progress monitoring sessions). By allowing the instructional time to vary by group size, we could take the naturally occurring variability as one of the variables that affect efficiency. We conducted independent t tests to determine differences in (a) frequency and dura-tion of instructional sessions, (b) number of times students earned rewards for displaying appropriate behavior during instructional sessions, (c) frequency and duration of reme-diation sessions, and (d) number of lessons mastered in the program. We made Bonferroni corrections to protect against inflated Type I errors because of multiple tests.

General Procedures

Tutor training. We gave the tutors two 3-hr workshops before we began the study. The first training (i.e., preintervention workshop) introduced tutors to ERT. The first author of the present study led the workshop and began with a brief over-view of the program and research related to the development of ERT. Next, tutors practiced the correct sound production for the sounds taught in the program. Last, each instructional component was introduced, modeled by the first author and practiced by the tutors. Throughout the session, we provided the tutors with opportunities to practice teaching the program. In addition, the first author assisted the tutors in organizing program materials, which included two teacher’s manuals: A and B. The manuals provided the scripted text and direc-tions for all of the tasks in each lesson. In addition, two presentation books—A and B—contained the letter–sound correspondences, words, and text that students read for each lesson. Additional program materials included data collection forms, flashcards, storybooks, and fluency passages.

The second training session (i.e., intervention training) occurred before beginning of data collection. This training reviewed implementation procedures and provided tutors with techniques to manage student behavior during instruc-tion (i.e., use of signals, classroom arrangements, strategies to manage inappropriate behaviors). The tutors watched a video that discussed effective student management strate-gies and were given the opportunity to discuss and practice these strategies through role-play activities.

Before data collection, the first author provided instruc-tional support such as modeling, side-by-side coaching, or prompting (e.g., “Don’t forget to use the correction proce-dure”). We collected treatment fidelity data and continued to provide support until each tutor was able to implement the supplemental program with at least 90% accuracy. On average, tutors required one instructional support session for each grouping format.

Group assignment. We initiated ERT after pretesting occurred; however, we did not begin data collection until

after the preintervention phase. During preintervention, we gave students the ERT program placement test to determine their ideal starting points for instruction. At each school, the tutors worked with 6 participants on the basis of conve-nience. In the beginning, for approximately 2 weeks, tutors implemented ERT 1:1 with each of the 6 participants.

Before we began data collection, we grouped the students on the basis of their current lesson placement. We divided students into groups according to similar levels in the pro-gram (within five lessons of each other), and assigned these groups a tutor. Then, we randomly assigned each group to one of the two grouping conditions (i.e., 1:1, 1:3).

Intervention Procedures

Length of sessions. Each tutor used a timer to record the length of each instructional and remediation session (if applicable). We instructed each tutor to start the timer at the beginning of instruction, stop the timer at the end of instruc-tion, and record the duration of each session. If a student required remediation on a skill or set of lessons, the tutor also recorded the duration of the remediation session.

Managing student behavior. Each student had the oppor-tunity to earn a sticker for following the rules prescribed in the supplemental reading program. The first author also observed a sample of sessions and recorded the number of times inappropriate behaviors disrupted the flow of the instructional session and strategies the tutor used to manage students’ behavior. Inappropriate behaviors considered to be a disruption to the session were defined as tutor responses to student behavior that lasted longer than 3 s and involved redirection of student attention, reprimand, or a focus on the behavior rules.

Program assessment procedures. At the end of every fifth lesson, a unit mastery test covered the subskills introduced in the previous five lessons. The unit mastery test deter-mined whether the student was ready to move to the next series of lessons, repeat a series of five lessons, or skip a series of five lessons. Using mastery tests ensured that stu-dents acquired and maintained the skills taught, and if not, reteaching occurred. We also used mastery tests to make sure students moved through the program as quickly as pos-sible, advancing five lessons when all items were correct. However, students could only skip one set of lessons during each administrative period.

For each grouping condition, the tutors administered mastery tests individually. After administering the mastery tests, the tutors compared the students’ performance with the program’s lesson placement guidelines to make instruc-tional decisions. If the students did not master the skills in the unit, the tutors provided remediation on the specific skills that were not mastered. The remediation sessions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


were separate from the instructional sessions but occurred immediately after the instructional sessions.

Daily sessions. The basic instruction in ERT included skills related to letter–sound correspondences, word reading in isolation and connected text, segmenting, and sight word reading. For the 1:1 grouping condition, students practiced skills by responding to tutor signals, which included verbal prompts (e.g., “What sound?”) and physical prompts (e.g., tutor used his or her finger to touch the space under the let-ter as student practiced saying the sounds). The correction procedure for errors was consistent and scripted. When an error occurred, the tutor implemented the following: (a) model: “My turn. I’ll do it,” (b) lead: “Do it with me,” (c) test: “Do it by yourself,” and (d) retest: The tutor checks later in the lesson to make certain the student has mastered the skill (Carnine et al., 2004).

There was also a review component at the end of the lesson that determined the student’s progress through the program. If the student did not meet criteria (i.e., 100% accuracy on three of four skills), the tutor provided reme-diation on the specific skill not mastered. Remediation ses-sions occurred immediately after the instructional session; the tutor recorded the length of these sessions.

For students who were instructed in the 1:3 grouping condi-tion, the session consisted of the same components previously described. However, students chorally responded as a group for all tasks. In addition, students responded individually at least one time during the instructional components of the lesson. Even if only one student made an error, the tutor implemented the correction procedure for the entire group. Similarly, if any student in the group did not meet the criteria for the review component, all of them received remediation on that specific skill.

Results

Grouping Condition on Reading Achievement

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for pre- and posttest for PSF, NWF, and ORF. All of the groups had a higher posttest than pretest mean score. Table 2 shows the results of the three mixed-factorial ANOVAs. The assumption of equality of covariance matrixes was satisfied for all analyses. For all of the dependent vari-ables, there was a statistically significant within-subject effect for differences between the pretest to posttest means. The variance (η2) accounted for in the within-sub-ject effect ranged from .65 to .94, suggesting a large effect size for the pretest to posttest means. We hypothesized and expected these results; that is, we expected an increase in reading achievement regardless of the grouping condition. The statistical test of interest for determining differences in the mean gain from pretest to posttest was the interac-

tion between pre/post and group values nested in tutors. There were no significant interaction terms detected in any of the ANOVAs. This suggested that the mean changes from pretest scores to posttest scores were equivalent for scores the 1:1 and 1:3 grouping conditions.

In addition, posttesting results indicated that approxi-mately 59% of students were identified as benchmark—at grade level on DIBELS winter assessment, which signified that these students were on track to meeting end-of-year goals. Similarly, there was little difference in the percent-age of students meeting winter benchmark goals when compared by instructional format. Of the 59% of students who met winter benchmark goals, 48% of students were instructed 1:1 and 52% were instructed 1:3.

Progress Monitoring

Figure 1 shows the means for the NWF progress-monitoring probes for two treatment conditions. Both groups showed an increase in cspm. A mixed-factorial ANOVA was used to examine differences between the groups across the 10 probes administered across 10 weeks. The between-subjects factor was the treatment conditions and the within-subject factor was the 10 probes. The test of sphericity was statistically significant, Machly’s W = .007, df = 44, p < .001, so we used the Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment for the tests of sig-nificance. There was not a statistically significant between-subjects effect, F(1, 47) = 0.04, p = .84, and no significant interaction, F(4.33, 203.33) = 2.18, p = .07. There was a significant within-subject effect, F(4.33, 203.33) = 142.18, p < .001, indicating the participants increased scores across the 10 probes. In addition, by the 7th week, participants in both grouping conditions met the DIBELS winter NWF benchmark goal (i.e., 50 or more cspm); these gains were maintained through the duration of the study. Our findings indicated that there was not a significant difference in student gains on NWF measures over time for students on the basis of instructional format.

Figure 2 shows the means for the ORF progress-monitoring probes for two treatment conditions. Both groups showed an increase in cwpm. We used a mixed-factorial ANOVA to examine differences between the groups across the 10 probes administered across 10 weeks. The between-subjects factor was the treatment conditions and the within-subject factor was the 10 probes. The test of sphericity was statistically sig-nificant, Machly’s W = .005, df = 44, p < .001. Therefore, we used the Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment for the tests of sig-nificance. There was not a statistically significant between-subjects effect, F(1, 47) = 0.59, p = .45, and no significant interaction, F(3.56, 167.49) = 1.69, p = .16. There was a significant within-subject effect, F(3.56, 167.49) = 57.63, p < .001, indicating that the participants increased across the 10 probes. In addition, by Weeks 7 and 8, the participants in both grouping conditions met the DIBELS winter ORF

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


benchmark goal of 20 or more cwpm; these gains increased and were maintained throughout the present study. Our find-ings indicated that there was no significant difference in student gains on ORF measures across time for students on the basis of instructional format.

Efficiency

In the present study, we also addressed whether there were differences in instructional efficiency when providing instruction 1:1 when compared with providing instruction 1:3. Table 3 presents means and standard deviations for the number of lessons completed, instructional minutes per student, remediation sessions per student, lessons mastered, and percentage of rewards earned. To protect against pos-sible Type I errors, we used a more conservative level of significance (α = .01) to determine statistical significance.

Students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 completed approximately 40 lessons (SD = 3.29) and 39 lessons (SD = 3.23), respectively. The assumption of homogeneous vari-ances was satisfied, Levene’s test, F(1, 47) = 0.03, p = .86.

The mean number of lessons completed by students who were instructed 1:1 was not significantly higher than that of students who were instructed 1:3, t(47) = 1.16, p = .25.

Students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 received approximately 370 and 169 min of instruction, respectively. The assumption of homogeneous variances was not satis-fied, Levene’s test, F(1, 47) = 7.45, p = .009, but the groups have equivalent sample sizes that provided robust t test results. The mean number of minutes of instruction for stu-dents who were instructed 1:1 was significantly higher than that for students who were instructed 1:3, t(47) = –5.27, p < .001. The magnitude of difference between the two means was large, d = 1.57 (Cohen, 1988).

The results indicate that providing instruction to students in a small group was more efficient. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations for the number of minutes on the basis of lesson placement. During Lessons 5–25, students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 required approximately 5 and 6 min of instruction, respectively. Also, during Lessons 26–40, students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 required approximately 10

TABLE 1. Pre- and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for 1:1 and 1:3 Grouping Conditions

1:1 grouping conditiona 1:3 grouping conditionb

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD

Phoneme segmentation fluency 20.56 15.76 58.44 10.32 24.08 15.67 62.25 14.20Nonsense word fluency 16.72 6.62 57.16 12.97 17.46 7.45 62.04 13.78Oral reading fluency 13.88 8.98 23.76 11.34 12.71 11.12 23.71 11.56

aN = 25. bN = 24.

TABLE 2. Mixed-Factorial Analyses of Variance for Three Variables (N = 48)

Variable df a F η2 p

Phoneme segmentation fluency Between tutor 7 0.49 .093 .840 Within pre/posttest 1 153.10 .820 < .001 Pre/posttest × Group 8 0.34 .080 .950Nonsense word fluency Between tutor 7 2.72 .370 .020 Within pre/posttest 1 525.86 .940 < .001 Pre/posttest × Group 8 0.59 .130 .780Oral reading fluency Between tutor 7 0.75 .140 .630 Within pre/posttest 1 62.12 .650 < .001 Pre/posttest × Group 8 1.10 .210 .390

aError = 33.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


and 15 min of instruction, respectively. Last, during Lessons 41–93, students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 required approximately 11 and 16 min of instruction, respectively.

Students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 received approx-imately four and five remediation sessions, respectively. The assumption of homogeneous variances was satisfied, Levene’s test, F(1, 47) = 0.63, p = .43. The mean number

of remediation sessions for students who were instructed 1:1 was not significantly higher than that for students who were instructed 1:3, t(47) = –0.98, p = .33. In addition, the total length of remediation sessions for students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 was approximately 9 min for each. The assumption of homogeneous variances was satisfied, Levene’s test, F(1, 47) = 0.43, p = .52. The mean length of remediation sessions for students who were instructed 1:1 was not significantly higher than that for students who were instructed 1:3, t(47) = –0.21, p = .84.

The mean number of lessons mastered for students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 was approximately 56 and 59, respectively. The assumption of homogeneous variances was satisfied, Levene’s test, F(1, 47) = 4.79, p = .03. The mean number of lessons mastered for students who were instructed 1:1 was not significantly higher than that for stu-dents who were instructed 1:3, t(47) = –1.19, p = .24.

Management of Student Behavior

Students who were instructed 1:1 and 1:3 received rewards 97.86% and 96.70% of the instructional sessions, respectively. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations by group. The assumption of homogeneous vari-ances was satisfied, Levene’s test, F(1, 47) = 0.10, p = .76. The percentage of times students who were instructed 1:1 earned rewards for following program rules was not signifi-cantly higher than that of students who were instructed 1:3, t(47) = 1.01, p = .32.

Table 5 presents the proportions of inappropriate behav-iors for observed sessions. For the 1:1 grouping condition, 56 sessions were observed. Overall, five disruptions were recorded. All five disruptions were the result of the tutor interrupting instruction to refocus and redirect student attention. For the 1:3 grouping condition, 36 sessions were observed. Overall, 13 disruptions were recorded. Also, 6 of the 13 disruptions resulted from students losing focus and not responding together at the tutor’s signal. The remaining seven disruptions were the result of the tutor interrupting instruction to refocus and redirect student attention. The proportion of inappropriate behaviors per student observed during small group instruction was not significantly different than the proportion of inappropriate behaviors per student observed during individual instruc-tion, z = .45, p > .05.

For a follow-up to the present study, we gathered infor-mation regarding tutors’ preferences and perceptions when instructing students 1:1 compared with 1:3. When we asked tutors which grouping format (i.e., 1:1, 1:3) they preferred, seven of nine preferred the 1:1 because they felt that they could monitor students’ performance more closely and address students’ strengths and weaknesses more easily. Two of these tutors preferred the 1:1 grouping format because they felt that students could work at their

FIGURE 1. Means for the nonsense word fluenc progress- monitoring probes for two treatment conditions. DIBELS = Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (R. H. Good & R. A. Kaminiski, 2002).

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Cor

rect

Sou

nds

(per

min

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Progress-Monitoring Sessions

DIBELS Winter Benchmark

1:1 1:3

FIGURE 2. Means for the oral reading fluency progress- monitoring probes for two treatment conditions. DIBELS = Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (R. H. Good & R. A. Kaminiski, 2002).

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Cor

rect

Wor

ds (

per

min

)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Progress-Monitoring Sessions

DIBELS Winter Benchmark

1:1 1:3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


own pace. In contrast, one tutor preferred the 1:3 because of the time it saved. One tutor had no preference between the conditions.

Next, we asked them which grouping format they per-ceived to be most effective on the basis of instructional time. Six of nine tutors perceived the 1:3 grouping format to be most effective and all noted that it took less time (approximately half the total time) to teach 1:3 than 1:1. Two tutors perceived the 1:1 format to be more effective because in the 1:3 grouping format, program movement was determined by all students; therefore, in some cases, students moved at a slower rate in the 1:3 format than they would have in the 1:1 format. One tutor had no preference between the conditions.

Then, we asked which grouping format the tutors per-ceived to be the most effective in terms of student perfor-mance. Five tutors perceived the 1:1 grouping format to be more effective in student progress because the students

seemed to progress more quickly through the program. In addition, two of these tutors noted that it was easier to monitor student responses. In contrast, one tutor thought the 1:3 grouping format was more effective because the students had more opportunities to practice skills and ben-efited from the interactions between the group members. The remaining three tutors noted that they had noticed the progress of students in both grouping formats and did not have a preference.

We also asked tutors to describe any difficulties that they had with implementing ERT in different grouping formats. None of the tutors noted difficulties implementing ERT in students individually. For the small group format, four tutors noted that they had difficulty with getting the stu-dents to answer together on the signal; however, three of these tutors noted that once they became familiar with the small group format, they did not experience difficulty with implementing the program.

TABLE 3. Means and Standard Deviations for 1:1 and 1:3 Grouping Conditions

1:1 grouping conditiona 1:3 grouping conditionb

Measure M SD M SD

Lessons completed 40.16 3.29 39.08 3.23Instructional minutes per student 370.48 63.84 169.23 111.27Remediation sessions per student 3.64 4.28 4.79 3.93Lessons mastered 55.68 10.24 58.75 7.58Percentage of rewards 97.86 4.38 96.70 3.59

aN = 25. bN = 24.

TABLE 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Number of Minutes for 1:1 and 1:3 Grouping Conditions

Lessons 5–25 Lessons 26–40 Lessons 41–93

Grouping N M SD N M SD N M SD

1:1 24 4.96 1.28 24 10.05 1.17 25 10.93 0.911:3 24 5.52 1.03 24 14.92 1.25 24 16.02 1.91

TABLE 5. Proportions of Inappropriate Behaviors for 1:1 and 1:3 Grouping Conditions

Proportion of Proportion of Number of Number of disruptions disruptionsGrouping disruptions lessons observed per session per child

1:1 5 56 .09 .091:3 13 36 .36 .12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Last, we asked tutors to describe differences (if any) in managing student behavior while implementing ERT with different grouping formats. Six of the tutors did not identity any differences in the way they managed student behavior. One tutor explained that all of the children (regardless of the grouping condition) knew the rules and expectations. When the program rules were not followed, the tutors followed the program procedure. However, two tutors did note challenges in managing student behavior for the small group format. These tutors noted that their stu-dents had more trouble focusing when they were instructed in small groups.

Discussion

We extended the work of Vaughn et al. (2003), tightly controlling an intervention by using a scripted supplemental program to examine differences in reading achievement and instructional efficiency. One limitation of Vaughn et al.’s study was that group size was not held constant because students transferred schools during the course of the study. In our study, we controlled group sizes. When a student in the 1:3 grouping condition transferred out of the school, to maintain the group dynamic, we added to the group a student with similar academic needs (i.e., a student who was identified as strategic, as indicated on DIBELS assess-ments, and placed at the same point in the supplemental program). We did not record or include these students’ scores in our results.

The results of the present study indicate that all students made significant gains in reading from pretest to posttest on three DIBELS subtests. In addition, the findings indi-cated no differences between individual and small group instruction in terms of overall reading gains. These findings are consistent with previous research. Vaughn et al. (2003) found that students who were instructed 1:1 were not supe-rior to those who were instructed in the 1:3 group on any outcome measures. Our posttesting results indicated that approximately 59% of students were identified as bench-mark—at grade level on DIBELS winter assessment, which signified that these students were on track to meeting end of year goals.

Consequently, approximately 41% of students did not meet winter benchmark goals. Pinnell, Lyons, Deford, Bryk, and Seltzer (1994) reported that fewer students resisted treatment when instruction was provided 1:1, when compared with a small group format of 1:3. Although the small group format was a more efficient way to provide instruction, it was not more effective when examining the proportion of children who made adequate progress. Contrary to the findings of Pinnell et al., the results of the present study indicated little difference in the percentage of students who did not meet goals when compared in terms of instructional format.

In addition to using DIBELS pretest and posttest mea-sures, we monitored students’ progress on NWF and ORF weekly, using parallel forms of these subtests. The findings from the present study indicated no significant difference in student gains on DIBELS NWF and ORF measures over time for students on the basis of instructional format. Students with established skills on NWF who were read-ing at least 20 cwpm at the middle of first grade have a 97–100% chance of reaching the first-grade reading goals (Good, Simmons, Kame’enui, Kaminski, & Wallin, 2002). In contrast, students with established skills in PSF and NWF, reading fewer than 20 cwpm, have only a 24–49% chance of achieving the first grade reading outcome (Good et al.). The majority of students in the present study who remained strategic—additional intervention fell into this category. The DIBELS posttest measures indicated that these students had established PSF and NWF skills but were still emerging in ORF.

Beginning at Lesson 26, ERT has a fluency component consisting of a repeated reading procedure. ERT passages were composed of sounds and words that had been intro-duced and practiced to that point in the program. Most of the words in the program’s passages were decodable. On the other hand, DIBELS ORF passages contained vocabu-lary that does not control for regularity of sound–symbol correspondence. Frequently, when students came to irregu-lar words in a DIBELS passage, they attempted to apply the decoding strategies to read the unknown words. Beginning at Lesson 21, ERT included a flashcard format to provide instruction on irregular words; however, the participants did not complete the entire program and, therefore, were not introduced and had no opportunities to practice all of those words included in ERT. Irregular words used in ERT were selected to specifically correspond to the core read-ing program (i.e., Open Court). DIBELS passages were not designed to correspond to a specific reading program. For students with sufficient decoding skills but weaknesses in oral reading fluency, an intensified fluency intervention with less controlled vocabulary may be needed.

In addition, the present study examined differences in the efficiency of delivering instruction. The results of the present study indicated that it was more efficient to provide instruction in a small group. For an individual student, it took approximately 10 min to complete a lesson; there-fore, to provide instruction for three students 1:1 it would take approximately 30 min. In comparison, when provid-ing instruction to three students in a small group, it took approximately 15 min. Therefore, the small group format provides a viable approach to increasing the efficiency of instructional delivery and providing supplemental instruc-tion to more students.

Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Wotruba, and Algozzine (1993) examined eight instructional and noninstructional variables

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


under different grouping formats and found that there were no differences between 1:1 and 1:3 formats in terms of academic responding time, academic engaged time, task management, and inappropriate behaviors. In the present study, a sample of instructional sessions were observed to record incidences of inappropriate student behavior during instruction for each grouping condition.

Overall, there were a very low number of incidences for both grouping conditions. For students instructed 1:1, inappropriate behavior was observed five times across 36 observed sessions. For students instructed 1:3, inappropri-ate behavior was observed 13 times across 56 observed sessions. One possible explanation for the low number of disruptions is that the supplemental program was brief (i.e., approximately 10 min for students instructed 1:1 and 15 min for students instructed 1:3), limiting the opportunities for inappropriate behavior to occur. Irrespective of group-ing condition, there was never more than one incidence of inappropriate behavior during observed sessions, and these disruptions were always because of a student losing focus during the instructional session. In each case, the tutor suc-cessfully redirected student behavior by quickly reviewing the supplemental program’s rules.

Regardless of grouping condition, more incidences of inappropriate behavior occurred when a new teaching format was introduced. As the supplemental program progressed, new formats were presented (e.g., beginning at Lesson 21, the flashcard format was introduced; beginning at Lesson 26, the fluency format was introduced; beginning at Lesson 41, the short book format was introduced). Even though each tutor reached 90% fidelity on each instructional component before the study began, when new components were added, there was an acquisition period that slowed the lesson and perhaps was related to increases in inappropriate behavior.

The difference in proportions of inappropriate behavior across instructional sessions (z = 3.01, p < .01) is not sur-prising given that tutors implementing ERT in a small group had more students and materials to manage when compared with tutors implementing ERT with individual students. For example, when implementing the short book format for an individual student, the tutor assisted the student in filling in blanks in his or her story. In the 1:3 condition, each student had an individual book, and the tutor gave turns to each student to fill in blanks in the story. The fluency format also required the management of additional materials; each student in the small group had an individual recording sheet and reading graph. The fluency format also required the management of additional materials and more instructional time because the tutor had to record each student’s perfor-mance individually. What may be more of a surprise is not only the low number of inappropriate behaviors, but also how similar the proportions of inappropriate behaviors were when computed on a per-student basis (z = .45, p > .05).

In general, the tutors favored the 1:1 grouping format; many of the tutors had prior experience teaching ERT 1:1; which may have affected their preference. However, all the tutors noted that it took less time (approximately half of the total time) to teach 1:3 than it would have to teach the students individually.

Implications for Practice

Overall, the majority of students in both groups met DIBELS winter benchmark scores and was on track to reaching end of year benchmark goals. In addition, many students were progressing toward end of year goals. These students’ PSF and NWF scores were on-track, suggesting the supplemental program succeeded in teaching basic decoding skills; however, fluency is not a natural outcome of improved decoding. For students who are not making adequate progress in ORF, a more intensive intervention focused on building fluency may be needed.

The comparable outcomes across grouping conditions demonstrated that 1:3 grouping instruction is more efficient than is the 1:1 grouping instruction. Providing instruction to students in small groups offers a solution for the lack of resources (time, staff) in many schools. The students made comparable progress and gains in reading when instructed in small groups of three, and because it is a more efficient use of resources, it may be preferable to 1:1.

Limitations

There are limitations to the present findings. Our study did not include a comparison group of students who were at risk for reading failure and who did not participate in the intervention. Second, there were no data collected on the classroom teachers’ implementation of the core read-ing program. Therefore, issues related to classroom effects were not controlled. However, this limitation is somewhat reduced by the fact that we attempted to control for teacher and classroom effects by including students across differ-ent classrooms from each school and randomly assigning students to grouping conditions.

Another limitation of the study was the fact that tutors were not able to reconfigure groups throughout the course of the study. The groups had to remain intact for the purpose of the study; however, practice groups could be rearranged on the basis of student performance. Although there was not a difference in the number of lessons students in each grouping format mastered, this limitation may have also affected tutor preference. One tutor noted, “I like 1:1 format better because a student in a small group can’t move ahead in the program if the other students didn’t pass the mastery test.”

Future Research

First, there is a limited research base that supports the supplemental reading program that we used; therefore, to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


an associate professor of special education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research interests are reading instruction for students who are at risk for failure, components of effective instructional design, and strategies for improving group instruction. Claudia P. Flowers is a professor of research, measurement, and statistics at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focus is general curriculum access for students with significant cognitive disabilities, with an emphasis on assessment and measurement issues.

REFERENCESAdams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning

about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A.

G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.

Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. (2004) Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learn-ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201–211.

Elbaum, B. E., Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1997). Urban middle- elementary students’ perceptions of grouping formats for read-ing instruction. Elementary School Journal, 97, 475–500.

Elbaum, B. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619.

Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of class-room and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 203–212.

Gibbs, S. L., Campbell, M. L., Helf, S., & Cooke, N. L. (2007). Early reading tutor. Charlotte, NC: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Good, R. H., & Kaminiski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indica-tor of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from http://dibels.uoregon.edu

Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., Kaminski, R. A., & Wallin, J. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Tech. Rep. No. 11). Eugene: University of Oregon.

Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.

Mathes, P. G., & Torgesen, J. K. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching chil-dren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

establish the effects of the supplemental program, research-ers should conduct a study in which they compare students who receive instruction in ERT with those who do not. In another study, researchers should investigate the efficacy of duration of interventions designed to help failing students to reach DIBELS benchmark goals.

Progress monitoring is essential in tracking student prog-ress, and teachers need to use that information to make informed instructional decisions. Because no change in instruction could be made in the design of the present study, future studies could be designed that allow teachers to use progress-monitoring data to make on-course corrections to the intervention. An additional area for research is to repli-cate the present study for a sufficient duration so that stu-dents’ progress may be tracked across a full academic year to determine whether the proportion of students in each group-ing condition meet end-of-year DIBELS benchmarks.

In addition, it may be interesting to examine varying group sizes to determine whether there are limits to effi-ciency. Vaughn et al. (2003) compared students instructed in 1:1 condition, in small groups of 1:3, and larger groups of 1:10. Findings of that study indicated that students instructed 1:1 and in small groups of 1:3 made significant gains compared with students instructed in larger groups of 1:10. An extension of the present study could examine the efficiency of providing ERT instruction for students in groups of three, four, and five to determine if three is the most efficient size.

ConclusionMany supplemental programs are designed with the

assumption that 1:1 instruction is necessary for an effec-tive program (Elbaum, Schumm, & Vaughn, 2000). How-ever, this format requires the most resources and perhaps reduces the number of students who can be served. There is little evidence that supports the common belief that 1:1 instruction is the most effective way to provide supple-mental instruction (Elbaum et al.; Vaughn et al., 2003). The supplemental reading program ERT was effective in building and strengthening students’ reading skills. The majority of students in both grouping formats met DIBELS winter benchmark goals that placed them on track to reach end-of-year benchmark goals. With the national focus on the prevention of reading failure, the present study extends the research base by examining the most efficient way to provide supplemental instruction to students who are at risk for reading failure.

AUTHOR NOTESShawnna Helf is a reading research associate for the Behavior

and Reading Improvement Center at the University of North Caro-lina at Charlotte. Her research interests are reading instruction for students who are at risk for failure, instructional decision making, and models for professional development. Nancy L. Cooke is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Wotruba, J. W., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Instruction in special education classrooms under varying student-teacher ratios. Elementary School Journal, 93, 305-320.

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treat-ment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64.

Torgesen, J. K., & Mathes, P. (1998). What every teacher should know about phonological awareness. In B. Honig, L. Diamond, & R. Nathan (Eds.), CORE reading research anthology (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Arena Press.

Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Moody, S. W., & Elbaum, B. (2001). Instructional grouping for reading for students with LD: Impli-cations for practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(3), 131–137.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S. A. (2003). Reading instruction group-ing for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 301–315.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq.

O’Connor R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 43–54.

Open Court Reading. (2000). Collections for young scholars. Peru, IL: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 8–39.

Polloway, E. A., Cronin, M. E., & Patton, J. R. (1986). The effi-cacy of group versus one-to-one instruction: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 22–30.

Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). A consumer’s guide to evaluating a core reading program grades K–3: A critical ele-ments analysis. Eugene: University of Oregon College of Educa-tion, Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Acad-emy of Sciences.

APPENDIX APractice Court Treatment Fidelity Checklist for 1:1 Grouping

Date: ___________ Lesson: ___________________ Tutor: ___________________________Student(s) name: __________________________ Start time: _______ Stop time: ________

Yes No Not applicableLetter–sound correspondences Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___ Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________Blending and sentence reading Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___ Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________Short book (begins at Lesson 41) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___ Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________Segmenting Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___ Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________Rhyming/onset rhymes (Lessons 1–29 only) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___ Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________Daily review (occurs only in lessons that are not multiples of 5) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Records session data ___ ___ ___

(Appendix A continues)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIX A (cont.)Practice Court Treatment Fidelity Checklist for 1:1 Grouping

Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________Mastery test (occurs only in lessons that are multiples of 5) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Records mastery test data ___ ___ ___ Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________Flashcard game (begins at Lesson 21) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Completes game (model + 3 times) ___ ___ ___ Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________1-min fluency passage (begins at Lesson 26) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Graphs student results ___ ___ ___ Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Number in yes column: ________ divided by total possible items (yes + no) _______ = ____%_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Management of student behavior:

Number of disruptions: ______Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX BPractice Court Treatment Fidelity Checklist for 1:3 Grouping

Date: ___________ Lesson: ___________________ Tutor: ___________________________Student(s) name: __________________________ Start time: _______ Stop time: ________

Yes No Not applicableLetter–sound correspondences Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___ Gives individual and group turns ___ ___ ___Blending and sentence reading Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___ Gives individual and group turns ___ ___ ___Short book (begins at Lesson 41) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___Segmenting Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___ Gives individual and group turns ___ ___ ___Rhyming/onset rhymes (Lessons 1–29 only) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Uses correction procedures ___ ___ ___Daily review (occurs only in lessons that are not multiples of 5) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Records session data ___ ___ ___

(Appendix B continues)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIX B (cont.)Practice Court Treatment Fidelity Checklist for 1:3 Grouping

Follows placement guide ___ ___ ___ Provides/records remediation (if needed) ___ ___ ___Mastery test (occurs only in lessons that are multiples of 5) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Records mastery test data ___ ___ ___ Follows placement guide ___ ___ ___Flashcard game (begins at Lesson 21) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Completes game (model + 3 times) ___ ___ ___ Gives individual turns ___ ___ ___1-min fluency passage (begins at Lesson 26) Adheres to script and procedures ___ ___ ___ Graphs student results ___ ___ ___

Number in yes column: ________ divided by total possible items (yes + no) _______ = ____%_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Management of student behavior:

Number of disruptions: ______Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Managing Editor

Arts Education Policy Review

��

��

��

In Arts Education Policy Review (AEPR), teachers, teacher educators, administrators, policymakers, researchers, and others involved in arts education discuss diffi cult, often controversial policy issues regarding K–12 education in the arts throughout the nation and the rest of the world. Focusing on education in music, visual arts, theater, dance, and creative writing, the journal encourages varied views and emphasizes analytical exploration. AEPR’s purpose is to present and explore many points of view; it contains articles for and against different ideas, policies, and proposals for arts education. Its overall purpose is to help readers think for themselves, rather than to tell them how they should think.

Contributors should make sure that any submission is a policy article, complete with policy recommendations about arts education from prekindergarten through twelfth grade. Articles about college education should focus on teacher preparation for these grades or teacher retention in arts education. AEPR intends to bring fresh analytical vigor to perennial and new policy issues in arts education. AEPR presents analyses and recommendations focused on policy. The goal of any article should not be description or celebration (although reports of successful programs could be part of a policy article).

Any article focused on a program (or programs) should address why something works or does not work, how it works, how it could work better, and most important, what various policymakers (from teachers to legislators) can do about it. Many articles are rejected because they lack this element. These orientations can be applied to many issues—from the structure and results of psychometric research to the values climate that would support the arts as an educational basic. They can deal with the relationships of teacher preparation to cultural development, the problems of curriculum building, the particular challenges of teaching specifi c art forms, and the impact of political, economic, cultural, artistic, and other climates on decision making for arts instruction.

AEPR does not promote individuals, institutions, methods, or products. It does not aim to repeat commonplace ideas. Editors want articles that show originality, probe deeply, and take discussion beyond common wisdom and familiar rhetoric. Articles that merely restate the importance of arts education, call attention to the existence of issues long since addressed, or repeat standard solutions cannot be considered. Authors must prepare their manuscripts according to the The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, for all matters of style. All manuscripts require an abstract, preferably no longer than 120 words, and 3–5 keywords to be used for indexing purposes. Keywords should capture the precise content of the manuscript and should be found in the abstract. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the content. Manuscripts should not exceed 25 pages in length, including references. The managing editor screens manuscripts to determine their appropriateness for distribution to the editorial board. Manuscripts will be edited for clarity and readability, and editors may make changes so the text conforms to the journal’s style.

AEPR is receiving submissions only via e-mail as a double-spaced Word fi le with minimal formatting in Times New Roman font. Please do not use style sheets, or forced section or page breaks. If you need guidance or would like a copy of detailed author guidelines, consult the managing editor at (202) 296-6267, ext. 1255, or by e-mail at [email protected]. E-mail tables in one fi le and fi gures in a separate fi le.

Submit manuscripts to the managing editor at:

��

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

9:49

10

Dec

embe

r 20

14

effects of two grouping conditions on students who are at risk for reading failure

Documents