Effectiveness of a Fluency Intervention with English Language - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Effectiveness of a Fluency Intervention with English Language Learners

Elfrieda H. Hiebert University of California, Berkeley

Aim of study

to examine the efficacy of an intervention that had been effective with English speakers in schools where 90%* (or more)

• f students were classified as English

Language Learners

*California Department of Education, 2004

Background: Theoretical

 The underlying premise of the work is

that, to be a fluent reader, automaticity is required with the words in texts that

• ccur most in written English. Texts

that “instantiate” a fluency curriculum can aid in the development of this automaticity.

Background: Empirical

Study 1: Hiebert & Fisher (May 2005): Texts from all studies in the National Reading Panel’s (NICHD, 2000) review of fluency instruction were identified and available exemplars analyzed. Analyses showed that texts with controlled vocabulary were used in 74% of the studies in the meta-analysis. Of the four studies that used literature, only one reported a fluency outcome and, in that study, treatment and comparison groups did not differ

• significantly. That is: the effect size for fluency

came from studies that used texts with controlled vocabulary.

Study 2 (Hiebert, 2006): Repeated reading treatments with literature (core reading program) and scaffolded texts were compared. The average gain

• f 2.5 words per week for the literature-text students

exceeded expected growth rate by more than a word per week. The scaffolded-text students’ gain of 3.1 words per week was 2.6 times that of expected

• growth. The scaffolded text treatment increased the

percentage of students reaching 50th+ percentile by 15%, while the literature group increased by 1%.

Study 3 (Hiebert, 2005): Repeated reading treatments with literature (core reading program) and scaffolded texts were compared as in Study 2 In addition, a passive control group read (but not repeatedly) from literature program. Both intervention groups made greater fluency gains than the control group; in addition, the scaffolded- text group made greater fluency gains than the literature group. The superior performance of the scaffolded-text treatment was accomplished in about 60% of the time spent on reading by the literature group.

The Intervention

 10 second-grade teachers (5 in two schools with 90+%

native Spanish speakers) agreed to spend 15-30 minutes on the intervention daily for a 24-week period

 The teachers received:

 3 inservice sessions (prior to Week 1 and at Weeks 8 and 16)

which emphasized reasons for intervention and procedure for three readings of a text (Read 1: Predict content; identify key vocabulary; read silently for big idea; Read 2: Summarize and choral read; Read 3: Timed read and identify what is to be remembered.

 the same 3 sets of materials:

• expository texts for the first 8 weeks;
• narrative texts for the next 8 weeks; and
• another set of the expository texts for the last 8 weeks.

The Texts

 Texts were analyzed according to the TExT model

(types of words--high-frequency words within particular word zones and monosyllabic words with particular vowel patterns--and number of appearances of words.

4 79 Core reading program 87 Set 3 (informational) 1 89 Set 2 (narrative) 89 Set 1 (informational) Single-appearing, multi- syllabic words (%) 500 most-frequent words + Words with “short” and “long” vowels (%)

Student Measures

 TOWRE Sight Word and Phonemic Decoding:

November and May

 Fluency and Comprehension: November, February,

and May with following for each point in time:

• Narrative Words Correct Per Minute (WCPM)

& Comprehension

• Expository WCPM & Comprehension

Fluency and Comprehension Measures

 WCPM: Represents the average of two

passages that came from a set of equivalent passages; similar to Fuchs et

• al. (1993), number of correct responses

was used to establish WCPM

 Comprehension: Correct responses as

percentage of all responses

Classroom Measures

 Words Per Day (WPD) (Observed): An average

• f words read during intervention session (i.e., 15-

30 minutes) at 4 observation points

 WPD (Teacher Report): An average based on

teacher log [Both WPD indexes indicate number of words that students saw in daily intervention sessions]

Research Questions

1.

Did students’ WCPM & comprehension show similar growth at three points in time? With narrative or expository texts? As a result of WPD?

2.

What percentage of students moved to higher benchmark groups on WCPM?

3.

Did students’ performances on norm- referenced measures of sight word and phonemic decoding from beginning to end of intervention differ?

1a: Did WCPM show similar growth at three points in time? For two types of texts? As a result of WPD?

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Nov Feb May

WCPM

Narrative Expository

Raw WCPM & comprehension scores were analyzed using hierarchical level modeling (measurement at a time point, student, classroom, school). For WCPM:

• students in each classroom started at same average level but advanced at

different slopes (p < .05) but no significant effect for either of WPD measures

• difference between kinds of kinds of texts was significant (p < .001 and for

time F(1,8.94)=237.5, p<.0001; however, fluency growth for both types of texts advanced at same rate

20 40 60 80 100 Nov Feb May % Comprehension

Narrative Expository

1b: Did Comprehension show similar growth at three points in time? For two types of texts? As a result of WPD?

• The difference between kinds of texts (narrative and expository) was

significant F(1,823)=59.1 p<.0001; The main effect for time was also significant F(1,823)=111.7, p<.0001. However: There was no significant interaction between time of measurement and text type.

• There was no significant effect for any of the WPD measures. However,

variance at the teacher level was significant (p<.05) (i.e., Students in different classes started at different levels). However the slopes were homogeneous; students advanced at the same slopes in classrooms.

• 2. What percentage of students moved to

higher benchmark groups?

Fluency Quartile Post 165 88 56 21 Total 98 73 22 3 4 60 15 33 12 3 7 1 6* 2 Total 4 (25 & below) 3 (26-50) 2 (51-75) Fluency Quartile Pre* +: 37 students (22%) √109 (67.8%)

• 16 (10%)

*Includes 1 student from Quartile 1 (76-100)

• 2. What percentage of students moved to

higher benchmark groups?

Fluency Quartile Post 165 88 56 21 Total 98 73 22 3 4 60 15 33 12 3 7 1 6* 2 Total 4 (25 & below) 3 (26-50) 2 (51-75) Fluency Quartile Pre*

*Includes 1 student from Quartile 1 (76-100)

• 3. Did students’ performances on norm-referenced

measures of sight word and phonemic decoding differ from beginning to end of intervention?

24.8 17.1 Raw 101 98 Standard Score* Sight Words Phonemic Decoding 107 48.2 May 102 33.2 Nov. Standard Score* Raw Raw scores were converted to standard scores to examine growth beyond expected growth associated with age. Paired sample t-tests showed significant differences. The same result was also found on a repeated measure ANOVA.

• p >.001

Conclusions

 WCPM and comprehension: difference

between kinds of kinds of texts was significant as was growth over time

 Benchmarks: Almost a quarter of students

moved to a higher percentile group; 53% of the sample remained in the 4th quartile.

 Norm-referenced measures of sight word

recognition and phonemic decoding: students showed significant improvement as a result of the intervention; students are within the “average” range on these word-level measures

Observations

 The discrepancy between English Language

Learners’ word reading and text reading was substantial.

 Policies (such as those of the CA English

Language Arts Commission that has mandated decodable texts for middle graders who are struggling readers) appear not to be based on evidence of the literacy strengths and needs of native Spanish speaking English Language Learners.