Group Debate Presentation: Reading Recovery vs. P.A.L.S Corrie - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Group Debate Presentation: Reading Recovery vs. P.A.L.S

Corrie Brownlee, Zander Cellarius, Catherine Lennox, and Sarra Ng

Outline

–Program A: Reading Recovery –Program B: PALS –Critique of Program B –Critique of Program A –Rebuttal/Closing Remarks: Program A –Rebuttal/Closing Remarks: Program B

Reading Recovery: Overview

– Not for profit, no royalty program – Teachers must be highly trained to implement – Individually tailored program based on student performance – Performance measured using instruments consistently used across the program – Support offered on a one-to-one basis – Low cost ($100 per student served **after teacher training**) – Narrows achievement gap specific to at risk children – Data is collected on each individual student and submitted to

• rganization

Reading Recovery:

Implementation

Program Implementation: – Individual students – 30 min lesson daily – 12-20 weeks – Specially trained Reading Recovery teacher – Once students meet grade-level expectations and can work independently, lessons are discontinued and new students begin instruction Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2qjgMKJhns

Reading Recovery:

Implementation

3 Tiered Approach

• 1. Teachers are trained as Active Reading Recovery Teachers
• 2. Trained teachers implement program in school setting while

fulfilling other duties part time (dependent on school need)

• 3. These same teacher leaders manage implementation at the

district or site level.

Reading Recovery: Supporting Research

– North American Trainers Group Research Committee (2006)

– Theoretical basis from the research efforts of Marie Clay (1991, 2001), and Schmitt, Askew, Fountas, Lyons and Pinnell (2005) which

• utline program principles

– Cohen, McDonnell, & Osborn (1989, in McCormick and Zutell)

– Successful Reading Recovery participants attributed school success to ability, effort and mood at a higher rate in comparison to control group children – Increased sense of self-efficacy in comparison to control group children

– Kelly, Gomez-Bellenge, Chen, & Schulz (2008)

– Success rates for completion among a study group of English as first language and English Language Learners were similar, 76.4% and 69% respectively

– Rodgers, Gomez-Bellenge, Wang, & Schulz (2005)

– Reading Recovery closes or eliminates the gap frequently seen among typical learners and learners from low SE backgrounds and some cultural groups

Reading Recovery: Supporting Research

Reading Recovery website:

• 1. Approximately 75% of students who complete the full 12- to

20-week intervention can meet grade-level expectations in reading and writing.

• 2. Follow-up studies indicate that most Reading Recovery

students also do well on standardized tests and maintain their gains in later years. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)

• 1. Among all programs reviewed, Reading Recovery received

the highest rating in general reading achievement, and positive

• r potentially positive ratings across all four domains-

alphabetics (phonics and phonemic awareness), fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement.

Reading Recovery: Supporting Research

–

*Scores range from –50 to +50 2016- Single study review increased the extent of evidence in the

• utcome domains of comprehension and general reading achevement to

the category of ‘medium to large,’ and increases the effectiveness rating for comprehension from ‘potentially positive’ to ‘positive.’

Reading Recovery: Characteristics

• f "Good"

Programs

– Staffing – Budget – Stable Funding – Recognized Identity – Conceptual or Theoretical Foundation – Service Philosophy – Systematic Efforts at Empirical Evaluation of Services – Evidence Based Research Foundation

(Royse,Thyer, & Padgett, 2016)

P.A.L.S Overview

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (P.A.L.S)

– Structured peer tutoring program – Pre-K to grade 6 and grades 9 to 12 students – Proven instructional principles and practices with peer mediation to ensure research-based reading activities are effective, feasible, and enjoyable – Creates pairs in classrooms to target individual student's needs vs. single teacher-directed approach to address needs of only a few children – Benefits: increased academic learning time, positive academically-focused social interactions, and allows teachers to circulate classroom to observe students and provide individual remedial lessons – PALS available for reading and math – "Affordable program for public schools"

(Peer Assisted Learning Strategies, 2015)

P.A.L.S

Implementation

Program Implementation – Training: one-day workshop – Materials: PALS teacher's manual – Cost for training: $1,000-1,5000 + travel expenses for a group of up to 50 professionals

P.A.L.S

Implementation

Classroom Implementation – Training for students is 2-3 sessions of 30-60 minutes – Teacher trains students to take turn being reader and coach – Students learn specific scripts to use as feedback and coaching

– "Stop that sound is..." "Start the line again"

– 25-35 minute activities – 2 to 4 times/week

P.A.L.S

Steps for Implementation

Teacher trains students in the basic PALS procedures Teacher ranks students on reading competence, then splits the list placing the highest ranking students with the highest ranked in the lower half Trained teachers implement program in school setting while fulfilling other duties part time (dependent on school need) Pairs are changed regularly so all students have a chance to work together – dependent on age group

P.A.L.S Sessions

Tasks for grades 2-6 Task 1

Partner Reading: higher-achieving student reads aloud while their partner follows along correcting mistakes. After five minutes the students switch roles and reread the same selection.

Task 2

Paragraph Shrinking: students must state the main idea in ten words

• r less which encourages them to display and monitor

comprehension while taking turns reading one paragraph at a time.

Task 3

Prediction Relay: a partner predicts what information will be in the next half page of text, and then reads out loud to find the

• information. This reading exercise includes use of the prior tasks

(i.e., correcting errors and summarizing the text).

(Access Center, 2004)

P.A.L.S Sessions

Tasks for grades 8 up Task 1 - Partner Reading Task 2 - Paragraph Shrinking Task 3 - Prediction Relay

Key Differences – 3 key points

• 1. Daily partner change
• 2. Work-Based Theme
• 3. Expository texts with relevant themes

(Access Center, 2004)

P.A.L.S Sessions

Tasks for Kindergarten Task 1 – What Sounds Task 2 – What Word Task 3 – Sound Boxes Task 4 – Sing it and Read it

(Access Center, 2004)

P.A.L.S Sessions

Tasks for Grade 1 Task 1 – Sounds and Words

• Saying Sounds
• Blending Task
• Read the Words
• Short story with sight words

Task 2 – Speed Game with short story

(Access Center, 2004)

P.A.L.S K-1 Supporting Research

Stein et al. (2008)

– Randomized controlled trial design: examined effects of 3 PALS conditions differed by teacher training and a control group – Positive effects in alphabetics

Mathes & Babyak (2001)

– Randomized controlled trial design: compared two PALS interventions to comparison group in typical reading curriculum – Positive effects in comprehension

McMaster et al. (2005)

– Randomized controlled trial design: examined effects of PALS and modified PALS w/ 1-on-1 adult tutoring – Indeterminate effects for alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension

(What Works Clearinghouse, 2012a)

P.A.L.S Adolescent Supporting Research

Fuchs et al. (1997)

– Randomized controlled trial design: examined effects of PALS on 9- and 10-year-old students – Positive effects in comprehension

(What Works Clearinghouse, 2012b)

P.A.L.S SLD Supporting Research

Saenz et al. (2005)

– Randomized controlled trial design: examined effects of PALS on reading fluency and comprehension of grades 3-6 students in ELL classes – Positive effect: .41 for reading fluency and .91 for reading comprehension in outcome measures

Fuchs et al. (1997)

– Randomized controlled trial / quasi-experimental design: examined effects of PALS on reading fluency and comprehension of grades 2-6 students – Positive effect: .31 for reading fluency and .60 for reading comprehension in outcome measures

(What Works Clearinghouse, 2012c)

P.A.L.S Blueprint Programs Supporting Research

Outcomes

– Primary findings: significantly improved reading skills of kindergarteners to grade 3 students and grade 6-8 students at

• posttest. Most effective for low and average achieving students.

Effect size

– Studies reported a mix of strong (>.80) or medium (.50-.80) effect sizes for significant outcome measures at posttest in improving the reading skills of kindergarten and school-age children. – Strongest effect sizes observed for average achieving and low achieving students, while only small effects are found for high achieving students

(Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, 2017a)

P.A.L.S Supporting Research

Fuchs et al. (2001)

– Pre- and Posttest design with follow-up in the following school year – Classes assigned to control, Ladders, Ladders + PALS – Ladders – Phonological awareness training activities – Ladders & PALS group performed better than only Ladders at post test on Alphabetic tasks – Both Ladders and Ladders & PALS groups performed significantly higher in the 5 month follow-up

(Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, 2017a)

P.A.L.S: Characteristics

• f "Good"

Programs

– Staffing – Budget – Stable Funding – Recognized Identity – Conceptual or Theoretical Foundation – Service Philosophy – Systematic Efforts at Empirical Evaluation of Services – Evidence Based Research Foundation

(Royse,Thyer, & Padgett, 2016)

P.A.L.S critique

1. The only long-term study was the Ladders one previously referenced, all the rest are simply pre- and posttest studies 2. This is in contrast to Reading Recovery which has been the subject of numerous long-term studies 3. PALS research showed a chronic lack of discussion on attrition statistics 4. Estimated 50% failure rate with students with disabilities and 20% failure rate with low-achieving students

Reading Recovery Critique

1. Most research is outdated 2. Small window for intervention – only covers grade 1 students 3. Teacher training requires Masters level, long training time (one year) and high cost 4. Reading Recovery teachers train other teachers in their site- treatment fidelity may be compromised 5. Biased results due to systematic omission of students who do not complete the program (about 25 % of student participants)

(Ohio State University, 2014); (Shanahan & Barr, 1995)

Reading Recovery: Rebuttal/Final Remarks

Reading Recovery is the best evidence yet of the direct link between good design and education excellence.

• K.G. Wilson and B. Daviss

P.A.L.S Rebuttal/Final Remarks

– PALS does not work for every student, however it gives teachers the ability to set up an in classroom system where peers help each

• ther which fosters an inclusive classroom that also builds up

social relationships and confidence – PALS' effectiveness with students of various abilities makes it a highly cost-effective, whole class intervention/preventative strategy – Reading recovery also showed a chronic lack of attrition discussion/examination

References

Access Center. (2004). Using Peer Tutoring To Facilitate Access.Washington, DC: Reading

• Rockets. Retrieved from: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-peer-tutoring-facilitate-

access Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. (2017a). Peer Assisted Learning Strategies. Boulder, CO: U.S. University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from: http://www.blueprintsprograms.com/evaluation-abstract/peer-assisted-learning-strategies Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. (2017b). Reading Recovery. Boulder, CO: U.S. University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from: http://www.blueprintsprograms.com/evaluation-abstract/reading-recovery Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery. (2014). Standards and Guidelines. Canada: Canadian Reading Recover Trainers. Center, Y., Wheldall, Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An evaluation of reading

• recover. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 240-263.

Cohen, S.G., McDonnell, G., & Osborn, B. (1989). In S McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and Social Perspectives for Literacy Research and Instruction: Thirty EigthYearbook of the National Reading Conference. (pp 117-122). Chicago: National Reading Conference. D'Agostino, J., & Murphy, J.A. (2004). A meta-analysis of Reading Recovery in United States schools. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 23-28. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174–206. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O’Connor, R. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Education Psychology, 93(2), 251-267.

References

Kelly, P.R., Gomez-Bellenge, F.X., Chen, J., & Schulz, M.M. (2008). Learner Outcomes for English Language Learner Low Readers in an Early Intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 235-260. Mathes, P. G., & Babyak, A. E. (2001). The effects of Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies for first- grade readers with and without additional mini-skills lessons. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(1), 28–44. McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: The Promise and Limitations of Peer-Mediated Instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 5–

• 25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560500203491

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445–463. North American Trainers Group Research Committee (2006). Six Reading Recovery Studies: Meeting the criteria for scientifically based research. Ohio: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Ohio State University. (2014). Requirements and Costs for the Training of Reading Recovery Teachers in Ohio. Retrieved from www.rrosu.org/Becoming/requirements-and-costs-2014.pdf Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (2015). http://vkc.mc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/index.html Reading Recovery Council of North America (2016). https://readingrecovery.org Rodgers, E., Gomez-Bellenge, F., Wang, C., & Schulz, M. (2005). Predicting the Literacy Achievement of Struggling Readers: Does Intervening Make a Difference? Montreal: Annual Meeting

• f the American Educational Research Association.

Royse, D.,Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2016). Program evaluation: An introduction to an evidence-based approach. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

References

Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231–247. Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: an independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional Intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 958-986. Stein, M. L., Berends, M., Fuchs, D., McMaster, K., Sáenz, L., Yen, L., & Compton, D. L. (2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 368–388. What Works Clearinghouse. (2012a). Peer-Assisted Learning/Literacy Strategies:What Works Clearinghouse intervention report beginning reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_pals_050112.pdf What Works Clearinghouse. (2012b). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: What Works Clearinghouse intervention report adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute

• f Education Sciences. Retrieved

from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_pals_013112.pdf What Works Clearinghouse. (2012c). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: What Works Clearinghouse intervention report students with learning disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_pals_060512.pdf What Works Clearing House. (2012). Reading Recovery: What Works Clearing House intervention

• report. Washington, dc: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.