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

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

– 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 Reading – Support offered on a one-to-one basis Recovery: – Low cost ($100 per student served **after teacher training**) Overview – Narrows achievement gap specific to at risk children – Data is collected on each individual student and submitted to organization

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

3 Tiered Approach 1. Teachers are trained as Active Reading Recovery Teachers Reading 2. Trained teachers implement program in school setting while Recovery: fulfilling other duties part time (dependent on school need) Implementation 3. These same teacher leaders manage implementation at the district or site level.

– 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 outline program principles – Cohen, McDonnell, & Osborn (1989, in McCormick and Zutell) – Successful Reading Recovery participants attributed school success Reading to ability, effort and mood at a higher rate in comparison to control group children Recovery: – Increased sense of self-efficacy in comparison to control group children Supporting – Kelly, Gomez-Bellenge, Chen, & Schulz (2008) Research – 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 website: 1. A pproximately 75% of students who complete the full 12- to 20-week intervention can meet grade-level expectations in reading and writing. Reading 2. Follow-up studies indicate that most Reading Recovery students also do well on standardized tests and maintain their Recovery: gains in later years. Supporting Research What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 1. Among all programs reviewed, Reading Recovery received the highest rating in general reading achievement, and positive or potentially positive ratings across all four domains- alphabetics (phonics and phonemic awareness), fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement.

*Scores range from –50 to +50 Reading Recovery: Supporting – Research 2016- Single study review increased the extent of evidence in the outcome 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.’

– Staffing – Budget Reading – Stable Funding Recovery: – Recognized Identity Characteristics – Conceptual or Theoretical Foundation of "Good" – Service Philosophy Programs – Systematic Efforts at Empirical Evaluation of Services – Evidence Based Research Foundation (Royse,Thyer, & Padgett, 2016)

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 P.A.L.S – Creates pairs in classrooms to target individual student's needs vs. single Overview 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)

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

Classroom Implementation – Training for students is 2-3 sessions of 30-60 minutes – Teacher trains students to take turn being reader and coach P.A.L.S – Students learn specific scripts to use as feedback and coaching Implementation – "Stop that sound is..." "Start the line again" – 25-35 minute activities – 2 to 4 times/week

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 P.A.L.S ranked in the lower half Steps for Implementation 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

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 or less which encourages them to display and monitor P.A.L.S comprehension while taking turns reading one paragraph at a time. Sessions 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)

Tasks for grades 8 up Task 1 - Partner Reading Task 2 - Paragraph Shrinking Task 3 - Prediction Relay P.A.L.S Key Differences – 3 key points 1. Daily partner change Sessions 2. Work-Based Theme 3. Expository texts with relevant themes (Access Center, 2004)

Tasks for Kindergarten Task 1 – What Sounds Task 2 – What Word P.A.L.S Task 3 – Sound Boxes Sessions Task 4 – Sing it and Read it (Access Center, 2004)

Tasks for Grade 1 Task 1 – Sounds and Words - Saying Sounds - Blending Task -Read the Words P.A.L.S -Short story with sight words Sessions Task 2 – Speed Game with short story (Access Center, 2004)

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 P.A.L.S interventions to comparison group in typical reading curriculum K-1 Supporting – Positive effects in comprehension Research 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)

Fuchs et al. (1997) – Randomized controlled trial design: examined effects of PALS on 9- and 10-year-old students P.A.L.S – Positive effects in comprehension Adolescent Supporting Research (What Works Clearinghouse, 2012b)

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 P.A.L.S Fuchs et al. (1997) SLD – Randomized controlled trial / quasi-experimental design: examined effects of PALS on reading fluency and comprehension of grades 2-6 students Supporting – Positive effect: .31 for reading fluency and .60 for reading Research comprehension in outcome measures (What Works Clearinghouse, 2012c)

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. P.A.L.S Effect size Blueprint – Studies reported a mix of strong (>.80) or medium (.50-.80) effect Programs sizes for significant outcome measures at posttest in improving the reading skills of kindergarten and school-age children. Supporting – Strongest effect sizes observed for average achieving and low Research achieving students, while only small effects are found for high achieving students (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, 2017a)

Fuchs et al. (2001) – Pre- and Posttest design with follow-up in the following school year P.A.L.S – Classes assigned to control, Ladders, Ladders + PALS Supporting – Ladders – Phonological awareness training activities – Ladders & PALS group performed better than only Ladders at post Research 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)