Our Research

Scaling-Up Effective Interventions for Preventing Reading Difficulties

Principal Investigators

Principal Investigator:
Patricia Mathes, Ph.D., Southern Methodist University

Co-Principal Investigators:
Carolyn Denton, Ph.D., University of Texas Health Science Center Houston

Funding Agency

Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Description of the Project

The purpose of this five-year research project is to study the process of bringing to scale two research-validated first-grade “Tier II” reading interventions, Proactive Beginning Reading and Responsive Reading Instruction, in multiple and widely varying school contexts. A second purpose of the study is to evaluate the effects of instructional coaching provided to intervention teachers using a model called Student-Focused Coaching (Hasbrouck & Denton, 2005; 2007) delivered through on-site and technology formats. Both interventions are designed to be delivered for 40 minutes per day in groups of 3-4 children by certified teachers, but the two intervention approaches differ in theoretical orientation and instructional design. 

Proactive Beginning Reading (now SRA Early Interventions in Reading; Mathes & Torgesen, 2005) is a Direct Instruction program based on behavioral theory, with lessons designed to reduce student errors and facilitate skills and strategies that build over time. The tasks associated with fluent reading were carefully analyzed and elements sequenced into daily lessons.  Following these predetermined, fully scripted lesson plans, Proactive Reading teachers deliver explicit instruction designed to instruct students in the integrated and fluent use of alphabetic knowledge and comprehension strategies. Students spend a relatively large percentage of each lesson practicing phonemic awareness and decoding skills in isolation, and they apply these skills in fully decodable text. 

Responsive Reading Instruction (Denton & Hocker, 2005) is based primarily on cognitive theory (with essential preskills explicitly taught in a behavioral approach).  Responsive Reading teachers also provide explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding, but students spend relatively less time practicing skills in isolation than in the Proactive approach.  Students in Responsive Reading spend about one-fourth of their daily 40-minute lesson in isolated skills instruction and practice.  During the balance of the lesson, teachers observe and prompt students as they apply and practice these skills in the context of reading and writing.  Students in Responsive Reading can read either decodable or non-decodable text.  In the Mathes et al. (2005) study described below, and in the current study, students read text leveled for difficulty rather than decodable text.

Previous Research on the Interventions

Results of a previous randomized controlled study of the two interventions conducted in six schools in Houston (Mathes et al., 2005), showed strong differences in the performance of students in both intervention groups as compared with at-risk students in the same schools who received only Enhanced Classroom (“Tier I”) instruction and whatever intervention their schools typically provided. Students who received either the Responsive or Proactive interventions performed significantly higher than the Enhanced Classroom group in multiple key reading components, including phonological awareness, word reading ability, oral reading fluency, and spelling.  The results also strongly suggested that the two interventions were equally effective, except that students who received Proactive Reading performed significantly higher on nonword decoding.  These findings indicate that high-quality classroom instruction alone is not enough for a small number of children who require instruction of higher intensity.  Moreover, the study findings argue that there is not one “best” approach to reading instruction and that it is also not the case that “anything goes.” Rather, an explicit and systematic approach to reading intervention is the best path. 

Procedures

The current Scale-Up study examines the process of scaling up the two interventions in about 48 urban, suburban, and rural schools in the Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth areas.  In this study, researchers have reduced control of the implementation of the interventions, since the purpose is to examine their effectiveness in realistic school settings.  Each school (or school district) was allowed to select either the Proactive or Responsive approach, and school administrators select teachers who deliver the interventions and are responsible for the intervention delivery schedule.  Interventionists have included reading specialists, classroom teachers, special education teachers, librarians, and others, including a physical education coach who had no previous classroom teaching experience.

During the first three years of school implementation, researchers screened first graders at each participating school to identify those at-risk for reading difficulties, provided training and coaching to the intervention teachers, and conducted study assessments, including monthly monitoring of oral reading fluency.  The results of the fluency monitoring were provided to intervention and classroom teachers.  During Years 1 and 2, once the first graders who were at-risk for reading difficulties had been identified, they were randomly assigned within each school to receive either the research intervention that school had selected (Responsive or Proactive) or whatever intervention the school typically provided to at-risk first grade readers. 

To examine the effects of coaching support, all intervention teachers during Years 1, 2, and 3 of the study were randomly assigned by school to one of three conditions: (a) regular on-site coaching, (b) “virtual” coaching provided via a web-based interface, and (c) coaching “on-demand”, a comparison condition in which teachers could receive coaching support but all coaching interactions had to be initiated by the teacher rather than the coach. 

Population/Participants

A total of 1412 first grade students who struggle with learning to read and 133 certified teachers who have provided them with supplemental reading intervention have been included in the study over the four years of implementation in schools. 

Sites

Over four years, the study has been conducted in 86 schools in 24 school districts in the Austin and Dallas, Texas areas.  Participating school districts are: Austin ISD, Bartlett ISD, Bastrop ISD, Burnet ISD, Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, Comal ISD, Dallas ISD, The Catholic Diocese of Dallas, Eanes ISD, Fort Worth ISD, Garland ISD, Granger ISD, Lexington ISD, Manor ISD, Mesquite ISD, New Braunfels ISD, Richardson ISD, Rockdale ISD, Rogers ISD, Round Rock ISD, Thrall ISD, Troy ISD, and the University of Texas Elementary Charter School.

Timeline

During Year 1, the research team developed and piloted professional development materials and manuals for the two interventions, along with the “virtual coaching” technology. In Years 2-4, the primary studies described above were conducted.  The project is now in its fifth and final year of implementation (2007-2008 school year).  Schools in the Dallas site are continuing the study of virtual coaching, while schools in the Austin site are participating in the final phase of scaling up, in which the intervention implementation has been handed over almost entirely to the schools and the research team are training school personnel to be trainers and coaches to their own intervention teachers.

Publications

  • Denton, C.A., Swanson, E.A., & Mathes, P.G. (2007). Assessment-based instructional coaching provided to reading intervention teachers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 569-590.
  • Denton, C.A., & Hasbrouck, J. (in press).  A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation.
  • Denton, C.A., Mathes, P.G., Nimon, K., Swanson, E.A., Kurz, T., Hocker, J., & Shih, M. (manuscript in preparation).  Effectiveness of a First Grade Reading Intervention Scaled Up in Multiple Schools.
  • Denton, C.A., Kurz, T., Shih, M., & Mathes, P.G. (manuscript in preparation). The relationship between fidelity of intervention implementation and first grade struggling readers’ response to intervention.

Presentations

  • Denton, C.A., Hasbrouck, J., and Mathes, P.G. (February, 2005). Coaching provided to teachers of students placed at-risk and students with disabilities. Panel discussion presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
  • Denton, C.A., Swanson, E.A., Hocker, J., & Miller, S. (April, 2005). Tier-2 reading intervention programs in public schools: Researchers and teachers make it work. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children. Baltimore, MD.
  • Denton, C.A., Swanson, E., and Hocker, J. (May, 2005). The reading coach: Beyond observing in classrooms. A workshop in advanced coaching skills and techniques for coaches and principals. Presentation at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, San Antonio, TX.
  • Mathes, P.G., & Denton, C.A. (May, 2005). Scaling-up effective interventions for preventing reading difficulties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, San Antonio, TX.
  • Gersten, R., Bean, R., & Denton, C.A. (February, 2006). Research in coaching. Panel presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
  • Hasbrouck, J., & Denton, C.A. (April, 2006). Student-focused coaching: A new model for collaboration. Session presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children. Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Denton, C.A., & Shih, M. (February, 2007). Characteristics of high and low-progress schools in an early reading intervention scaled up in multiple contexts.  Panel presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference. San Diego, CA.
  • Denton, C.A., Swanson, E.A., Mathes, P.G., Jia, H.Y, & Shih, M. (April, 2007).  Student outcomes and response to “tier 2” reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
  • Denton, C.A., Mathes, P.M., & Shih, M. (July, 2007). The effects on student outcomes of coaching support provided to reading intervention teachers. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Prague, The Czech Republic.
  • Denton, C.A., Kurz, T., Shih, M., & Mathes, P.G. (March, 2008). The relationship between fidelity of intervention implementation and first grade struggling readers’ response to intervention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.

References

  • Denton, C.A., & Hocker, J.L. (2006). Responsive reading instruction: Flexible intervention for struggling readers in the early grades. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
  • Hasbrouck, J.E., & Denton, C.A. (2005). The reading coach: A how-to manual for success. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

  • Hasbrouck, J., & Denton, C.A. (2007). Student-focused coaching: A model for reading coaches. Reading Teacher, 60, 690-693.

  • Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148-182.
  • Mathes, P.G., & Torgesen, J. (2005). SRA early interventions in reading.  Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

For More Information

Terri Kurz, Ph.D., Project Coordinator
University of Texas at Austin
512-232-5579
tkurz@mail.utexas.edu

Finding the Right Information