Matching Items (3)
Description
Children with dyslexia have difficulty learning to read. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the use of simultaneous multisensory structured language (multisensory) instruction promoted better letter name and sound production, word reading, and word spelling for second grade children with typical development (TD; N=6) or with dyslexia (DYS; N=5) than structured language instruction alone. The use of non-English graphemes (letters) to represent two pretend languages were used to control for children’s lexical knowledge.
A multiple baseline, multiple probe across subjects single-case design, paired with an alternating treatments design, was used to compare the efficacy of multisensory and structure language interventions. Participant’s graphed data was visually analyzed and individual Tau-U and weighted Tau-U effect sizes were calculated for the outcome variables: letter name production, letter sound production, word reading, and word spelling.
Both interventions had an overall effect for participants with TD and DYS, though for individual participants intervention effects varied across outcome variables. However, the multisensory intervention did not provide a clear advantage over the structured intervention for participants with TD or DYS.
A multiple baseline, multiple probe across subjects single-case design, paired with an alternating treatments design, was used to compare the efficacy of multisensory and structure language interventions. Participant’s graphed data was visually analyzed and individual Tau-U and weighted Tau-U effect sizes were calculated for the outcome variables: letter name production, letter sound production, word reading, and word spelling.
Both interventions had an overall effect for participants with TD and DYS, though for individual participants intervention effects varied across outcome variables. However, the multisensory intervention did not provide a clear advantage over the structured intervention for participants with TD or DYS.
ContributorsSchlesinger, Nora Werich (Author) / Gray, Shelley I (Thesis advisor) / Graham, Stephen (Committee member) / Marley, Scott (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
ABSTRACT
Due to variation that exists in providing Tier 2 reading intervention instruction, the purpose of the study was to identify processes and instructional strategies currently being utilized by K-2 teachers of the Gallup, New Mexico elementary schools. 17 teachers from 9 of the 10 elementary schools participated in the study. A survey instrument was designed and administered using Survey Monkey as the tool to collect the data on how teachers are implementing Tier 2 reading intervention instruction. Research Question 1 asked how teachers are currently implementing Tier 2 reading interventions as far as structure/processes, lesson planning, and collaboration. The highest percentages of teachers reported the following: one additional staff assisting grade level teachers, group sizes of 4-6 students, progress monitoring 6 or more times a year, using DIBELS scores for student placement, utilizing ability groups within the grade level with each having its own instructors, and instruction being provided 5 days a week for 30-35 minutes. Research Question 2 asked for teachers' opinions as to using available staff, instructions for benchmark students, and the amount and usefulness of meetings. A majority of teachers agreed to using all available staff, that accelerated learning opportunities are being provided to students performing at the benchmark level, and that meetings are occurring frequently and are useful. Research Question 3 inquired as to practices and processes teachers feel are effective as well as their recommendations for improving instruction and for professional development. Effective practices reported include: using phonics, decoding, and fluency; small group instruction; multi-sensory instruction or hands-on activities; Linda-Mood Bell programs; data analysis to group students; the Project Read program; word family/patterns; sight words; comprehension; materials and curriculum provided; and consistency with holding interventions daily. Though all reported feeling moderately to very confident in their ability to teach reading, they recommended that they learn more current, non-traditional strategies as well as receive more training in familiar approaches like ELL strategies, differentiated instruction, learning centers, and identifying reading difficulties. After a review of the data, the researcher recommends training teachers to conduct their own research to seek out strategies, programs, and resources; investing in and implementing an effective commercially produced Tier 2 program; and for teams to devote more time in developing, sharing, and revising lesson plans.
Due to variation that exists in providing Tier 2 reading intervention instruction, the purpose of the study was to identify processes and instructional strategies currently being utilized by K-2 teachers of the Gallup, New Mexico elementary schools. 17 teachers from 9 of the 10 elementary schools participated in the study. A survey instrument was designed and administered using Survey Monkey as the tool to collect the data on how teachers are implementing Tier 2 reading intervention instruction. Research Question 1 asked how teachers are currently implementing Tier 2 reading interventions as far as structure/processes, lesson planning, and collaboration. The highest percentages of teachers reported the following: one additional staff assisting grade level teachers, group sizes of 4-6 students, progress monitoring 6 or more times a year, using DIBELS scores for student placement, utilizing ability groups within the grade level with each having its own instructors, and instruction being provided 5 days a week for 30-35 minutes. Research Question 2 asked for teachers' opinions as to using available staff, instructions for benchmark students, and the amount and usefulness of meetings. A majority of teachers agreed to using all available staff, that accelerated learning opportunities are being provided to students performing at the benchmark level, and that meetings are occurring frequently and are useful. Research Question 3 inquired as to practices and processes teachers feel are effective as well as their recommendations for improving instruction and for professional development. Effective practices reported include: using phonics, decoding, and fluency; small group instruction; multi-sensory instruction or hands-on activities; Linda-Mood Bell programs; data analysis to group students; the Project Read program; word family/patterns; sight words; comprehension; materials and curriculum provided; and consistency with holding interventions daily. Though all reported feeling moderately to very confident in their ability to teach reading, they recommended that they learn more current, non-traditional strategies as well as receive more training in familiar approaches like ELL strategies, differentiated instruction, learning centers, and identifying reading difficulties. After a review of the data, the researcher recommends training teachers to conduct their own research to seek out strategies, programs, and resources; investing in and implementing an effective commercially produced Tier 2 program; and for teams to devote more time in developing, sharing, and revising lesson plans.
ContributorsAllison, Tamara Alice (Author) / Appleton, Nicholas (Thesis advisor) / Spencer, Dee (Committee member) / Hotchkiss, Margaret (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
How hard should the books be in elementary small-group reading? This study explored text difficulty for bilingual students reading below grade level in third grade. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, I used qualitative methods to analyze students’ engagement and discussion during small groups and single case design to evaluate students’ fluency and reading comprehension after reading and discussing texts in small groups.
Six Spanish-English bilingual students, split into two groups of three, participated in twelve, 30-minute, small-group reading sessions. Students in Group 1 read approximately one year below grade level, and students in Group 2 read approximately a year and a half below grade level. In six of the twelve sessions, students read and discussed texts matched to their reading levels, and in the other six they read and discussed texts one year ahead of their reading levels. I assigned matched and difficult texts across the twelve days by blocked randomization.
I analyzed video transcripts of each session to understand students’ engagement (focus of engagement, strategies, and interaction) and discussion (inferential vs. literal responses, instances of verbal participation). At the end of each session, students reread and retold the book the group had read and discussed that day to produce a fluency (words correct per minute) and comprehension (ideas correctly retold) score.
Findings were complex and revealed that different levels of texts have both advantages and drawbacks. Key findings included: For fluency, half of the students benefited from matched texts. The other half read difficult texts with similar fluency to matched texts. For comprehension, text difficulty did not matter for anyone except one student, and for him it only had an effect on 3 of 12 days. Group 2 engaged much more with texts and ideas in difficult books and with pictures in matched books. Group 1 had more inferential/interpretive responses with matched texts, and Group 2 had more inferential and interpretive responses with difficult texts. Most students participated evenly regardless of the difficulty of the text under discussion. However, two students talked more when discussing matched texts.
Six Spanish-English bilingual students, split into two groups of three, participated in twelve, 30-minute, small-group reading sessions. Students in Group 1 read approximately one year below grade level, and students in Group 2 read approximately a year and a half below grade level. In six of the twelve sessions, students read and discussed texts matched to their reading levels, and in the other six they read and discussed texts one year ahead of their reading levels. I assigned matched and difficult texts across the twelve days by blocked randomization.
I analyzed video transcripts of each session to understand students’ engagement (focus of engagement, strategies, and interaction) and discussion (inferential vs. literal responses, instances of verbal participation). At the end of each session, students reread and retold the book the group had read and discussed that day to produce a fluency (words correct per minute) and comprehension (ideas correctly retold) score.
Findings were complex and revealed that different levels of texts have both advantages and drawbacks. Key findings included: For fluency, half of the students benefited from matched texts. The other half read difficult texts with similar fluency to matched texts. For comprehension, text difficulty did not matter for anyone except one student, and for him it only had an effect on 3 of 12 days. Group 2 engaged much more with texts and ideas in difficult books and with pictures in matched books. Group 1 had more inferential/interpretive responses with matched texts, and Group 2 had more inferential and interpretive responses with difficult texts. Most students participated evenly regardless of the difficulty of the text under discussion. However, two students talked more when discussing matched texts.
ContributorsKelly, Laura Beth (Author) / Jimenez-Silva, Margarita (Thesis advisor) / Moses, Lindsey (Thesis advisor) / Restrepo, Laida (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018