Early Steps Intervention in Schools with Explicit Code Instruction

Is It Effective?

Does Isolated Phonological Awareness Instruction Increase Effectiveness?

University of Utah & Granite School District

Salt Lake City, UT

Kathleen J. Brown, Veronica Reynolds, Stacey Lowe, Debbie Skidmore,

Debbie Van Gorder, Sue Patillo,

Connie Weinstein, Julie World,

Amy Morris

Theoretical Framework Early Steps:

– repeated reading @ instructional level– systematic, isolated code instruction– writing-embedded PA instruction

Early Steps = effective for at-risk in G1 embedded or implicit code classrooms

(Morris, 1999; Morris, Tyner, & Perney, in press; Santa & Hoien, 1999

Theoretical Framework

Phonological Awareness (PA) is causally related to early reading success

PA instruction = important part of effective intervention

(Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes, 1987; Tunmer, Nesdale, & Harriman,1988)

Research Question

Is Early Steps effective for at-risk G1 students whose classroom instruction provides:

- sys. exp. decoding

- sys. exp. PA

- literature + decodable texts

- spelling dictation, and

- writing workshop?

Research Question

Once students are aware of initial phonemes,

Does isolated PA instruction make Early Steps more effective?

- Early Steps writing-embedded PAI = listening for sounds in sentence writing

- isolated PAI (strictly oral activities, no text involved)

Method

Students = 31% ethnic minority; 46% free lunch; 18% ESL

Tutors = G1 teachers, RS in training, grad students, Title I aides

Sept. 99-May 00

Method: Intervention Study

At-risk G1 students identified by scores on:– alphabet knowledge– phonological awareness via spelling task

Control group identified by matching baseline scores with tx group

Morris, 1992

Method: Intervention Study N=88 G1 students from 7 Title 1 schools

Early Steps Intervention– 30 min. daily, 1-on-1

Title I Intervention– 30-45 min. daily, small group– reinforce Open Court

Method: PAI study

Identified Early Steps students with “moderate alphabet knowledge” and “low PA”

matched on baseline scores

random assignment to conditions

Method: PAI study

N=24 Early Steps students

Embedded + Isolated PA Instruction– writing-embedded PA– PA isolated in oral activities

PA Control – writing-embedded PA only

Results: Intervention StudyEarlySteps

Control t p

Passage MReading SD

3.61.5

2.01.5

4.5180 .00002*

Woodcock MWord Attack SD

19.2a

9.012.2b

7.6 3.7049 .00039*

Woodcock MComprehension SD

17.6c

7.511.2d

5.2 4.3965 .00003*

No. Sessions M SD

97.617.7

135.7 14.1

-10.7724 .00000*

a = 73rd percentile b = 54th percentile

c = 47th percentile d = 27th percentile

Results: PAI Study

Embedded+

Isolated

EmbeddedControl

t p

Passage MReading SD

3.41.6

3.1.8

.5378 .5966

Woodcock MWord Attack SD

14.98.8

17.57.1

-.7405 .4675

Woodcock MComprehension SD

15.98.8

15.35.3

.1928 .8489

Spelling M SD

57.99.3

57.17.1

.2255 .8238

Discussion

Early Steps benefits at-risk G1 students receiving explicit code instruction as measured by:

– passage reading– word attack– comprehension – spelling

Discussion

Once Early Steps students are aware of initial phonemes, adding isolated PAI does not improve effectiveness

– “listening for sounds” during daily sentence writing may be sufficient