Improving Literacy Instruction for Adults

1
Improving Literacy Instruction for Adults
Funded through the National Institute for
Literacy, USDE Office of Vocational and Adult
Education, and the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (RO1HD43775)

• International Reading Association
• May 4, 2004 Reno, NV

2
Project Staff

• Daryl Mellard, University of Kansas, Principal
  Investigator
• Robin Gingerich, University of Kansas, Project
  Coordinator
• Hugh Catts, University of Kansas, Intervention
  Planning
• Don Deshler, University of Kansas, Intervention
  Planning
• Michael Hock, University of Kansas, Intervention
  Planning and Training
• Doren Frederickson, University of Kansas, School
  of Medicine, Epidemiologist
• Margaret Patterson, University of Kansas, Site
  Coordinator
• John Poggio, University of Kansas,
  Methodologist/Psychometry
• Nona Tollefson, University of Kansas,
  Methodologist/Statistician
• Amy Barth, University of Kansas, Graduate
  Research Assistant
• Paula Lancaster, Grand Valley State University,
  Subcontractor-Intervention Planning and Training
• Lynn Fuchs, Vanderbilt University,
  Consultant-Intervention Planning
• John Strucker, Harvard University,
  Consultant-Literacy Intervention Planning
• Joseph Torgesen, Florida State University,
  Consultant-Intervention Planning

3
Adult Education Sites

• Highland Community College (Atchison)
• Lawrence USD
• Topeka Lets Help
• Wichita USD
• Allen County Community College
• Johnson County Community College

• Kansas City Kansas Community College
• Paola USD
• Flint Hill Technical College
• Ottawa USD
• Topeka USD (KATS)
• University of Saint Mary Outfront, Leavenworth

4
Aims

• Aim 1. Determine the literacy requirements of
  commonly used adult literacy outcome measures.
• Aim 2. Determine if interventions with proven
  benefit to children and youth are efficacious
  with adult learners under optimal conditions.
• Aim 3. Determine the effectiveness of those
  reading literacy interventions developed in Aim 2
  when applied in typical adult literacy settings.

5
The Big Picture.
Professional Development
Word Identification
Fluency
Comprehension
Instruction
6
Aim 1

• Determine the literacy requirements of commonly
  used adult literacy outcome measures.
• Rationale Interventions are designed to improve
  specific reading components and to achieve
  specified outcomes. We want to ensure that we
  understand the contribution of reading components
  to literacy outcomes and that our interventions
  have real-world adult literacy applications.

7
Content Analysis of AE measures

• Based on a content analysis of the literacy
  outcome measures, what strategic reading
  comprehension interventions best match the
  requirements assessed by these outcome measures?

8
Outcome Measures

• Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System
  (CASAS) reading test Level C advanced basic
  skills
• National Assessment of Educational Progress
  selected passages (1990 8th grade reading)
• Practice test for General Education Development
  (GED)Language Arts reading exam (Contemporary
  Press)

9
Table 1 AIM 1.2 Content Analysis Results
Scorer Agreement
Top Strategies Selected CASAS 1st Choice
2nd Choice 1st Choice 2nd
Choice Level A, 611 Level A, 612 Level B,
613 Level B, 614 Level C, 615 Level C,
616 Level D, 17 Level D, 18 GED NAEP
10
CASAS Level A

• Read the following job ad to answer the next
  question.
• WAITRESS
• MUST BE 21
• APPLY IN PERSON
• 3-5 P.M.
• 421 18TH AVENUE

• 17. How do you apply for this job?
• Write a letter.
• Telephone
• Go to 421 18th Ave.
• Send a friend.

11
CASAS Frequency Analysis (A,B,C)

• 70 to 100 of the items require the reader to
  Look for Clues in the passage
• At what phone number can Pat be reached?
• Where are the plastic bags for bagging
  contaminated articles?
• 74 to 88 of the items require the reader to
  Generate Questions
• Whose address is in the upper right hand
  corner?
• What is the maximum number of teaspoonfuls an
  eight-year old can receive daily?

12
CASAS Frequency Analysis (D)

• 67 of the items require the reader to Look for
  Clues in the passage
• Which worker has stayed home with the flu?
• 64 of the items require the reader to Generate
  Questions
• Which step of the instructions explains where to
  send the completed form?
• 13 of the items require the reader to Draw an
  Inference
• Based upon the information, why does the
  selection criteria seem important?

13
GED Content Analysis
Loitering with a vacant eye Along the Grecian
gallery, And brooding on my heavy ill, I met a
statue standing still. Still in marble stone
stood he, And steadfastly, he looked at me. Well
met, I thought the look would say. We both were
fashioned far away We neither knew, when we were
young, These Londoners we live among. A.E.
Housman, 1896

• 2. Why does the speaker feel the way he does at
  the beginning of the poem?
• He is far from home and feels out of place.
• He is in very poor health.
• He feels oppressed by the crowds of people in
  London.
• He has nothing to do?
• He is saddened by the fact that the statue is
  unhappier than he is.

14
GED Frequency Analysis

• 1 of 20 items (5) require the reader to Find the
  Main Idea
• What is this paragraph primarily about?
• 14 of 20 items (70) require the reader to
  Summarize
• Which statement best summarizes what the reader
  learns from the passage?
• 17 of 20 items (85) require the reader to Draw
  an Inference
• Which of the following best describes the tone
  of the letter?

15
What else did we observe?

• Multiple strategies are needed
• Learners must be able to self-regulate reading
  behavior and strategy usage
• The outcome measures measure different skills and
  strategies
• The reader must be test-wise!

16
Learning Strategies That Improve Comprehension on
Outcome Measures

• Literature SIM
• Using Clues SQ-VI-MP
• Generating Questions Self-questioning
• Summarizing Paraphrasing
• Draw Inferences Build
• In all strategies?
• Task specific?
• Both?
• Issue What is the best way to build a draw
  inferences strategy?

17
Description of Interventions

• The Bridging Strategy (Phonological processing
  and word analysis)
• Fluency (Repeated reading)
• Reading Comprehension
• Paraphrasing/Summarization Strategy
• Self-Questioning
• Draw Inferences

18
2. AE Learner Reading Skills

• How is performance on recognized components of
  reading related to adult literacy outcome
  measures?
• Reading Components
• Alphabetics
• Reading fluency
• Vocabulary
• Reading comprehension

19
Procedures

• Three hundred AE enrollees
• Background questionnaire
• Battery of twelve predictors of reading
  proficiency
• Three outcome measures
• Significant barriers Mobility, limited number of
  levels 1 - 2, summer!

20
Reading Predictors

• Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
  Elision, Rapid Color Naming Rapid Letter
  Naming
• WRMT-R Word Attack subtest
• WRMT-R Word Identification subtest
• WRMT-R Word Comprehension subtest
• WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest
• Test of Word Reading Efficiency Sight word
  Phonemic decoding
• Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency
• Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals
• Gray Oral Reading Test - III
• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III
• WAIS-III Information, Vocabulary Block Design
  subtests
• Woodcock-Johnson III Story Recall Auditory
  Working Memory

21
Outcome Measures

• Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System
  (CASAS) reading test Level C advanced basic
  skills
• National Assessment of Educational Progress
  selected passages (1990 8th grade reading)
• Practice test for General Education Development
  (GED)Language Arts reading exam

22
Sample Characteristics (n 182)(DRAFT Initial
findings)
Placement Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total N
4 3 35 43 45 53 182
Age (Yrs) Mean 46 50 37 28 25 27 29 Median 47 40 3
4 23 21 22 30 WAIS Deviation Quotient Mean 64 68
75 80 84 94 84 Min 53 59 57 65 67 75 Max 71 76 10
0 104 108 120
23
Reading Measure Performance (DRAFT Initial
findings)
Placement Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total N
4 3 35 43 45 52 179
WRMT Word Id Mean SS 51 58 64 72 82 90 G.E. 2.2 2.
7 4.2 4.9 6.9 8.8 WRMT Passage
Comprehension Mean SS 41 45 62 74 81 95 G.E. 1.8 1
.9 3.4 5.0 6.4 9.6
24
Correlations of Interest
GED NAEP Lit RS Rdg RS

• CASAS Rdg RS .506 .746
• GED Literature -- .510

25
Best Predictors (DRAFT Initial findings)
R2 .66

• CASAS Rdg (.36) GORT Total Comprehension
  (-.33) GORT Total Rate (.30) Reading Fluency
  Passage Words correct (.19) WRMT Pass comp
  (.17) WJ Aud Working Memory (.17) WAIS IQ
  (.18) TOSWRF A
• GED Literature (.54) WAIS Vocabulary (.19)
  TOWRE Sight word (.18) WJ Aud Working Memory
• NAEP Rdg (.28) RFP Words correct (.25) GORT
  Fluency (.22) WAIS vocabulary (.15) CELF
  Total raw score (.13) WAIS block design

.44
.62
26
Preliminary FindingsBest Predictors (Level 5 6
only)
R2 .46

• CASAS Rdg (.35) WRMT Passage comprehension
  (.28) WJ Auditory Working Memory (.20) TOWRE
  Phonemic Decoding
• GED Literature (.54) WAIS vocabulary (.19)
  TOWRE Sight word (.18) WJ Auditory Working
  Memory
• NAEP Rdg (.43) WRMT Passage comprehension
  (.27) GORT Fluency (.25) WJ Story Recall

.44
.61
27
So What Implications for Instruction

• Learners ability range is significant.
• Learners in ABE levels show a trend toward
  lowest ability levels.
• Learners need explicit, frequent instruction
  engagement specific skill goals progress
  measures
• Increasing skills for GED reading is more
  difficult than for CASAS reading.
• Teaching to the test (any outcome) is important.
• Program administrators increasing their
  involvement in checking instructional fidelity.

28
Aim 2

• Determine if interventions with proven benefit to
  children and youth are efficacious with adult
  learners under optimal conditions.
• Rationale Researching the efficacy of specific
  reading component interventions requires
  carefully controlled application. These
  intervention studies provide a test of the
  interventions and cumulative contribution to
  literacy outcomes.

29
Aim 3

• Determine the effectiveness of those reading
  literacy interventions developed in Aim 2 when
  applied in typical adult literacy settings.
• Rationale Not everyone is successful in an AE
  program. Not every research-proven intervention
  is effective in typical application. Not every
  adult education program achieves the same degree
  of success with its learners. We will research
  the relationship of learner and program
  characteristics and the fidelity with which
  proven interventions are implemented to learners
  outcomes.

30
Aim 3.1 Program-Level Analysis Simplified Model
of Influences

• Final model will consider small number of factors
  that are most closely related to learning gains
• Model for FY01 will be applied for more recent
  years

31
Aim 3 Intervention StudiesResearch to Practice

• 3.2 What learner characteristics need to be
  considered in designing efficacious interventions
  for enhancing adult literacy performance?
• 3.3 Are interventions shown to be efficacious
  under optimal conditions also effective in
  typical literacy settings?
• 3.4 Can these interventions be delivered with
  fidelity in typical adult literacy settings?

32
Thank You!

• Contact information
• Ms. Robin Gingerich Robingin_at_ku.edu
• University of Kansas
• 1122 West Campus Road, Room 517
• Lawrence, KS 66045
• 785-864-2591
• Margaret Patterson 785 864 7089 MPatters_at_KU.edu
• Mike Hock 785 864 0567 MHock_at_KU.edu
• Daryl Mellard 785 864 7081 DMellard_at_KU.edu