Purpose and Literature Review

1
Research on Characteristics of Early Reading
Text and Implications for Practice

Independent Practice of Multiple Criteria Text

TEXTS Teaching Expository Text Structures

• Purpose
• Examined the impact of independent practice of
  multiple criteria text that targeted high
  frequency words, decodability, and meaningfulness
  
• Methodology
• Second grade students random assignment to
  treatment or contrast group within classrooms
• During daily 30-minute independent reading time
  for 10 weeks
• Treatment group (n 34) read multiple-criteria
  text
• Contrast group (n 28) that read authentic
  literature
• Treatment group text multiple-criteria text
  designed to target high-frequency words (both
  decodable and irregular words), decodability, and
  meaningfulness students were given a placement
  test to assign them to one of four levels of text
• Contrast group text authentic literature from
  the classroom or school library that was in the
  range of the students reading level
• Pre-post test Test of Word Reading Efficiency
  (TOWRE Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, 1999)
  Sight Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding
  Efficiency subtests
• Progress monitoring every two weeks Dynamic
  Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
  (DIBELS Good Kaminski, 2002) Nonsense Word
  Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency
• Students categorized as developing or
  advanced decoders for analysis based on
  performance on the TOWRE Phonemic Decoding
  Efficiency test
• Results
• No statistically significant differences on
  t-tests when comparing all treatment students to
  all contrast students
• Moderate effect size of .67 on pre-post analysis
  of TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency for developing
  decoders
• HLM model of best fit revealed significant impact
  of treatment on NWF for students who began the
  study as developing decoders
• Discussion
• Preliminary evidence that practice with
  multiple-criteria text may be more effective than
  practice with authentic literature for developing
  decoders
• Minimal intervention just changed text read
  during pre-existing reading time

• Purpose and Literature Review
• To teach children the structure of expository
  text and the associated clue words
• Found no empirical studies with kindergarten or
  first grade or that focused on sequence
• Found 1 study with 2nd grade students trained in
  cause and effect (Hall, Sabey McClellan, 2005
  Reutzel, Smith, Fawson, 2005 Williams et al.,
  2005, 2009).
• Methodology
• K-2 students (qualified on standard score of lt100
  on WJ-III Passage Comprehension (Woodcock,
  McGrew, Mather, 2006) and lt50 correct on
  researcher-made multiple choice text structure
  screener
• Intervention 20-minute lessons 4 days/week in
  small groups
• (1) Sequencing uses numerical or chronological
  order to list items or events
• (2) Compare/Contrast compares and contrasts two
  or more similar things
• (3) Cause and Effect delineates one or more
  causes and then describes the ensuing effects
• Lesson Structure followed a scripted direct
  instruction format
• Explicit Teaching Read text, teach clue words,
  link to graphic organizer
• Guided Practice Teacher and children read the
  text, identify clue words, complete individual
  graphic organizers, and orally retell the story
• Independent Practice Kindergartners use pictures
  to follow graphic organizer and orally retell
  story using clue words. 1st and 2nd graders
  create their own graphic organizer and retell the
  story using clue words
• Pre/Post Proximal Unit Test
• 1) Identification of clue words from an
  expository story
• 2) Oral recall of clue words without looking at
  the story
• 3) Multiple choice questions/text structure
  questions about an expository story
• Pre/Post Distal WJ-III Oral Language Listening
  Comprehension Understanding Directions Oral
  Comprehension

Jill Allor, Ed. D. Stephanie Al Otaiba, Ph.
D. Jennifer Cheatham, Ph. D. Southern Methodist
University jallor_at_smu.edu www.JillAllor.com Downlo
ad books at www.EducationInspired.com
Abstract
This presentation describes evidence from two
randomized control trial studies examining the
influence of early reading text types for
struggling and at-risk readers. The first study
examined the impact of independent practice of
multiple criteria text targeting high-frequency
words, decodability, and meaningfulness with
second graders. The second study focused on
expository text instruction with kindergarten
through second graders, examining the impact of
directly teaching students about text structure.
Implications for practice are provided.
Level 1 Reader Example Page
Lesson Plan
Logic Model
Reading Comprehension
Level 2 Reader Example Page
Oral Language and Listening Comprehension
Word Reading
Results
Proximal Unit Test Multiple Choice Assessment
Kindergarten Seq Condition Seq Condition Seq Condition CE Condition CE Condition CE Condition CC Condition CC Condition CC Condition
T p value es T p value es T p value es
C/C Items 0.00 1.00 0.00 -0.32 0.75 -0.11 9.90 0.00 2.76
C/E Items 1.58 0.14 0.62 6.89 0.00 2.02 2.18 0.04 0.73
S Items 5.93 0.00 1.79 1.76 0.10 0.61 0.90 0.38 0.31
First Grade                  
C/C Items 0.37 0.72 0.11 0.00 1.00 0.00 8.51 0.00 2.61
C/E Items 0.57 0.58 0.15 5.63 0.00 1.46 0.44 0.67 0.14
S Items 4.42 0.00 1.44 0.62 0.54 0.12 2.03 0.06 0.58
Second Grade                  
C/C Items 1.76 0.10 0.61 0.00 1.00 0.00 5.75 0.00 1.53
C/E Items 1.59 0.13 0.58 3.20 0.00 1.24 0.93 0.37 0.29
S Items 0.77 0.45 0.26 1.92 0.07 0.64 1.00 0.33 0.31

• Students read/hear an expository story within
  their condition.
• They are asked to answer a series of multiple
  choice questions. Questions are written to test
  knowledge across conditions.

Text Structure Knowledge
Causal Connectives Clue words
2nd Grade Text Sample Text
The Two Boys (same/different)
Level 3 Reader Example Page

• This is a story about how two boys are the same
  and different.
• Both boys have black curly hair. This is the
  same.
• One boy has a red collar, but the other boy does
  not. This is different.

Distal Assessments Pre/Post

• WJ-III Oral Language
• WJ-III Listening Comprehension
• WJ-III Oral Comprehension

Kindergarten Seq Condition Seq Condition Seq Condition CE Condition CE Condition CE Condition CC Condition CC Condition CC Condition
T p value es T p value es T p value es
WJ Oral Lang 3.91 0.00 0.74 4.38 0.00 0.74 6.67 0.00 1.17
WJ List Comp 3.51 0.00 0.35 2.71 0.02 0.52 4.84 0.00 0.67
WJ Oral Comp 2.46 0.03 0.40 2.32 0.03 0.53 2.64 0.02 0.53
First Grade                  
WJ Oral Lang 6.90 0.00 1.15 5.27 0.00 1.22 5.21 0.00 1.00
WJ List Comp 2.38 0.03 0.43 3.46 0.00 0.70 4.07 0.00 0.55
WJ Oral Comp 1.01 0.33 0.21 3.44 0.00 0.73 2.40 0.03 0.47
Second Grade                  
WJ Oral Lang 3.11 0.01 0.76 2.50 0.02 0.73 2.40 0.03 0.44
WJ List Comp 2.03 0.06 0.55 2.57 0.02 0.65 0.99 0.34 0.19
WJ Oral Comp 1.83 0.09 0.47 1.48 0.16 0.46 1.00 0.33 0.26
Visual Examples Day 1 and 2

• Use graphic organizer to demonstrate the text
  structure

Multiple Criteria Text Characteristics
Level 4 Reader Example Page

• 50 Books written for the study
• Systematically introduced irregular
  high-frequency words
• Maximized the use of words that were both
  regularly spelled and high frequency, while
  avoiding low frequency words that were likely to
  be unfamiliar to students
• Natural use of language
• Used content words comprised of either irregular
  or advanced decoding patterns with icons
  underneath the words to provide scaffolding
• Several instructional design principles within
  the text varied sentence structure, included
  discriminant words, repeated common words, and
  provided cumulative practice

• Discussion
• Preliminary evidence that students mastered the
  text structures taught with large effect sizes on
  word identification and oral recall of clue words
  and on multiple choice questions (except
  sequencing in 2nd grade).
• Across conditions, students in K and 1 made
  significant growth on all measures students in 2
  made significant growth on oral language.
• Teachers and interventionists were highly
  positive about the content of intervention,
  feasibility, and their perceptions of childrens
  engagement, response, and learning.

Acknowledgments Support for carrying out this research was provided in part by grants R324A130102 and R305F100027 from the Institute of Education Sciences. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and have not been reviewed or approved by the granting agencies.