Group+One+March+12

Group One: Melissa B. Christine, Amy, Melissa P., Meghan

**Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta (1998) Discussion**
The literature review set up the foundation for the current study including 1) the critical importance of early intervention, 2) pull out remediation programs for early grades are ineffective, 3) there are effective models for effective classroom reading instruction, and 4) no one has attempted to isolate the individual components of effective instruction. The purpose of this study was to determine if DC instruction was more effective than EC or IC. They expected that children who received DC would improve more than those receiving other types of instruction.
 * I. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY**


 * II. CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH METHODS**
 * __Method used__:Quasi-experimental
 * __Participants, how selected, and demographics__: 285 children in first and second grades eligible for services under Title 1 funding in an urban school district. School participation was determined by principal and teacher willingness ergo the 'quasi'
 * __Independent variables__: Type of curriculum-specifically its degree of explicitness in alphabetic code instruction and phonological processing. IC-S=implicit code standard, IC-R=implicit code research, EC= embedded code, DC=direct code.
 * __Dependent measures-are they operationalized, reliable, treatment fidelity__: Growth in word reading in children at risk for reading failure traditionally served in Title 1 programs (bottom of p. 38). Economic disadvantage was operationally defined as percentage of children participating in the federal lunch program. (but poverty was not a dependent var., right? IOW it did not change) Also low achievement was defined by the school district as scores on the district's emergent literacy survey in the bottom quartile. This study included the lowest 18% due to lack of tutoring funds (p. 39). Instructional groups did not differ in age, gender, or ethnicity. Treatment fidelity was monitored with a checklist based on observations as well as through lesson plans. Teacher attitudes were assessed with 5 likert-type questions. Student growth was assessed 4 times through the year with the PPVT to assess vocabulary, 50 word cards read by each student for a word reading assessment, Letter Word and Word Attack subsets of the Woodcock Johnson were given for reading skills, and the Torgesen-Wagner battery was given to assess phonological processing. (super operationalized IOW) Also, end of year achievement/intellectual testing was done. In addition to cognitive growth, school attendance data, self-esteem, behavior, and experience were measured for students. Explicit (:-)) description of threats to validity, i.e. lack of tutorial mismatch condition for IC-S and IC-R groups, including the 4 outlier 0% compliant teachers..)


 * III. CRITIQUE OF DATA ANALYSIS**
 * The researchers made visits to the school. Checklists were used for monitoring, along with lesson plans from the teachers. They used growth curves to monitor changes in phonological processing, word reading, and vocabulary. They used Hierarchical Linear Models to determine individual growth. They nested the data for time, student, and teacher. They also used measures to limit Type 1 error. The approaches were appropriate to determine statistical significance of the teaching techniques. The researchers determined effects of tutoring, compliance, and attitudes. Very transparent/explicit description of potential threats/issues to the results (i.e loss of initial assignment ratios due to behavior issues causing regrouping, explanation of why outliers were retained in teacher data) also added variable control as they encountered new needs via data analysis (i.e. issue of age vs. grade was a threat to validity, so they added control for age effects) All of this control was used to specifically isolate the instructional treatments to answer the research question. **

DC students improved in word reading rates. There was no difference in spelling abilities between the groups. I found the discussion about not knowing what will happen in the long run with these students to be interesting, especially given that students who received IC instruction had better attitudes toward reading. It seemed to me they reached a valid conclusion that early intervention makes a difference for at-risk students. Outcomes were tied to prior research regarding the importance of early intervention and findings were explicitly described control by control (i.e. word-reading, alphabetic principle, behavior, teacher attitudes, time - onset, midterm, end year). In addition to the comment regarding long term follow up, future research was indicated and even described by potential design for determining the possible effect of scriptedness in the DC treatment and since this study did not control for teacher/student ratio future research is indicated in the area of the benefits of matching tutorial content to classroom instruction. One other area mentioned for future investigation was the sequence on instructional methods and the duration of the various types of instruction may be related to their effects (EC may take longer whereas DC garners earlier results). The discussion also noted potential weakness in terms of the uncontrolled variable of the inherent print rich environment/literature component throughout the district schools involved in the study.
 * IV. CRITIQUE OF DISCUSSION**

**The researchers never said that this was an evaluation of Reading First; however it felt like one from the summer training of the teachers on DC, to the 90 minute reading block, to the monitors checking for "fidelity to the core" (RF mantra), to the use of Open Court. If that is the case, then there is a whole area of bias not addressed by the researchers.**
 * V. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS (QUESTIONS/CONFUSIONS??)**

**How does one know what to include/comment on as having "no effect" (e.g., The report says there were "no effects of student-teacher ratio or nature of content in the tutoring component" (p. 51-52).) How would you know that that particular aspect of this study might be questioned, therefore you addressed it?** **I know that the IC constructivist approach used in the district was 'thrown a bone' of possible long term merit and that there is a 'no generalizability' disclaimer towards the end of the Discussion section; however, these findings sure seem to indicate that direct instruction is superior to the notion of student-centered student-centered learning??**
 * Was using the unseen control necessary? It seems as if they had the information about the type of instruction happening in the unseen control, they could have made a stronger argument. The control group seemed odd to me too since it was repeatedly referred to as "tough." It had perceived behavior and academic problems. I would think it would be more beneficial to match the schools to a control who had similar environments. **
 * The title of the article says "Role of Instruction in Learning to Read" but it seems they proved the role of instruction in learning to decode. Comprehension did not significantly improve for any group, although the author points out the DC group's higher mean score on the Comprehension Passage. **