PAWS Together: An Investigation of a Combined Reading and Writing Intervention

(1)

By Sally K. Fluhler

Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in

Special Education

May 12, 2023 Nashville, Tennessee

Approved:

Jeanne Wanzek, Ph.D.

Chris Lemons, Ph.D.

Marcia Barnes, Ph.D.

Jennifer Ledford, Ph.D.

Kris Preacher, Ph.D.

(2)

ii

(3)

iii

REFERENCES ... 160

(5)

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Participant Demographic Information ... 67 2. Participant Lesson Set Details ... 68 3. Participant Pre-Post Reading Measures ... 70

(6)

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Sample Data for One Participant within a Multiple-Probe Across Behaviors

Research Design ... 71 2. Data Collection Procedures ... 72 3. Example iPAWS Probe Rotation within Tier 1 ... 73

(7)

1 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Education has focused on improving literacy for decades; educational and research efforts have focused on improving reading instruction and intervention for children with and/or at-risk for disabilities. The National Center for Education Research has invested more than $231 million in literacy related research projects between 2002-2020 and The National Center for Special Education Research has invested more than $74 million in these research efforts since 2006. These awards funded literacy research in kindergarten through grade 12, with the primary grades typically being a target for reading intervention research. Primary grades tend to be the focus of reading intervention research due to the need for and importance of early intervening.

Early intervening can prevent substantial reading difficulties from developing and reduce potentially inappropriate referrals for special education services for learning disabilities (Al Otaiba et al., 2009; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2011). Additionally, if students continue to struggle with reading throughout elementary school will eventually struggle in other academic areas as well (Mastropieri et al., 2003; Solis et al., 2014). As students progress through school, there is an increased emphasis on reading comprehension and understanding course content through reading (Klingner et al., 1998; Scammacca et al., 2015).

Early Readers with Reading Difficulties

Students who have reading difficulties at the end of first grade are at risk for remaining a student with reading difficulties throughout school (Juel, 1988; Francis et al., 1996; Torgesen &

(8)

2

Burgess, 1998; McNamara et al., 2011). Early intervening can help mitigate these reading difficulties, especially when early reading interventions are implemented in kindergarten and/or first grade (Connor et al., 2013; O’Connor et al., 2014). Al Otaiba et al. (2014) compared the efficacy of two models of response to intervention (RTI) with first grade with reading

difficulties; the typical implementation of RTI using decision rules to assess response to Tier 1 instruction and the other provided Tier 2 to 3 interventions immediately according to the student’s initial screening assessment data. The authors found that the students with reading difficulties who were provided immediate intervention not only had significantly higher reading performance than students in the typical RTI condition but showed an immediate score

advantage. These findings underline the importance of providing reading interventions in primary grades.

Wanzek et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. The meta-analysis included intensive early reading interventions for students with reading difficulties in kindergarten through grade 3 published between 2006 and 2015. Wanzek et al. (2018) included 25 studies in their analysis and the majority of the studies included in the review focused on kindergarten or first grade (k = 24). The majority of the interventions included reading instruction components of phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency. The authors found that the overall weighted mean effect size estimate (Hedges’ g) was 0.39 and was significantly different from 0. This finding indicates that intensive early reading interventions had positive reading outcomes for students with reading difficulties in kindergarten through grade 3.

In another set of meta-analyses, Wanzek et al. (2015) examined Tier 2 type reading interventions for a similar student population: students with reading difficulties in kindergarten

(9)

3

through grade 3. These analyses differ from the previously described meta-analysis by evaluating the effects of less extensive reading interventions. These less extensive reading interventions were provided for 15 to 99 sessions for a minimum of 5 weeks. Wanzek et al. (2015) conducted four meta-analyses of Tier 2 type reading interventions; effects on foundational reading skills on standardized measures, foundational reading skills on not-standardized measures,

language/comprehension skills on standardized measures, and language/comprehension skills on not-standardized measures. Foundational reading skills included measures of phonemic

awareness, phonics, word recognition, and fluency. Not-standardized measures included

intervention or researcher-developed measures. The authors found 72 studies to include in their analyses. The mean effect size (Hedges’ g) for foundational reading skills on standardized measures was 0.49 and on not-standardized measures was 0.62. Both indicating a moderate positive, and statistically significant effect of the Tier 2 type reading interventions. The mean effect size (Hedges’ g) for language/comprehension skills on standardized measures was 0.36, a small to moderate positive effect, and on not-standardized measures was 1.02, indicating a large positive effect of the Tier 2 type reading interventions on comprehension. Similar to Wanzek et al. (2018), Wanzek et al. (2015) found that the majority of the included studies focused on the kindergarten/first grade student population. These findings indicate that Tier 2 type early reading interventions also have positive effects on foundational reading skills, language, and

comprehension skills on either standardized and not-standardized measures. These syntheses are important because of the frequent implementation of Tier 2 type reading interventions, and contribute to the practice of effective early intervening; helping students with reading difficulties before they need more intensive reading interventions.

(10)

4

A recent meta-analysis by Denton et al. (2020), examined the effects of foundational skills and multicomponent reading interventions on reading comprehension for students with reading difficulties in kindergarten through grade 3. This synthesis adds to the previous reviews discussed due to the focus on reading comprehension. Targeting foundational reading skills are important for word reading development, and ultimately reading comprehension. A total of 47 studies (30 studies included participants in kindergarten or first grade only) were included in this analysis with a weighted average effect size estimate (Hedges’ g) of 0.37 for non-referenced reading comprehension outcomes. This indicates a positive effect of primary grade reading interventions on reading comprehension for students with reading difficulties in kindergarten through grade 3. The authors also found that effects were not moderated by intervention type;

interventions that either did or did not include comprehension instruction in addition to foundational reading skill instruction. This could indicate that interventions for students with reading difficulties in foundational reading skills can focus instruction on building and

supporting foundational reading skills and fluency, while still effecting reading comprehension.

Connections Between Reading and Writing

Literacy combines both reading and writing. For example, when students start learning the foundational reading skill letter-sound correspondence, students work on learning how the letter sounds, how the letter looks and eventually how to write the letter itself. The alphabetic principle, the understanding that words are composed of letters that represent sounds and knowledge of letter-sound correspondence to pronounce unknown printed strings of letters in words, is important for both the decoding and encoding of words (Abbott et al., 2010). When reading skills become more advanced, writing about text should facilitate comprehension of text

(11)

5

(Graham & Hebert, 2011). Research shows that there is a link between reading and writing; both at the word and text level (Berninger et al., 2002; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Kang et al., 2016).

Shanahan & Lomax (1988) suggested that a theoretical interactive model between reading and writing and found their model to be valid with beginning reader data, which would imply that reading and writing influence each other. Ahmed et al. (2014) found strong correlations between reading and writing at the word level (r = .72) in first-grade children with decoding highly correlated with spelling. These findings converged with Abbott et al.’s (2010) findings investigating the longitudinal paths between word reading and spelling. Authors found that spelling and word reading had a significant reciprocal longitudinal relationship from grades 2 to 7, and a significant relationship at Grade 1 when handwriting was also included in the model.

Kim et al. (2014) also found that not only were word reading and spelling highly related in kindergarten, but were both predictive of writing achievement in third grade.

Graham et al. (2018a) conducted a meta-analysis that examined the impact of reading interventions on students’ writing performance from preschool to grade 12. The authors found 54 studies to be included in their overall analysis of the impact of reading interventions on students’

writing performance. Most of the interventions focused on teaching phonological awareness (k = 20) and phonics (k = 14), with the majority of the included studies focusing on elementary aged student populations (kindergarten to grade 6). Graham et al. (2018a) found a statistically

significant effect size estimate (Hedges’ g) of 0.57 on overall measures of writing. The authors also analyzed the effects on specific writing outcomes such as writing quality (Hedges’ g = 0.63), words written (Hedges’ g = 0.37), and spelling (Hedges’ g = 0.56). Another important finding from Graham et al.’s (2018a) meta-analysis is that the effects of reading interventions on writing maintained over time with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.37. These findings suggest that

(12)

6

reading interventions can positively effect students’ writing performance on multiple types of measures and these positive effects potentially maintain over time.

Writing Interventions

As mentioned previously, literacy includes both reading and writing. There has been a significant amount of research on reading interventions, and a limited amount of research on writing interventions. Graham (2019) argues that the lack of writing instruction in today’s classroom may be a contributing factor to the dismal state of the writing skills of the nation’s school age children. Puranik et al. (2013) conducted an observational study of kindergarten classrooms to describe the types of writing instructional practices were taking place; either student or teacher related practices. Twenty-one teachers agreed to participate and this sample of teachers had a wide range of teaching experience (M = 10.14 years, range = 0 – 15+ years). The researchers observed each classroom’s 90 min language arts block two times during the school year. Puranik et al. (2013) found that the average time spent on all writing and writing-related activities (both student practice opportunities and teacher instruction) averaged 6.1 min in the fall and 10.5 min in the winter. The authors also found that teacher instruction in writing, on average, was less than 1 min in the fall and 2 min in the winter. Another important finding from Puranik et al. (2013), the authors found great variability in the amount of instruction provided and the amount of time students worked on writing within and across schools meaning teacher instruction ranged from 0.00 min to 8.86 min, while student activities involving independent writing ranged from 0 min to 20.58 min. These findings both reiterate Graham’s (2019) statement about the lack of writing instruction and could be an indication of the lack of

(13)

7

consistency of writing instruction emphasized in schools, and/or teacher preparation for teaching writing.

Research on how to teach writing and support students with or at-risk for disabilities in the primary grades is limited. A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities by Gillespie and Graham (2014) found 43 eligible studies. The authors found overall, writing interventions had a positive impact on student’s writing quality, with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.74. Although this finding is statistically significant, only three of 43 studies included students in primary grades. This is an indication that more research is needed on the types of reading interventions that are effective specifically for the primary grade population.

Datchuk et al. (2020) reviewed and synthesized writing interventions for students with disabilities within single-case research. They found 18 studies with a total of 96 students to be included in their review. The majority of students were middle-school aged (M = 12.6 years old, range = 7 – 18 years old). Only two studies included participants under the age of nine. Overall, Datchuk et al. (2020) found positive intervention effects on correct writing sequences across studies. Similar to other academic interventions within single-case research designs, the authors found the start of intervention did not produce an immediate change in writing fluency, but they did find a gradual change. They also found that students showed more growth on sentence-level writing than on discourse writing tasks such as writing narratives and essays. The interventions included in this review all included direct instruction or self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) at the sentence and discourse level. The authors suggest that practitioners should consider direct instruction on sentence-level and discourse-level text writing to improve text writing. Practitioners might consider using SRSD to teach discourse-level text writing given the

(14)

8

strategy’s inherit focus on improving story or essay elements overall as opposed to focusing instruction on text writing within sentences.

Wanzek et al. (2016) examined the impact of writing interventions appropriate for primary grade levels. Wanzek et al. (2016) evaluated the effect of transcription writing interventions (spelling instruction, handwriting, or a combination of spelling and handwriting instruction) for students in first grade. Students were assigned to one of four conditions: spelling, handwriting, both spelling and handwriting, and no intervention. Students in both the

handwriting, and the combination condition (spelling and handwriting instruction) significantly outperformed the control condition on correct word sequences in written essays (Handwriting Hedges’ g = 0.71, Combination Hedges’ g = 0.84). Wanzek et al. (2016) also reiterates the importance of explicit writing instruction to improve student writing outcomes. The dismal statistics on the current state of writing skills and the limited research on writing instruction, providing high quality writing instruction and interventions seem to be of importance to better prepare our students.

Peer-Assisted Interventions

One instructional approach that has been found to have positive academic outcomes across a variety of content areas (i.e., reading, math, writing) is peer-mediated and/or peer- assisted interventions. These interventions have been used with a range of grade levels and disabilities. Peer-mediated and/or peer-assisted interventions support teachers and students in the gradual release of support; teachers can become facilitators in the classroom and students

become more independent. Typically, students are ranked ordered on the academic skill of focus, teachers divide the list in half, and the strongest student in the first half is paired with the

strongest student in the second half of the class (McMaster et al., 2006). Implementation of peer-

(15)

9

mediated and/or peer-assisted interventions typically start with sessions to orient students to the intervention and their respective roles within the intervention. These orientation sessions include teacher-led direct instruction on the roles of the tutor and tutee, how to provide error correction, and provide feedback to their partner. Teachers also provide systematic, direct instruction on the different components of the intervention until all components are introduced. Teachers will provide feedback to students on their peer interactions and fade support as students become more proficient in providing corrective feedback to their partners.

Peer-assisted interventions have been used in reading, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for Reading (PALS) (Fuchs et al., 1997) for grades 2 to 6. PALS has also been adapted to be implemented with kindergarten (K-PALS) and first grade (First Grade PALS) students. Fuchs et al. (2001a) found K-PALS could have a positive impact on beginning reading skills such as measures of phonological awareness. Rafdal et al. (2011) studied the effectiveness of K-PALS for students with disabilities with two levels of support for teachers. Although, Rafdal et al.

(2011) did not find group differences between different levels of support for teachers, they found a positive impact of K-PALS on students alphabetic and oral reading measures. Fuchs et al., (2001b) investigated the effects of First Grade PALS and found that students, again, in the First Grade PALS conditions significantly outperformed the control condition on both phonological awareness and alphabetic measures.

A recent study, Puranik et al. (2017), investigated the feasibility and promise of using peer assisted writing strategies (PAWS) to teach early writing skills to kindergarten students.

This pilot study was conducted with 86 kindergarteners and authors found that PAWS instruction helped improve early writing skills. This research team found that some students with below average reading skills, struggled to improve their early writing skills (Puranik et al., 2018). This

(16)

10

finding potentially highlights the connections between reading and writing as previously mentioned.

Reading and Writing Disabilities

The cognitive processes that underlie both text reading and text generation may be similar (Graham & Hebert, 2010, 2011). Students who struggle in reading potentially have co- occurring writing difficulties (Hooper et al., 2010). A longitudinal study by Costa et al. (2015) found that about 30% of students in their first-grade sample had both a writing disability and a reading disability compared to the total number of students with a writing disability. A meta- analysis by Graham et al. (2020) investigated whether students with reading difficulties also experience writing difficulties. They included students that compared students with reading difficulties to their typically developing peers and to typically developing younger peers with compatible reading capabilities. Students with reading difficulties scored significantly lower than their typically developing peers and younger peers with similar reading capabilities. This could be an indication that students with reading difficulties also experience writing difficulties. This provides the foundation for the need to address both difficulties in intervention.

Reading research and writing research has long occurred, but they have been investigated separately. Reading interventions have investigated potential improvements in reading

performance and writing interventions have investigated potential improvements in writing performance. There is limited amount of research examining reading interventions that enhance writing and/or vice versa. Given the reciprocal relationship between reading and writing skills, further investigations into integrated reading and writing interventions are necessary. Graham et al. (2018b) conducted a meta-analysis of literacy programs that balanced reading and writing

(17)

11

instruction in preschool through grade 12. They defined balanced reading and writing instruction as “an instructional program in which no more than 60% of instructional activities or time was devoted to either reading or writing” (Graham et al., 2018b, p. 283). The authors found 47 studies that met their criteria, 28 studies assessed both reading and writing performance within their study. The average weighted effect size estimate (Hedges’ g) for balanced reading and writing programs on all reading measures was 0.33 and statistically significant. The average weighted effect size estimate (Hedges’ g) on all writing measures was 0.37 and was also statistically significant. These findings indicate that balanced reading and writing interventions can have positive effects on both reading and writing performance for students in preschool through grade 12. Although these findings are encouraging, only nine studies were true or quasi- experimental designs. More experimental research is needed to replicate these findings. Graham (2020) suggests “advancements in the study of reading and writing cannot be maximized if the sciences of reading and writing continue to operate in largely separate fashions” (p. 540).

Investigating how the connections between reading and writing can support student’s reading and writing development can help move our field forward.

This study expanded on the findings from Puranik et al. (2017, 2018) to investigate the effects of providing an individualized PAWS preview and supplemental reading skills

intervention (iPAWS + R) to struggling first grade students to improve their early writing and reading skills. This study will add to the literature by attending to both components of literacy instruction in each intervention session. My primary experimental research question was as follows: “Does iPAWS + R improve early writing skills (word building, sight words, and sentence construction) for first grade students with reading difficulties?” My secondary

descriptive research question is as follows: “Is there evidence of improvements in early reading

(18)

12

skills (phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency) for first grade students with reading difficulties after participating in iPAWS + R?”

(19)

13 CHAPTER 2

METHODS

Context

The present study received approval under Stanford University’s Institutional Review Board and from a local school district in Northern California and we followed approved procedures to obtain teacher and parent consent. The cooperating school participated in a

randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of PAWS in kindergarten classrooms. A first- grade teacher at a local school expressed interest in participating in the present study and taught potentially eligible students. The participating teacher was trained by research staff to implement the PAWS intervention and implemented PAWS through whole-class instruction at least three days a week for 30-40 min per lesson.

Similar to PALS, PAWS pairs students according to their rank-ordered writing skills. The whole class is rank-ordered, split in half, and the most skilled writer in the first group is paired with the most skilled writer in the second group. Through teacher-led direct instruction, students learn about their roles as tutors and tutees, and learn how to give feedback on the place, shape, and size of their partner’s letters. Students then progress through four major strands of teacher- led direct instruction: letter writing, spelling, sentence construction, and content area writing.

The majority of the students in the participating class had already mastered letter formation and letter naming (based on initial assessment data). Therefore, the participating teacher started with a brief review of letter writing before starting with the spelling strand of instruction within PAWS, specifically focusing on spelling sight words.

(20)

14 Participants and Setting

Eligible students were identified through teacher nomination as having difficulties in reading. In order to qualify for the study, participants spoke English as their primary language, had difficulties in reading and/or had an identified disability with difficulties in reading, and were available for 30 min of instruction per day, four times per week, for 8-12 weeks of instruction. Participants were assessed on early reading skills to determine the appropriate reading intervention and address areas of skill deficits. Initial assessments were conducted by a university supervised research assistant (as a part of the larger study) in December. A total of six participants were identified for participation. Of the six participants, five met participant

selection criteria as they are described above, the remaining participant was selected due to difficulties in writing. This particular participant did not receive the reading intervention as it is described under the intervention section, therefore he does not have graphed iPAWS data. His results only describe descriptive changes in his writing. Participant demographic information is provided in Table 1. Pre-baseline assessments were conducted by a university supervised research assistant and myself, in March to determine current skill levels of the participants.

Assessment results were analyzed and discussed with the research team prior to intervention selection.

Students were paired together, with teacher input, to receive iPAWS + R. Based on initial reading assessment data, these students were in need of intensive support within phonemic segmentation, and nonsense word fluency. One student was in need of intensive support with word reading and oral reading fluency. All students met with their classroom teacher during small reading groups three to four times a week for supplemental reading instruction as a part of

(21)

15

core instruction. The core reading instruction provided by the classroom teacher was a combination of a commercially available multisensory reading program (Orton-Gillingham;

Gillingham & Stillman, 1997), and a commercially available comprehensive English Language Arts curriculum with social-emotional supports (Center for the Collaborative Classroom).

All participating students received whole class writing instruction provided by their classroom teacher following the PAWS intervention procedures. Participating students were placed in pairs for time efficiency of delivering the iPAWS + R intervention and instruction was provided individually (1:1) to each student during the reading portions of the intervention session and in pairs (1:2) during the writing portions of the intervention session. I provided iPAWS + R as supplementary instruction to their core classroom reading instruction. Instruction was

provided via an online video-conferencing platform (i.e., Zoom). A research team member was present in the classroom during intervention sessions to assist with data collection and procedural fidelity for the majority of study. This research team member did not provide primary

instruction, however she did assist with reviewing of skills previously taught with students during times of individual instruction, data collection, and behavior management when necessary.

Cece

Cece was a seven-year-old, female. In addition to receiving small group instruction as a part of core instruction, she received supplemental instruction in reading 2-3 days a week for 30 min sessions from a school hired interventionist. Her participation in the school provided supplemental reading group was determined by her reading level within the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010) administered by her classroom

(22)

16

teacher. Her targeted skills included CCVCe words containing vowels a, e, i, and o (Lesson Set 1); CVCe/CCVCe words containing u (Lesson Set 2); words ending in y that have a long i vowel sound (Lesson Set 3); and words with the ending “-ed” (Lesson Set 4). Cece started with Nick as a partner, but due to changes in instructional schedules, she switched partners and was partnered with Ferguson.

Winston

Winston was a seven-year-old, male. In addition to receiving small group instruction as a part of core instruction, he received supplemental instruction in reading 2-3 days a week for 30 min sessions from a school hired interventionist. Similar to Cece, his participation in the school provided supplemental reading group was determined by his reading level within the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010) administered by her classroom teacher. He also received instruction for English Language Learners from a school provided instructor. This instruction focused on oral speaking skills. His targeted skills included words containing “ch” (Lesson Set 1); CVCe words containing vowels a, e, i, and o (Lesson Set 2); CVCe words containing u (Lesson Set 3); and words with the ending “-s” (Lesson Set 4).

Winston was partnered with Schmidt for the duration of the study.

Schmidt

Schmidt was a seven-year-old, male. Schmidt did not receive any other supplemental instruction outside of the small group instruction provided as a part of his class’ core instruction.

His targeted skills included CCVCe words containing vowels a, e, i, and o (Lesson Set 1);

CVCe/CCVCe words containing u (Lesson Set 2); words ending in y that have a long e vowel

(23)

17

sound (Lesson Set 3); and words ending in y that have a long i vowel sound (Lesson Set 4).

Schmidt was partnered with Winston for the duration of the study.

Jess

Jess was a seven-year-old, female. Jess did not receive any other supplemental instruction outside of the small group instruction provided as a part of her class’ core instruction. Her

targeted skills included CCVCe words containing vowels a, e, i, and o (Lesson Set 1);

CVCe/CCVCe words containing u (Lesson Set 2); words ending in y that have a long e vowel sound (Lesson Set 3); and words ending in y that have a long i vowel sound (Lesson Set 4). Jess started with Ferguson as a partner, but due to changes in instructional schedules, she switched partners and was partnered with Nick.

Nick

Nick was a seven-year-old, male. In addition to receiving small group instruction as a part of core instruction, he received in school speech services 2-3 days a week. Additionally, he received at home tutoring in reading for four days a week for an hour per session. He was evaluated for receiving special education services but did not receive special education services this school year. His targeted skills included CCVCe words containing vowels a, e, i, o, and u (Lesson Set 1); words ending in y that have a long e vowel sound (Lesson Set 2); words ending in y that have a long i vowel sound (Lesson Set 3); and words with the ending “-ed” (Lesson Set 4). Nick started with Cece as a partner, but due to changes in instructional schedules, he switched partners and was partnered with Jess.

(24)

18 Ferguson

Ferguson was a seven-year-old, male. Ferguson was nominated by his teacher to

participate due to his struggles with writing. After initial assessments, it was determined that his reading skills surpassed his current grade level and therefore did not receive the same

intervention as described in this study. Although he participated with his partner, he did not have a multiple-probe design to be reported on in this study. His writing results will be reported on under the results section to this manuscript. He received in school speech services 2-3 days a week. In addition to school provided occupational therapy. He also received occupational therapy outside of school hours through a private provider. His teacher was concerned with his letter formation, letter/word spacing, and length of writing given a sentence starter or prompt.

Ferguson started with Jess as a partner, but due to changes in instructional schedules, he switched partners and was partnered with Cece.

Experimental Design

This study used a multiple-probe across behaviors design (Gast et al., 2018) for each participant to evaluate the relation between iPAWS + R and changes in the dependent variable. A multiple-probe design allows analysis of successive tiers, where each tier includes a baseline condition and an intervention condition. In a multiple-probe across behaviors design, each new tier introduces instruction on a critical skill measured by the dependent variable. Each tier represents a unique skill (functionally independent) of relatively equal difficulty (functionally similar) in relation to the other tiers (Gast et al., 2018). Multiple-probe designs are typically used with academic skills due to the non-reversible nature of the skill; once there is acquisition of an academic skill it is unlikely that even in the absence of the intervention, the skill will return to

(25)

19

zero levels. The introduction of the intervention is staggered across time across tiers for

demonstration of experimental control. Typically, multiple-probe designs have at least three tiers to have the potential for three demonstrations of effect. See Figure 1 for a sample graph of a multiple-probe across behaviors design as it relates to this current study. Multiple-probe across behaviors designs allow researchers to establish a functional relation when visual analysis demonstrates a consistent pattern of change in the dependent variable when the independent variable is introduced, and only when the independent variable is introduced. Ideally, researchers determine a consistent pattern of change when the effects are replicated three or more times within one design. Each tier within the multiple-probe represented an individualized, targeted word reading/building skill and sight words. All participants received pre-intervention sessions on the procedures of PAWS while baseline data collection occurs.

Intervention

Each student pair was provided with a brief preview of the skills to be introduced or reviewed within their whole class writing instruction (iPAWS). Preview sessions included a brief introduction/brief review of the skills that will be covered in their whole class writing

instruction. The whole-class PAWS instruction was adapted for peer-assisted paired instruction and provided more opportunities to practice word building and sight words within each tier respectively. With some additional instruction on sentence construction. Mastery criteria is described below in the Dependent Variables. Based on student progress and participating teacher input, if necessary, booster sessions were available during intervention time on the fifth

weekday. The fifth weekday was used for additional time for assessments that were missed during the week due to time constraints.

(26)

20

In addition to each iPAWS intervention session, each student within a pair was provided with a supplemental reading skill intervention that matched their current skills and skill deficits (+ R portion of iPAWS + R). Based on their initial Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; University of Oregon, 2018) 8^th Edition assessment data (phonemic

segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency), each intervention session included instruction and opportunities to practice phonemic awareness skills such as blending and segmenting tasks, and word building. Instruction was provided to each participant tailored to the skills that were the focus for each individual’s tier within the research design. This provided the opportunity for each individual to progress through their own research design independent of the progress of their partner. For example, while one student received direct reading instruction the other partner practiced review skills and then vice versa. Due to time constraints, the repeated reading of connected text portion of the intervention occurred approximately every 2-3 intervention sessions.

To practice blending and segmenting, students engaged in an activity, Say It Move It, which provided students a concrete representation of phonemes within words by moving plastic counter chips (Blachman et al., 2000). Each student was provided with a Say It Move It mat, and students moved plastic counter chips while segmenting a word into its phonemes (one sound is represented by one chip) and then blended all those sounds together while sliding their finger underneath the chips in a left-to-right sequence to say the word as a whole.

Students then engaged in word reading and word building activities using both real words and nonsense words to practice their decoding skills. Students reviewed and practiced new phonetic patterns using sound boards to build words and then checked their own work of the word they built by blending the sounds together and reading the word fast. Students then read

(27)

21

words using word cards for word reading fluency. Both of these activities are based on activities within Road to Reading by Blachman & Tangel (2008).

Students also engaged in a repeated reading activity to practice their decoding skills in context and read text fluently. Students were provided with a brief comprehension preview prior to reading the selected passage. Again, while one student engaged in the repeated reading activity, the other student reviewed the skills practiced during instruction. The passages were randomly selected from a pool of appropriate passages for each student, as to prevent one of the students from hearing the passage before their partner and potentially receiving more practice with the passage than the other student. Students started with a cold read (first time reading the passage) of a passage at their reading level, and then were provided with corrective feedback and a model of fluent reading. Students read the passage again, with corrective feedback as necessary two more times. Students read each passage three times with corrective feedback after every read. See Appendix A for lesson structure and example lesson components.

Data Collection Procedures

During baseline sessions, all four lesson sets were assessed using a format similar to the lesson mastery probes (iPAWS probes) provided during intervention. Baseline data collection occurred for at least three days, or until a stable trend was established. Collecting at least three data points during baseline provides a reliable prediction of the progression of the current skill if intervention does not occur (Ledford et al., 2018). Additionally, during baseline data collection, pairs were trained on the PAWS procedures for coaching and feedback before intervention began. Students were assessed on their sentence construction and story generation skills as a more distal and generalized writing outcome. Students were also assessed on their baseline

(28)

22

reading skills with the generalized outcome measures described in the descriptive measures section below as their pre-intervention reading skills. See Figure 2 for data collection procedures.

Dependent Variables

I collected data on student’s early writing skills as measured by iPAWS probes. These writing lesson mastery probes were researcher-developed 6-item probes. Each lesson set (word building and sight words) had six items assessing mastery. Probes were created from a pool of items from the individualized advanced reading skill and targeted sight words for each lesson set, with six items randomly chosen for each probe. Table 2 summarizes the skills across lesson sets for each participant. For each word building item (items 1-3), the student was to write the word given. I verbally stated the word to write as a whole word, segmented sound by sound, and then stated the whole word again. For each sight word item (items 4-6), again, the student was expected to write the word given. I verbally stated the sight word to write as a whole word. See Appendix B for sample probes. Each item was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0) if the word was spelled and written correctly. These mastery probes were collected each session and included an assessment of the current targeted skill, and one of the other three targeted lesson sets. Ensuring that there was an even distribution of skills and that the next targeted skill was assessed before moving to the next tier within the multiple-probe design. See Figure 3 for an example of the rotation of iPAWS probes.

Descriptive Measures

I also collected informal data on each student’s progress in the whole-class PAWS intervention, this anecdotal information was collected from their classroom teacher through

(29)

23

sample journal entries and anecdotal conversations. Sentence construction probes were collected during baseline and after intervention. These probes included two sentence combination items, in which two sentences were provided (e.g., I have legs. I have feet.) and students were to combine those two sentences into one sentence. The intended goal of the task was for students to identify the repetitive language in both sentences (e.g., “I have”), remove the redundant words in the second sentence, and combine the sentences using “and” (e.g., I have legs and feet.). Each sentence combination task was rated as a 0, 1, or 2 for a total of four total points possible. A score of 0 indicated that the student did not complete the task or did not combine the two given sentences (e.g., copied the two given sentences with or without punctuation). A score of 1 indicated that the student wrote one of the given sentences but did not combine the two given sentences. A score of 2 indicated that the student combined the two given sentences removing the repetitive language and used the word “and” to combine the sentences. See Appendix B for sample scored sentence combination tasks.

Additionally, to inform my instruction within the reading components of the intervention, I collected informal data on each student’s reading skills (phonemic segmentation and word building/reading with both real and nonsense words) through the activities within the intervention to track student progress. In order to address my second descriptive research question, I collected data on each students’ first (cold) and last (hot) read from their repeated reading portion of intervention which served as a measure of their oral reading fluency (ORF).

Students read for one minute and I marked student errors (e.g., mispronounced words, words sounded out but not blended together, omissions, words read in the wrong order, words provided after 3 sec hesitation), and marked a bracket after the last word read at the conclusion of one minute. I then subtracted the student errors from the total words read for a score of words read

(30)

24

correct per minute (WCPM). The ORF subtest of DIBELS (University of Oregon, 2018) was also collected once during baseline and once after intervention. ORF is administered to students individually and is a measure of a student’s oral reading fluency skills. Students are provided with a grade level passage to read aloud for one minute each. Scores are also reported as WCPM;

the difference between words read and number of errors.

I collected bi-weekly general outcome measures of reading such as phonemic

segmentation fluency and nonsense word fluency on the fifth day during the student’s typical intervention time. Additionally, during these bi-weekly assessments I collected a story

generation writing sample from each student. The student was provided with a story starter (e.g., A rocket ship landed on the moon and…) and had 1 min to brainstorm ideas for their story aloud before writing their story for 3 mins. These story generation probes were analyzed informally, noting potential changes in aspects of the student’s writing. These aspects could include, but were not limited to: use of punctuation, length of story, number of sentences, patterns in words written correctly, letter formation, and spacing between words.

Phonemic segmentation fluency (PSF). PSF is a subtest of DIBELS (University of Oregon, 2018) that is administered to students individually and is a measure of student’s phonological awareness skills. Students are provided two to six-phoneme oral words to orally segment into their individual phonemes, or sounds. For example, the assessor says “to” and the student would respond with “/t/” “/oo/”. The PSF score is the number of correctly produced phonemes in 1 min.

(31)

25

Nonsense word fluency (NWF). NWF is an individually administered subtest of

DIBELS (University of Oregon, 2018) that is a measure of the alphabetic principle. Students are presented with a printed list of nonsense words and students have 1 min to produce the whole nonsense word, but they can also produce the individual letter sounds for each word. Words include VC, CVC, CVCe, and r-controlled vowel sounds. There are two scores for NWF, correct letter sounds is the number of correctly produced letter sounds either in isolation or as a part of the whole word per min, and whole words read/recoded is the number of whole nonsense words read or recoded correctly per min.

Anticipated Progress and Decision Rules

Students had to receive at least 5 out of 6 points on the targeted lesson set iPAWS probe, three sessions in a row before moving to the next tier of intervention or after nine intervention sessions within this tier of instruction. Progression forward after nine intervention sessions was determined to align with the whole class PAWS progress, in addition to the short duration of intervention within the school year. Participants were able to move through their lesson sets independently from their iPAWS + R partner. I used the data collected, as described above, to guide these decisions.

Procedural Fidelity

Procedural fidelity was collected for at least 30% of each participant’s sessions across each phase through direct observation (either in person or via video recording of intervention sessions). A fidelity form with the necessary procedures for each component of the intervention was developed and used for observations. Each component was rated on a 0-3 scale indicating

(32)

26

the quality of the implementation (0 = component was intended to be implemented but was not, 1

= weak implementation, 2 = adequate implementation, 3 = strong implementation).

Implementation scores were averaged across components for an overall implementation score. A global quality instruction and student engagement rating were used as well. Fidelity observations were conducted by trained members of the research team. Research team members were trained on the forms and were required to meet reliability with the gold standard (i.e., accurately scoring seven of the eight scored aspects via pre-recorded video sessions or direct observation). See Appendix C for sample forms.

Data Analysis

I used visual analysis of graphed data to determine whether a functional relation exists.

Visual analysis is used both for formative decision-making throughout the data

collection/intervention phases within single-case research and it is used as a form of summative decision-making at the conclusion of data collection to determine whether the intervention was effective as measured by the dependent variables. This summative evaluation is used to

determine the presence or absence of a functional relation. Researchers examine three

components in visual analysis; the level, trend, and variability of data paths. These components are analyzed within phases and between adjacent phases. In the case of a multiple-probe design, comparisons between baseline and intervention within each tier are analyzed as well are

vertically across all three tiers to determine whether introductions and withdrawals of the independent variable are associated with consistent changes in these data features. If such changes replicate across at least three tiers within the design, the researcher concludes a

functional relation (i.e., causal relation, experimental control) is present between the independent

(33)

27

and dependent variables (Horner et al., 2005). It is also important to note that learning academic skills, such as the early writing skills measured in this study, may take time to develop. This means that we might not anticipate an immediate, and clear change in level from baseline to intervention upon intervention introduction (Lieberman et al., 2010; Klingbeil et al., 2019). In this case, we might anticipate more distinct changes in trend or variability (e.g., more variation when comparing baseline to intervention) upon the introduction of the intervention. We might anticipate a gradual, increasing trend, or even a delayed effect upon the introduction of the intervention (Manolov et al., 2014; Whalon et al., 2015; Klingbeil et al., 2019).

Social Validity

I collected social validity from both the participating students and the teacher. At the conclusion of the study, the students completed a survey about the intervention and their perceptions of how it has helped their reading and writing skills. This survey was administered by a university provided research assistant who was present for the majority of intervention session. The classroom teacher completed a survey about her perceptions of the intervention on the reading and writing skills of her participating students. The teacher also completed a survey about the procedures and goals of the interventions provided (both the writing and reading intervention) with an opportunity to provide feedback about things she would change in the future. These teacher surveys were completed with me via Zoom. Surveys used a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree); the student version used smiley faces to supplement the numbered scale. I also collected social validity by asking three colleagues naïve to the study design to blindly evaluate early and late writing samples from the study participants as a measure of the social importance of study effects (Wolf, 1978). Colleagues were asked to

(34)

28

identify which sample was the early and late writing sample (sentence combination task and story generation writing samples), and about their observations of growth between the writing samples. See Appendix D for sample forms.

(35)

29 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Six students were recruited for participation. Five of the six participants (Cece, Winston, Schmidt, Jess, and Nick) participated in the study as intended. Procedures were modified for one participant as the student demonstrated advanced reading skills. Intervention modifications are described along with the results from his overall writing probes under his participant section below. The results below are reported according to outcomes related to writing (research

question 1) and outcomes related to reading (research question 2). The only outcome used in the determination of a functional relation within this study are the iPAWS probe outcomes displayed in the multiple-probe across behaviors design graphs (Figures E1, F1, G1, H1, and I1). All other outcomes reported on will be discussed broadly.

Writing Outcomes

Cece

Cece (Figure E1 in Appendix E) completed 20 intervention sessions after three baseline sessions. Lesson Set 1 (CCVCe words containing vowels a, e, i, and o) had a stable, zero celerating baseline with all three data points at zero before iPAWS + R was introduced. Within Lesson Set 1, there was an overall change in level over baseline data with an accelerating trend.

Although, Cece’s Lesson Set 1 data path became more variable between session 14 and session 20, overall there was a change in level and in trend. She did not reach mastery within Lesson Set

(36)

30

1 before the end of the school year. However, I introduced instruction within Lesson Set 2 (CVCe/CCVCe words containing u) because she had not reached mastery within nine sessions.

Cece also had a stable, zero-celerating baseline before intervention was introduced within Lesson Set 2. All baseline sessions with Lesson Set 2 remained level at one point on her iPAWS probes.

Although her intervention data for Lesson Set 2 was variable, there was an accelerating trend in her data toward mastery. The majority of the data points within the intervention phase in Lesson Set 2 remained consistently above baseline levels. Cece did not receive instruction for Lesson Set 3 (words ending in y that have a long i vowel sound) nor Lesson Set 4 (words with the ending

“-ed”) due to her progress in tiers one and two, in addition to the ending of the school year. Cece was not a candidate for the determination of a functional relation due to having only two possible demonstrations of effect, and therefore summative visual analysis could not occur.

Figures E2 and E3 in Appendix E were sentence combination tasks that were provided prior to intervention and after intervention, respectively. In Cece’s sentence combination task before intervention (Figure E2 in Appendix E), she simply copied the sentences from above and removed the periods between the sentences. She scored zero out of four points during pre- intervention. In her post-intervention sentence combination task (Figure E3 in Appendix E), Cece demonstrated that she crossed out the redundant information in the second sentence across both items. She removed the redundant information in task number seven but did not use the connecting word “and” to combine the two sentences. Although there seems to be a miscopy in the word “pet” (it is pen in the sentence above), Cece removed the redundant information and combined the two sentences appropriately with “and.” She scored three out of four points for her post-intervention sentence-combination probe.

(37)

31

Figure E4 in Appendix E was the story generation probe Cece completed during baseline prior to intervention. The prompt was “The rocket ship landed on the moon and…” This prompt was administered in-person. The black heart on the figure is to indicate where Cece was after three minutes of writing. She insisted that she finish her story and fill up the page. In Figure E4, Cece left space between her words within her sentences, and used periods to separate her thoughts. Cece did not, however, capitalize the words at the beginning of her sentences. She did capitalize the proper noun, Mars. When comparing Figure E4 to Figure E6 in Appendix E, it was challenging to determine differences between the two samples.

Figure E5 in Appendix E was the first story generation writing probe Cece completed during intervention and it was administered virtually. The prompt was “We were paddling on a beautiful lake in the woods when our canoe tipped over and..” Participants were not required to re-write the prompt. In Figure E5, Cece continued to leave space between her words within her sentences. She seemingly had a period at the end of the second line but continued her thought on the third line. The drawings on the sample are not an indication of where or when she stopped after three minutes of writing (she made the drawings herself). Figure E6 in Appendix E was the final story generation writing probe Cece completed during intervention. The prompt was

“Maybe animals aren’t supposed to talk, but…” and this prompt was administered virtually.

Cece again left space between her words within her sentences. She included more periods to indicate the end of sentences for a total of four sentences. In this sample, she also correctly wrote a CVCe word “like” which was not present in the previous writing sample (e.g., “hom” for

“home”).

(38)

32 Winston

Winston (Figure F1 in Appendix F) completed 21 intervention sessions after three baseline sessions. Lesson Set 1 (words containing “ch”) had a stable, zero celerating baseline with all data points at zero. His performance once intervention was introduced showed an accelerating progression towards mastery. Although there was a slight dip in data at session 9, the overall trend of the data was accelerating. With the exception of the first two sessions within this tier, all other data points were above the zero level data in baseline. Within Lesson Set 1, Winston reached mastery after 12 sessions. His skills within Lesson Set 1 maintained above zero levels even after direct instruction on that lesson set ended. Although, his performance did not maintain the mastery level he previously achieved within that lesson set. Similarly to Cece, Winston did not reach mastery prior to the introduction of Lesson Set 2 after nine intervention sessions within the tier. He did achieve mastery only three sessions later. In Lesson Set 2 (CVCe words with the vowels a, e, i, and o), his baseline data remained at zero level until the

intervention was introduced. This demonstrated a stable, zero celerating trend in baseline data.

Although his intervention data in Lesson Set 2 was variable, there was an immediate jump in level for the first two data points from baseline to intervention. There was an immediate change in level following the introduction of the intervention, and overall the intervention data were above baseline levels. There seemed to be a slight accelerating trend from session 19 to session 21. The intervention data path within Lesson Set 2 was variable and it was difficult to determine the trend of the data. He did not achieve mastery within Lesson Set 2, and due to his variable data that was consistently below mastery criteria for the skill, Winston did not proceed with instruction in Lesson Set 3 (CVCe words with the vowel u) nor Lesson Set 4 (words with “-s”

endings). Winston was also not a candidate for the determination of a functional relation due to

(39)

33

having only two possible demonstrations of effect, and therefore summative visual analysis could not occur.

Figures F2 and F3 in Appendix F were Winston’s sentence combination tasks. Unlike other participants, Winston verbally asked to skip some of the sentence combination tasks during baseline sessions which was why there was a blank task in Figure F2. To demonstrate his skills for this task, Figure F2 included another sentence combination task administered prior to intervention. In this figure, Winston seemingly copied the sentences given but the words are difficult to distinguish from each other. Not only from his handwriting and letter formation but possible due to the coloring of the white spaces between lines. Additionally, within task eight in this figure, he started writing the word “play” but then repeatedly drew the letter “L” instead of the rest of the sentence. He scored zero out of four points during pre-intervention for both of the probes provided in Figure F2. In Figure F3, Winston’s post-intervention sentence combination task, Winston did not seem to demonstrate that he was removing redundant words. It seemed that he copied the given sentences as is, including punctuation between sentences. This would not be considered sentence combination. Winston again received zero out of four points for his post- intervention sentence-combination probe. However, Winston did seem to improve in writing his letters closer together within a word and separating each word within the sentence.

Figure F4 in Appendix F was the story generation probe Winston completed during baseline prior to intervention with an in-person administration. The prompt was “The rocket ship landed on the moon and…” Although, Winston completed the story, he wrote two words in three minutes. He demonstrated appropriate spacing between his words and he ended his thought with a period. When comparing Figure F4 to Figure F6 in Appendix F, Winston continued to

demonstrate spacing between his words and he had a period at the end of his sentence. Although,

(40)

34

he only had one sentence, he wrote eight words and used the conjunction “and” to connect his thoughts which was an improvement from his previous sample.

Figure F5 in Appendix F was the first story generation writing probe Winston completed during intervention virtually. The prompt was “We were paddling on a beautiful lake in the woods when our canoe tipped over and..” In this figure, Winston left space between his words within his sentence. He repeated part of the prompt in his single written sentence, with seemingly no punctuation. Figure F6 in Appendix F was the final story generation writing probe Winston completed during intervention. The prompt was “Maybe animals aren’t supposed to talk, but…”

Winston again left space between his words within his sentence. Although he did only have one sentence, as he did with his first probe, he did include a period to indicate the end of the

sentence. Additionally, in his word “chicin” the first two letters are the correct letters for the sound /ch/. This skill was not present during baseline iPAWS probes and was one of his targeted skills during intervention (Lesson Set 1).

Schmidt

Schmidt (Figure G1 in Appendix G) completed 22 intervention sessions after three baseline sessions. Lesson Set 1 (CCVCe words containing beginning blends and the vowels a, e, i, and o) had a stable, zero level baseline before the introduction of the iPAWS + R intervention.

There was no accelerating nor decelerating trend to his baseline data. Upon introduction of the intervention, there was an almost immediate increase in his data (Session 1-3 = 0 to Session 5 = 3). There is a steep, accelerating trend toward mastery following the first day of intervention (sessions 4-10). Schmidt reached mastery in seven sessions with little variability in his data once he reached mastery. Lesson Set 1 went into a maintenance phase for Schmidt and he maintained

(41)

35

higher levels of mastery for the majority of his maintenance phase (ranging from four to six points on his iPAWS probes). Lesson Set 2 (CVCe/CCVCe words containing u) also had a stable, zero celerating baseline level at zero prior to intervention introduction. Schmidt’s level of performance increased upon intervention introduction. Although, the pattern of his Lesson Set 2 data was not as steep in the accelerating trend, again there was an overall accelerating

progression towards mastery. There was an immediate difference in level upon intervention introduction, and with the exception of session 14 data point, all other data points are above baseline levels. He reached mastery in nine sessions for Lesson Set 2. Although there did seem to be a decelerating trend in his maintenance data within this lesson set, it remained above zero.

Lesson Set 3 (words ending in y that have a long e vowel sound) had more variability in the baseline phase than the previous tiers of the design. There was a slight accelerating trend with three data points steadily climbing (sessions 11, 14, and 17). Overall the level of the baseline data seemed to hover around one point on his Lesson Set 3 iPAWS probes (five data points at 1 point on the iPAWS probe, three data points at 0 points on the iPAWS probe, and 1 data point at 2 points on the iPAWS probe; average of 0.78 points with rounding would be 1 point on the iPAWS probe). Once intervention was introduced within Lesson Set 3, there was a change in the acceleration trend in the data (i.e., a steeper, and increasing trend during intervention). There was one data point of overlap from baseline to intervention within this tier, but the majority of the data points within intervention are above baseline levels. On the last day of intervention, he reached mastery for the third consecutive day within Lesson Set 3 (six days to mastery) and would have begun instruction in tier four. Schmidt did not receive instruction in Lesson Set 4 (words ending in y that have a long i vowel sound) due to the end of the school year. Schmidt was a candidate for determining a functional relation with three possible demonstrations of

(42)

36

effect. Schmidt’s summative visual analysis is described in the discussion section of this manuscript.

Figures G2 and G3 in Appendix G are Schmidt’s sentence combination tasks that were provided prior to intervention and after intervention, respectively. Similar to other participants, during Schmidt’s sentence combination task before intervention (Figure G2 in Appendix G), he removed the periods from the given sentences and copied the sentences as they were provided.

He scored zero out of four points during pre-intervention. Schmidt clearly demonstrates how the two given sentences were taught to be combined in Figure G3 in Appendix G. He circled and crossed out the redundant words in the second sentence in both task number seven and eight. He removed the redundant information when he wrote his combined sentences, and used “and” to combine the two sentences into one. He did seem to make an error in copying “He” within task number eight (i.e., missing the “E”). He combined the sentences appropriately and ended his new sentence with an appropriate punctuation mark. He scored four out of four points for his post- intervention sentence-combination probe.

Figure G4 in Appendix G was the first story generation writing probe Schmidt completed prior to intervention during an in-person administration. The prompt was “The rocket ship landed on the moon and…”. In Figure G4, Schmidt left clear space between his words. He did not use punctation. Although he misspelled Earth, he capitalized the first letter in Earth as it was a proper noun. Figure G5 in Appendix G was the final story generation writing probe Schmidt completed during intervention. This probe was administered virtually. The prompt was “Maybe animals aren’t supposed to talk, but…” Schmidt again left space between his words. There were

variations in the sizes of his letters as his writing progresses which was not as evident in Figure

(43)

37

G4. Unfortunately, Schmidt’s first story generation writing sample within intervention was missing and unable to be recovered.

Jess

Jess (Figure H1 in Appendix H) completed 22 intervention sessions after three baseline sessions. The baseline was near zero levels prior to intervention introduction for Lesson Set 1 (CCVCe words containing beginning blends and the vowels a, e, i, and o), with slight variability in the data between one and zero points on the iPAWS probe. Similar to other participants, there was a slow accelerating trend in Jess’ data after introducing the intervention within Lesson Set 1.

Apart from the first day within intervention, there was an immediate change in level from baseline to intervention and small variability for the duration of the intervention towards mastery. Jess reached mastery in 10 sessions. She maintained above zero levels during the maintenance phase of Lesson Set 1 as well after targeted instruction within that skill was finished. Although there did seem to be a decelerating trend in her maintenance data within this lesson set, it remained above baseline levels. Lesson Set 2 (CVCe/CCVCe words containing u) also had a consistent, zero celerating near zero level baseline trend (only session 1 was above zero). There was a change in trend and level with the introduction of the iPAWS + R

intervention. Apart from session 19, there seemed to be a consistent and steady accelerating trend toward mastery. Jess reached mastery in 10 sessions within Lesson Set 2 as well. Although there is only one maintenance data point within this tier of the design, it is an above zero data point.

We only briefly started instruction within Lesson Set 3 (words ending in y that have a long e vowel sound) before the end of the school year. Consistent with the other tiers of the design so far, there was a stable, zero level baseline with neither an accelerating nor decelerating trend.

(44)

38

Upon introduction of the intervention, there was an immediate change in level from baseline.

Although there are only three data points and they are all at 50% correct, which demonstrates a stable level with a zero celerating trend, there was an immediate increase from zero points to three points in tier three which would indicate that introduction of the intervention was the catalyst for learning. Jess did not receive instruction in Lesson Set 4 (words ending in y that have a long i vowel sound) due to the end of the school year. Jess was also a candidate for determining a functional relation with three possible demonstrations of effect with a minimum of three data points per design phase. Jess’ summative visual analysis is described in the discussion section of th

PAWS Together: An Investigation of a Combined Reading and Writing Intervention

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REFERENCES ... 160

1 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Early Readers with Reading Difficulties

Connections Between Reading and Writing

Writing Interventions

Peer-Assisted Interventions

Reading and Writing Disabilities

13 CHAPTER 2

METHODS

Context

Winston

Experimental Design

Intervention

Data Collection Procedures

Descriptive Measures

Anticipated Progress and Decision Rules

Data Analysis

Social Validity

RESULTS

Writing Outcomes

Schmidt