Seeing Stars plus Visualizing and Verbalizing and Phoneme Sequencing

Study: Burke, Howard, & Evangelou (2005)

Burke, C., Howard, L. & Evangelou, T. (2005). A Project of Hope: Lindamood-Bell Center in a School Project Final Evaluation Report. Retrieved December 13, 2006, from www.sandag.org

Descriptive Information

Usage

Acquisition and Cost

Program Specifications and Requirements

Training

Lindamood-Bell collaborates with schools/districts using a Professional Learning Community model to customize an RTI design to meet the aggregate learning needs of all students. We accomplish this within the mandates of IDEA, state, and local education policies. Each partnership is unique depending on existent school/district variables. Lindamood-Bell’s partnership and Professional Learning Community (PLC) philosophy is built around two main RTI concepts necessary to transform schools academically.

First, instructional methodologies are based on a theory of cognition. The process-based cognitive approach stimulates specific brain-based skills such as symbol imagery, concept imagery, and phonemic awareness. These underlying cognitive processes must be developed (Tier I) and/or remediated (Tier II & III) for all students to maximize their learning potential and benefit from standards-based instruction, strategies, materials, and curricula. Thus Lindamood-Bell adheres to and promotes a paradigm shift in how to best meet the cognitive and language processing needs of students, integrating both process and content/standards-based instruction. The skills addressed are foundational to all curricula and they cut across all standards.

Second, while Lindamood-Bell’s instructional practices are necessary, they are insufficient without simultaneously controlling for certain components or practices within the school system and/or culture in which they are to be implemented. To achieve large scale and sustainable success, Lindamood-Bell collaborates with all levels of leadership, including the school board, district administration, and site-level leaders in evidence based practices. Lindamood-Bell’s approach is to work in a collaborative effort to address and improve the existing school framework, personnel, and practices all as applied to an RTI framework. Specifically, the main district and school leadership support components include sustained and embedded professional development, data analyses and accountability, differentiated instruction, leadership institutes, parent/community outreach, and a certification process for teachers. This model mirrors the conceptual framework of Response to Intervention (RTI). By incorporating a collaborative, problem-solving framework to increase student achievement, Lindamood-Bell’s Professional Learning Community model has been shown to meet the needs of all students and sustain results over time.

The program is intended for use in kindergarten through high school. The program is intended for use with students with disabilities (specifically learning disabilities), English language learners, and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic area of focus is reading (including phonological awareness, phonics/word study, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, spelling, and oral and written language expansion) and writing (including spelling, sentence construction, and planning and revising).

Since 1993-94, Lindamood-Bell has partnered with 99 districts in 27 states, and 3 countries to implement its programs and RTI framework. Over 7,000 teachers have received professional development in the program.

Where to Obtain:
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes
416 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone #: (800) 233-1819
Website: lindamoodbell.com

Cost: Below is the Lindamood-Bell summary of services and fees. The costs are the average itemized breakdown of full contracts.

Lindamood-Bell Professional Development Workshops:

  • $35,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Provides the following Lindamood-Bell Professional Development workshops for district staff: One 2-day Seeing Stars workshop; One 2-day Visualizing & Verbalizing workshop; and One 1-day Introduction to Lindamood-Bell School Partnerships workshop, which includes the initial RtI PD.

Consulting, Coaching, and Program Management:

  • $125,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Provides direct, full-time, on-site coaching, mentoring, and program management for all instructional staff.
  • A key component is to establish an organizational infrastructure that provides research-based intervention, body-of-evidence services.

Lindamood-Bell Instructional Leader Certification Program:

  • $15,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • A professional development plan designed to prepare instructional leaders to provide instruction and maintain a high quality, integrated, accountability-driven program for schools, all within an RtI framework.
  • Provides ongoing mentoring for candidates and advanced workshops and professional development activities.
  • Certification must be renewed annually

Leadership Institute:

  • $3,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Leaders learn all aspects of Lindamood-Bell’s Response to Intervention framework and how to effectively manage this framework school wide.
  • Provides a 2-day in-service for district leaders prior to the start of the partnership.
  • Emphasis of learning is placed on principals as instructional leaders with specific responsibilities in monitoring program quality and fidelity.

INFORMS for Schools Orientation/Web-based data management:

  • $3,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Teachers and administrators receive instruction and access to Lindamood-Bell’s web-based data management system. System includes an automated test-scoring module to generate student reports, progress monitoring data, and track attendance.
  • This web-base system does not require the school/district to purchase any additional software or hardware.

Test Administration Orientation and Support:

  • $3,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Lindamood-Bell staff trains school personnel in test administration for assessing student skill level in reading and comprehension. Staff shadow and coach school personnel over the year to manage the various stages of assessment, scoring, and entering of data.

Quality Control Visits and Meetings:

  • $5,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Corporate director visits occur at least 3 times per year to provide regular program mentoring, support, and review of key indicators.

Data Analysis and Reporting:

  • $9,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Provides reports to site principals and to district administration on a monthly basis regarding the status and fidelity of the implementation.
  • Throughout the year the district administration and school board are provided with 4 reports: Needs Assessment Report (Fall); Mid-Year Report (Winter); End-of-Year Report (Summer); and State Achievement Test Report (Fall of following year).

Tips for Home/Community Outreach:

  • $1,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Provides mutually agreed upon events for the families of students each semester to increase community awareness and involvement in the targeted schools.

Total Sample Fees:

  • $199,000/year, up to 3 schools
  • Include all components and services listed, including salaries, benefits, operational expenses, and workshop fees.
  • The above cost estimate serves as the 3-year budget for the school. Sample fees are based on 3-year partnership plan and may vary based on goals and objectives met each year.

Additional Sample Fees for Materials:

  • $55,000 minimum year 1; $15,000 minimum years 2 and 3
  • Instructional and testing materials must be purchased and received separately by the school. A list of publishers will be provided for the school’s convenience.

The program is designed for use with individual students and small groups of 2-6 students.

The program administration time is 55-90 minutes per session with 5-20 sessions per week for 8 or more weeks.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals.

The program requires technology. Teachers and administrators receive instruction and access to Lindamood-Bell’s web-based data management system, including an automated test-scoring module that generates individualized real time student reports, progress monitoring data, and attendance tracking.

Training is required for the instructor. One week of training is needed initially, then mentoring throughout the program.

Our plan for professional development is job-embedded, evidence-based, and tailored to meet the desired goals of a particular school or school system. The backbone of this approach is the implementation of an RTI-based Professional Learning Community (PLC), in which educators can collaborate around a particular methodology or approach, review and discuss student data, share and problem solve issues related to classroom practice, and learn collectively from their own research and experience. A core component of this work is to review teacher and school-wide efforts to improve student learning, including sheltered instruction, specific interventions, and student support systems.
Through the use of our pedagogy and programs, teachers learn to ‘speak the same language’ when comparing progress of students within or across curricula or content areas. Ultimately, this process informs the delivery of standards-based instructional strategies and content-based instruction as well as the overall school or district plan for ongoing professional development.

The minimum qualifications of the instructor are that they are a paraprofessional. The program does not assume the instructor has expertise in a given area.

Training manuals and materials are available.

Schools using the program utilize a system-wide protocol for measuring student growth, teaching quality and relevance, and overall fidelity of the school improvement process. The process is guided by site leaders and decision makers who will review key indicators, and adjust the goals and benchmarks necessary to support students, teachers, and administrators in meeting annual yearly progress (AYP) and school improvement goals.

Ongoing professional and technical support is mandatory for practitioners.

 

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Sample size: 222 students (180 program, 42 control)

Risk Status: The pool of subjects was adjudicated male youth who had been committed to one of two live-in ranch facilities. Both sites serve youth with behavioral and/or drug and life issues. These youth had been found guilty of a crime by the Juvenile Court. They were experiencing academic failure.

Demographics:

  Program Control p of chi square
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Grade level
  Kindergarten 0 0% 0 0% N/A
  Grade 1 0 0% 0 0% N/A
  Grade 2 0 0% 0 0% N/A
  Grade 3 0 0% 0 0% N/A
  Grade 4 0 0% 0 0% N/A
  Grade 5 0 0% 0 0% N/A
  Grade 6 1 <1% 1 2% 0.26
  Grade 7 7 4% 0 0% 0.19
  Grade 8 12 7% 4 10% 0.53
  Grade 9 75 43% 18 44% 0.93
  Grade 10 49 28% 12 29% 0.89
  Grade 11 24 14% 4 10% 0.49
  Grade 12 6 3% 2 5% 0.66
Mean Age          
Race-ethnicity
  African-American 19 11% 7 19% 0.16
  American Indian 0 0% 1 3% 0.03
  Asian/Pacific Islander 8 5% 0 0% 0.19
  Hispanic 118 68% 24 67% 0.86
  White 24 14% 3 8% 0.37
  Other 4 2% 1 3% 0.87
Socioeconomic status
  Subsidized lunch N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
  No subsidized lunch N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Disability status
  Speech-language impairments N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P
  Learning disabilities N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P
  Behavior disorders N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P
  Intellectual disabilities N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P
  Other N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P
  Not identified with a disability N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P
ELL status
  English language learner 56 35% 15 43% 0.41
  Not English language learner 102 65% 20 57% 0.41
Gender
  Female 0 0% 0 0% N/A
  Male 180 100% 42 100% 1.00

Training of Instructors: The initial instructors were Lindamood-Bell® employees who had received training, oversight, and experience at Lindamood-Bell® Learning Centers. As the study progressed site staff were trained in the instructional programs and received on-site direct supervision by highly qualified Lindamood-Bell® staff for the duration of the study. The on-site professional development included observation, guided practice and regular meetings to improve program delivery, test administration, and use of data for instructional decisions. One staff member successfully completed the rigorous LB Consultant Certification process.

Design: Unconvincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: No.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: No.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: Not applicable.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences? Yes.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Was there attrition bias1? No.

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: Yes.

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf

 

Fidelity of Implementation: Unconvincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Lindamood-Bell had highly trained staff on-site full-time during the study to mentor teachers and oversee instruction. Due to the intricacies of the scheduling, weekly instruction meetings were held with the county school administers, Lindamood-Bell, and probation officers. Groups had customized lesson plans that included tracking of program steps and items that were included in the instruction. Teacher observations occurred at least twice weekly. One teacher completed the certification process. Additionally, Lindamood-Bell directors visited the project quarterly to meet with administration and teachers.

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: The lesson plans were reviewed and updated no less than twice weekly. Teacher observations/coaching sessions also occurred twice weekly. The certification process took over one school year as the teacher had to be trained, observed, and evaluated on program use, test administration, and Tier III management.

Since Lindamood-Bell personnel managed the project and also provided the instruction directly to students (unlike other studies where non Lindamood-Bell teachers are trained and monitored for fidelity), complete program fidelity was ensured based on Lindamood-Bell's program requirements and standards of practice.  These standards were developed over 16-year period prior to this study. To summarize, the Lindamood-Bell standards and practice of program fidelity in this study included: 

  • highly trained and experienced Lindamood-Bell instructors, who were employees of the company and had completed a rigorous screening process
  • daily, intensive intervention for all students
  • homogeneous grouping based on standardized assessments
  • differentiated instruction
  • daily, formative assessment
  • frequent program pacing and lesson planning
  • daily or weekly (depending on the needs of the group) quality control checks provided by the on-site Project Director
  • weekly staff meetings to assess student progress and make program refinements
  • regular program oversight and quality control provided by several corporate office directors and personnel

Based on these practices, this study demonstrates a high-fidelity implementation of these programs.  Unlike typical implementations in school settings, fidelity was not compromised due to uncontrolled variables such as scheduling conflicts, teacher buy-in, teacher quality, lack of resources, or limited oversight and quality control.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Measures Broader: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure Score type and range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-R (NU): Word Attack Age-referenced Standard Scores; 10-175 Split-half coefficient = 0.87 Two of the programs, LiPS and Seeing Stars, develop decoding skills such as word attack.
Wide Range Achievement Test-3 Word Reading, and Spelling Age-referenced Standard Scores; 55-145

 

 

Median coefficient of forms combined = .96 Two of the programs, LiPS and Seeing Stars, develop decoding skills such as word reading and spelling.
Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization (LAC-2) Test Raw Scores; 0-100 Not normed Two of the programs, LiPS and Seeing Stars, develop phonological awareness.
Symbol Imagery Test (SIT) Raw Scores: 0-50 Not normed One of the programs, Seeing Stars develops orthographic awareness.


 

Broader Measure Score type and range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content
Gray Oral Reading Test-4: Paragraph Reading Fluency and Comprehension Age-referenced Scaled Scores; 0-20 Average coefficient alpha across ages: Rate = 0.92 (Form A), 0.93 (Form B); Accuracy = 0.91 (Form A), 0.92 (Form B); Fluency = 0.93 (Form A), 0.93 (Form B); Comprehension = 0.97 (Form A), 0.97 (Form B) Two of the programs, LiPS and Seeing Stars, develop decoding skills such as paragraph reading. One program, Visualizing and Verbalizing®, develops comprehension skills.
Detroit Test of Learning Aptitude-2: Following Oral Directions Age-referenced Scaled Scores; 0-20 Average coefficient alpha reliability = 0.83 One program, Visualizing & Verbalizing develops comprehension skills, including oral language comprehension.
Peabody Picture Vocabulary-3 Age-referenced Standard Scores; 52-148 Median split-half reliability coefficient across age intervals = 0.95 (form A and B) One program, Visualizing & Verbalizing develops comprehension skills including vocabulary.

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 10 Reading, 1 Writing

Mean ES - Targeted: 0.47*u

Mean ES - Broader: 0.41*u

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading SI (raw score) 0.79***,u
Reading LAC-2 (raw score) 0.55**,u
Reading WRMT-3 Word Attack 0.97***,u
Reading WRAT-3 Reading 0.38*,u
Reading GORT-4 Rate 0.14u
Reading GORT-4 Accuracy 0.38*,u
Writing WRAT-R Spelling 0.08u

 Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading GORT-4 Fluency 0.21u
Reading GORT-4 Comprehension 0.43*,u
Reading DTLA-2 Oral Direction 0.54**,u
Reading PPVT-3 0.44*,u

 

Key
*      p ≤ 0.05
**    p ≤ 0.01
***  p ≤ 0.001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): N/A

Disaggregated Data for Demographic Subgroups: No

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: No

Administration Group Size: Small Group, (n=1-3)

Duration of Intervention: 50 minutes, 15 times a week, 8-10 weeks

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, 1 week initially, then mentoring

Reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

This program was not reviewed by Evidence for ESSA.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies