Sound Partners Kindergarten
Study: Vadasy & Sanders (2010)
Summary
Sound Partners Kindergarten is a supplemental Tier 2 intervention that provides integrated and explicit instruction in phonemic and alphabetic skills, including phonemic decoding skills and assisted oral reading practice in decodable texts. The program consists of a set of 70 scripted lessons (with 7-8 activities per lesson) with matched decodable texts that are used during 30-min tutoring sessions (typically provided 4 days a week, for about 20 weeks). Tutoring is typically conducted during the school day, outside the classroom in a quiet nearby school space. Typically, paraeducators spend 20 min on phonics activities and 10 min scaffolding students’ oral reading practice in decodable texts. Although phonics activities are designed to be completed within 20 min, paraeducators adjust the rate of progress through the lessons to meet students’ needs. Lesson activities include the following. 1. Letter-sound correspondence – Letters are introduced at a rate of about one new letter every two lessons. Both letter names and letter sounds are explicitly taught and practiced. Students practice by pointing to the letters, saying the sound, and writing the letters that matched the sounds spoken by the instructor. Lessons 1-27 include practice identifying 12 letters per lesson, and later lessons include practice in 16 letters per lesson. Instruction design features cumulative review of all letters, and added review on vowel sounds. When a student needs added practice to learn letter names, and particularly letter sounds, the paraeducator and the student practice with a letter-sound card for a few extra minutes each lesson. During this practice, the student points and matches the letter name/sound to the printed letter and pictured key word on the card, in a procedure described by Berninger (1998). 2. Segmenting – Students learn to segment 2-part compound words, 2-syllable words, 2-phoneme nonwords, 3-phoneme words, and finally, 4-phoneme words with consonant blends. Paraeducators model each item, and then orally present four items for the student to segment using Elkonin boxes (squares drawn on a piece of paper with one square for each speech segment). Students repeat each speech item, point to each box as they say the syllable or phoneme, and then sweep their finger under the boxes and say the word fast. 3. Word reading and spelling – In the first 20 lessons the paraeducator models phoneme blending: pointing to the sample word in each lesson, stretching out the sounds without stopping between phonemes, and then saying the word fast. Students then orally blend 6 words per lesson, with scaffolding and assistance. If needed, students receive added practice on weak letter sounds by identifying the sound in the initial, final, and middle position in a spoken word. The paraeducator dictates three words for the student to spell (words including the new sound, a difficult sound, and ending with an easy word), and provides explicit instruction in how to map letters to phonemes. Students repeat each word before they attempt to spell it, learn to segment each word into phonemes, and reread each word they spelled. Tutors direct students to a handwriting chart with numbered arrows to guide letter strokes and help students form letters efficiently. Students also fingerpoint-read short sentences constructed with previously taught words. At Lesson #33 students learn to read and spell words with plurals. 4. Irregular word instruction – Beginning in lesson 16, the tutor introduces high-frequency irregular words that appear in the decodable texts. The paraeducator reads the word and the student points to the word, spells it aloud, and reads the word again. One word is introduced every one-two lessons, with ongoing cumulative review of previously introduced words. 5. Phoneme blending – To add practice in recognizing orally blended words, the paraeducator asks the student to guess the word (say it fast) that the tutor says in a slow, stretched out way (without stopping between phonemes, just as the student is learning to do in the word reading activity) (in Lessons 1-20). 6. Alphabet naming practice – Based on the student’s level of alphabetic knowledge, the paraeducator asks the student to do one of these activities: (a) say the alphabet (letter names) while pointing to the letters on the letter sound card; (b) say the alphabet (letter names) without looking at the letters/chart; (c) point to the letters that the tutor names; or, (d) name the letters that the tutor points to. 7. Assisted oral reading practice – During the last 10 min of each session, beginning in Lesson 9, students practice reading aloud in the decodable Bob Books (Maslen, 2003), which are matched to the lessons for their instructional consistency (Hoffman, Sailors, & Patterson, 2002; Mesmer, 2004). Students read each book twice the first time it is introduced, and reread other books if time is available. Paraeducators are trained to choose a book reading method best suited for the individual student. Most students read independently, with tutor assistance, and some read the story with the paraeducator (partner reading), or reread a line of text after the instructor read the same line (echo reading). Supplemental decodable titles are provided when students need more texts for reading practice. The effectiveness of Sound Partners tutoring depends upon careful implementation. To ensure a successful Sound Partners tutoring program, schools should have: space for tutors to work with students; paraprofessional tutors available to work with students (one-on-one, 30 minutes/day, 4 days/week, for the entire school year); and, a program supervisor to oversee program implementation. A program supervisor (principal, reading teacher, resource teacher, or tutor coordinator) is essential to successful program implementation. Responsibility for supervising Sound Partners tutoring can usually be incorporated into the supervisor’s regular school job description, and may require 1 to 3 hours per week of time. For example, if a school has 6 experienced/skilled tutors who work with 5 students each (for a total of 30 students), overseeing the program may take about 1 hour per week. If a school has 6 inexperienced tutors, a program supervisor could spend up to 3 hours a week coaching and supervising tutors. The following list outlines the roles of the supervisor: -Coordinating tutoring space and storage space for supplies, as well as supplies ordering and distribution -Coordinating tutoring training and monthly tutoring meetings/follow-up trainings, as needed -Providing tutors with support on student behavior concerns -Monitoring tutor attendance and lesson instruction fidelity -Monitoring student progress on mastery tests and reporting progress to teachers and parents -Making tutors and the program visible, as part of the school’s reading program -Answering questions for tutors, teachers, and parents about lesson instruction, tutor payroll, tutor and student attendance.
- Target Grades:
- K, 1
- Target Populations:
-
- Students with learning disabilities
- English language learners
- Any student at risk for academic failure
- Area(s) of Focus:
-
- Alphabet knowledge
- Phonological awareness
- Early decoding abilities
- Phonological awareness
- Phonics/word study
- Spelling
- Where to Obtain:
- Voyager Sopris Learning
- Cambium Learning Group, 17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75287
- 800-547-6747
- http://www.voyagersopris.com
- Initial Cost:
- $120.00 per set of materials for one tutor
- Replacement Cost:
- Contact vendor for pricing details.
-
$90 for masters set of lessons, and $30 for two sets of decodable Bob Books storybooks used with the lessons
- Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
-
- Special Education Teacher
- General Education Teacher
- Reading Specialist
- Math Specialist
- EL Specialist
- Interventionist
- Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
- Paraprofessional
- Other:
- Training Requirements:
- 4 hours initial training
-
This program is designed to be implemented by paraeducator tutors. Typically a half day of training is provided. Trainers model use of the scripted lessons, and supervise practice in use of each component. Follow up coaching is typically provided, either locally by our trainers, or by the school contact who is trained to be the on-site coach/supervisor. The program includes a coaching guide, as well as a format for recording fidelity of use. Many districts have used the videos of a training session presented by one of our lead trainers, these are available on Vimeo.
The training manual and training procedures were used in several RCT studies of this program, as well as in an earlier first grade version of the program. The training manual design has been effective in preparing typical tutors in those studies to implement the program with a high degree of fidelity.
- Access to Technical Support:
- Not available
- Recommended Administration Formats Include:
-
- Individual students
- Small group of students
- Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
- 30
- Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
- 4
- Minimum Number of Weeks:
- 20
- Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
- Yes
- Is Technology Required?
- No technology is required.
Program Information
Descriptive Information
Please provide a description of program, including intended use:
Sound Partners Kindergarten is a supplemental Tier 2 intervention that provides integrated and explicit instruction in phonemic and alphabetic skills, including phonemic decoding skills and assisted oral reading practice in decodable texts. The program consists of a set of 70 scripted lessons (with 7-8 activities per lesson) with matched decodable texts that are used during 30-min tutoring sessions (typically provided 4 days a week, for about 20 weeks). Tutoring is typically conducted during the school day, outside the classroom in a quiet nearby school space. Typically, paraeducators spend 20 min on phonics activities and 10 min scaffolding students’ oral reading practice in decodable texts. Although phonics activities are designed to be completed within 20 min, paraeducators adjust the rate of progress through the lessons to meet students’ needs. Lesson activities include the following. 1. Letter-sound correspondence – Letters are introduced at a rate of about one new letter every two lessons. Both letter names and letter sounds are explicitly taught and practiced. Students practice by pointing to the letters, saying the sound, and writing the letters that matched the sounds spoken by the instructor. Lessons 1-27 include practice identifying 12 letters per lesson, and later lessons include practice in 16 letters per lesson. Instruction design features cumulative review of all letters, and added review on vowel sounds. When a student needs added practice to learn letter names, and particularly letter sounds, the paraeducator and the student practice with a letter-sound card for a few extra minutes each lesson. During this practice, the student points and matches the letter name/sound to the printed letter and pictured key word on the card, in a procedure described by Berninger (1998). 2. Segmenting – Students learn to segment 2-part compound words, 2-syllable words, 2-phoneme nonwords, 3-phoneme words, and finally, 4-phoneme words with consonant blends. Paraeducators model each item, and then orally present four items for the student to segment using Elkonin boxes (squares drawn on a piece of paper with one square for each speech segment). Students repeat each speech item, point to each box as they say the syllable or phoneme, and then sweep their finger under the boxes and say the word fast. 3. Word reading and spelling – In the first 20 lessons the paraeducator models phoneme blending: pointing to the sample word in each lesson, stretching out the sounds without stopping between phonemes, and then saying the word fast. Students then orally blend 6 words per lesson, with scaffolding and assistance. If needed, students receive added practice on weak letter sounds by identifying the sound in the initial, final, and middle position in a spoken word. The paraeducator dictates three words for the student to spell (words including the new sound, a difficult sound, and ending with an easy word), and provides explicit instruction in how to map letters to phonemes. Students repeat each word before they attempt to spell it, learn to segment each word into phonemes, and reread each word they spelled. Tutors direct students to a handwriting chart with numbered arrows to guide letter strokes and help students form letters efficiently. Students also fingerpoint-read short sentences constructed with previously taught words. At Lesson #33 students learn to read and spell words with plurals. 4. Irregular word instruction – Beginning in lesson 16, the tutor introduces high-frequency irregular words that appear in the decodable texts. The paraeducator reads the word and the student points to the word, spells it aloud, and reads the word again. One word is introduced every one-two lessons, with ongoing cumulative review of previously introduced words. 5. Phoneme blending – To add practice in recognizing orally blended words, the paraeducator asks the student to guess the word (say it fast) that the tutor says in a slow, stretched out way (without stopping between phonemes, just as the student is learning to do in the word reading activity) (in Lessons 1-20). 6. Alphabet naming practice – Based on the student’s level of alphabetic knowledge, the paraeducator asks the student to do one of these activities: (a) say the alphabet (letter names) while pointing to the letters on the letter sound card; (b) say the alphabet (letter names) without looking at the letters/chart; (c) point to the letters that the tutor names; or, (d) name the letters that the tutor points to. 7. Assisted oral reading practice – During the last 10 min of each session, beginning in Lesson 9, students practice reading aloud in the decodable Bob Books (Maslen, 2003), which are matched to the lessons for their instructional consistency (Hoffman, Sailors, & Patterson, 2002; Mesmer, 2004). Students read each book twice the first time it is introduced, and reread other books if time is available. Paraeducators are trained to choose a book reading method best suited for the individual student. Most students read independently, with tutor assistance, and some read the story with the paraeducator (partner reading), or reread a line of text after the instructor read the same line (echo reading). Supplemental decodable titles are provided when students need more texts for reading practice. The effectiveness of Sound Partners tutoring depends upon careful implementation. To ensure a successful Sound Partners tutoring program, schools should have: space for tutors to work with students; paraprofessional tutors available to work with students (one-on-one, 30 minutes/day, 4 days/week, for the entire school year); and, a program supervisor to oversee program implementation. A program supervisor (principal, reading teacher, resource teacher, or tutor coordinator) is essential to successful program implementation. Responsibility for supervising Sound Partners tutoring can usually be incorporated into the supervisor’s regular school job description, and may require 1 to 3 hours per week of time. For example, if a school has 6 experienced/skilled tutors who work with 5 students each (for a total of 30 students), overseeing the program may take about 1 hour per week. If a school has 6 inexperienced tutors, a program supervisor could spend up to 3 hours a week coaching and supervising tutors. The following list outlines the roles of the supervisor: -Coordinating tutoring space and storage space for supplies, as well as supplies ordering and distribution -Coordinating tutoring training and monthly tutoring meetings/follow-up trainings, as needed -Providing tutors with support on student behavior concerns -Monitoring tutor attendance and lesson instruction fidelity -Monitoring student progress on mastery tests and reporting progress to teachers and parents -Making tutors and the program visible, as part of the school’s reading program -Answering questions for tutors, teachers, and parents about lesson instruction, tutor payroll, tutor and student attendance.
The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).
Age 0-3
Age 3-5
Kindergarten
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Fourth grade
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Seventh grade
Eighth grade
Ninth grade
Tenth grade
Eleventh grade
Twelth grade
The program is intended for use with the following groups.
Students with disabilities only
Students with learning disabilities
Students with intellectual disabilities
Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
English language learners
Any student at risk for academic failure
Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
OtherIf other, please describe:
ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.
Early Literacy
Print knowledge/awareness
Alphabet knowledge
Phonological awareness
Phonological awarenessEarly writing
Early decoding abilities
OtherIf other, please describe:
Language
Expressive and receptive vocabulary
Grammar
Syntax
Listening comprehension
OtherIf other, please describe:
Reading
Phonological awareness
Phonics/word study
Comprehension
Fluency
Vocabulary
Spelling
OtherIf other, please describe:
Mathematics
Computation
Concepts and/or word problems
Whole number arithmetic
Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
Algebra
Fractions, decimals (rational number)
Geometry and measurement
OtherIf other, please describe:
Writing
Handwriting
Spelling
Sentence construction
Planning and revising
OtherIf other, please describe:
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.
Externalizing Behavior
Physical Aggression
Verbal Threats
Property Destruction
Noncompliance
High Levels of Disengagement
Disruptive Behavior
Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
OtherIf other, please describe:
Internalizing Behavior
Depression
Anxiety
Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
School Phobia
OtherIf other, please describe:
Acquisition and cost information
Where to obtain:
- Address
- Cambium Learning Group, 17855 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400, Dallas, TX 75287
- Phone Number
- 800-547-6747
- Website
- http://www.voyagersopris.com
Initial cost for implementing program:
- Cost
- $120.00
- Unit of cost
- set of materials for one tutor
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
- Cost
- Unit of cost
- Duration of license
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)
$90 for masters set of lessons, and $30 for two sets of decodable Bob Books storybooks used with the lessonsProgram Specifications
Setting for which the program is designed.
Individual students
Small group of students
BI ONLY: A classroom of students
If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?
2Program administration time
- Minimum number of minutes per session
- 30
- Minimum number of sessions per week
- 4
- Minimum number of weeks
- 20
N/A (implemented until effective)- If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:
Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?- Yes
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?-
If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program: -
Does the program require technology? - No
-
If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? -
Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)
If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:
Training
- How many people are needed to implement the program ?
- 1
Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?- Yes
- If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
- At-cost
Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:- 4 hours initial training
Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:- This program is designed to be implemented by paraeducator tutors. Typically a half day of training is provided. Trainers model use of the scripted lessons, and supervise practice in use of each component. Follow up coaching is typically provided, either locally by our trainers, or by the school contact who is trained to be the on-site coach/supervisor. The program includes a coaching guide, as well as a format for recording fidelity of use. Many districts have used the videos of a training session presented by one of our lead trainers, these are available on Vimeo.
What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?
Special Education Teacher
General Education Teacher
Reading Specialist
Math Specialist
EL Specialist
Interventionist
Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
Paraprofessional
OtherIf other, please describe:
- Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
-
Yes
If yes, please describe:
The tutor supervisor (or local trainer) should have a background in beginning reading acquisition and instruction. Tutors often have no background in beginning reading instruction.
Are training manuals and materials available?- Yes
-
Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students: - The training manual and training procedures were used in several RCT studies of this program, as well as in an earlier first grade version of the program. The training manual design has been effective in preparing typical tutors in those studies to implement the program with a high degree of fidelity.
Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?- Yes
-
Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support? -
No
If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:
Although technical support is not typically needed, out trainers remain available to support schools.
Summary of Evidence Base
- Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.
-
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008a). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A replication and comparison of instructional grouping. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 929-963.
Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008b). Individual tutoring for struggling readers: Moving research to scale with interventions implemented by paraeducators. In G. Reid, A. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. Siegel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of dyslexia (pp. 337-355). London: Sage Publications.
Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 508-528.
Study Information
Study Citations
Vadasy, P. F. & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4) 786-803.
Participants
- Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
- We identified LM and non-LM students in the lower half of their classrooms for random assignment to experimental conditions. First, we separated students by classroom. Then, we separated LMs and non-LMs within each classroom. Next, we computed a composite z-score for each student, based on the mean z-score of each of the three screening measures already described (all z-scores were computed within LM/non-LM subgroup, within classroom). Students were then rank ordered, within LM/non-LM subgroup within classroom, from lowest to highest; students in the upper half of their classroom’s LM or non-LM group were then removed from further study participation. Finally, students in the lower half of their classroom’s LM or non-LM group were randomly assigned to treatment (supplemental tutoring) or control (regular classroom instruction, no tutoring) conditions.
- Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
- Screening for students at risk included three measures. The first two were measures of alphabetic knowledge, the number of letter sounds and letter names produced out of 52 randomly ordered upper-case English letters (Fuchs et al., 2001). The third was a test of phonological awareness (Sound Matching subtest from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). Both alphabetic knowledge (Chall, 1967; Share, Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988) and phonological awareness (Adams, 1990; Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999; Shankweiler & Liberman, 1989; Share, 1995; Snowling, 1991; Stanovich, 2000) are well-established early predictors of reading outcomes in monolingual English speakers, and phonological awareness and alphabetic skills are related to English word reading in LM children (Chiappe, Siegel, & Wade-Wooley, 2002; Lesaux, Koda, Siegel,& Shanahan, 2006; Lipka & Siegel, 2007).
-
ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
- below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
- identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
- %
-
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
- emotional disability label,
- placed in an alternative school/classroom,
- non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
- designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
- %
- Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
- The Sound Partners Kindergarten program was the program used for the treatment group in this study.
- Specify which condition is the control condition:
- Students in the control group received regular classroom reading instruction.
- If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):
Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.
Grade Level
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age less than 1 | |||
| Age 1 | |||
| Age 2 | |||
| Age 3 | |||
| Age 4 | |||
| Age 5 | |||
| Kindergarten | 80.7% | 94.2% | 0.79 |
| Grade 1 | |||
| Grade 2 | |||
| Grade 3 | |||
| Grade 4 | |||
| Grade 5 | |||
| Grade 6 | |||
| Grade 7 | |||
| Grade 8 | |||
| Grade 9 | |||
| Grade 10 | |||
| Grade 11 | |||
| Grade 12 |
Race–Ethnicity
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| African American | 25.3% | 15.1% | 0.39 |
| American Indian | |||
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 15.7% | 19.8% | 0.16 |
| Hispanic | 27.7% | 41.9% | 0.38 |
| White | 9.6% | 15.1% | 0.28 |
| Other | 2.4% | 2.3% | 0.00 |
Socioeconomic Status
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subsidized Lunch | 67.5% | 75.6% | 0.27 |
| No Subsidized Lunch | 13.3% | 18.6% | 0.27 |
Disability Status
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speech-Language Impairments | 1.2% | 4.7% | 1.00 |
| Learning Disabilities | |||
| Behavior Disorders | |||
| Emotional Disturbance | |||
| Intellectual Disabilities | |||
| Other | |||
| Not Identified With a Disability |
ELL Status
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| English Language Learner | 44.6% | 50.0% | 0.12 |
| Not English Language Learner | 36.1% | 44.2% | 0.20 |
Gender
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 41.0% | 37.2% | 0.10 |
| Male | 39.8% | 57.0% | 0.42 |
Mean Effect Size
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Design
- What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
- Random
- Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
- We identified LM and non-LM students in the lower half of their classrooms for random assignment to experimental conditions. First, we separated students by classroom. Then, we separated LMs and non-LMs within each classroom. Next, we computed a composite z-score for each student, based on the mean z-score of each of the three screening measures already described (all z-scores were computed within LM/non-LM subgroup, within classroom). Students were then rank ordered, within LM/non-LM subgroup within classroom, from lowest to highest; students in the upper half of their classroom’s LM or non-LM group were then removed from further study participation. Finally, students in the lower half of their classroom’s LM or non-LM group were randomly assigned to treatment (supplemental tutoring) or control (regular classroom instruction, no tutoring) conditions.
-
What was the unit of assignment? - Students
- If other, please specify:
-
Please describe the unit of assignment: -
What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis? -
Schools
Teachers
Students
Classes
Other
If other, please specify:
-
Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:
Fidelity of Implementation
- How was the program delivered?
-
Individually
Small Group
Classroom
If small group, answer the following:
- Average group size
- Minimum group size
- Maximum group size
What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?
- Weeks
- 18.00
- Sessions per week
- 4.00
- Duration of sessions in minutes
- 30.00
- What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
- All paraeducator tutors (paraeducators) were recruited from their school communities based on their interest in working with children, prior tutoring and school volunteer experience, and scheduling flexibility. The 23 participating paraeducators were mostly non-minority (74%) and female (83%), and varied in their age, educational levels, general tutoring experience, and experience working with kindergartners. Tutors averaged a mode of 35-44 years old (ranging from 18 to over 55), and ranged in educational level from high school diploma to master’s degree, with a modal level of a bachelor’s degree (39%). (The average education level of paraeducators in this study is similar to that recommended under NCLB for supplemental education services.) Prior to the study, the range of paraeducator tutoring experience ranged from 0 (22%) to 10 or more years (26%), with an average of M=4.52 years (SD = 5.06). Most paraeducators (72%) had at least one year previous experience working with early grade levels (K-2) averaging M = 3.22 years (SD = 4.04, Range = 0 to 15 years). All paraeducators were hired as district employees and paid by the schools with funds provided by the research grant. Researchers provided an initial 2-hr training session to describe each lesson activity, and model paraeducator/student behaviors, errors, and error correction strategies. Trainees were paired together to practice each activity while trainers provided feedback and responded to questions. Follow-up training was provided throughout the intervention, with added coaching for paraeducators with less experience and/or low initial intervention fidelity ratings. Less experienced tutors received from 0.5 to 3.0 hr of coaching during the intervention, averaging 1 hr of additional on site coaching. All coaches also conducted fidelity observations, described below. Research staff were teachers or experienced tutors with backgrounds in reading instruction. They provided ongoing coaching and modeling of appropriate scaffolding to help paraeducators provide the type of support at-risk students often require to accomplish phonemic segmenting, decoding, and encoding tasks (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Juel, 1996). Tutors were instructed that, before students moved beyond lesson 10 (when modeling of the phonemic decoding task decreases), each student should demonstrate at least 70% mastery of all letter sounds introduced as well as an understanding of phoneme decoding (although not necessarily at full mastery). Tutors who worked with LM students were instructed to provide judicious incidental vocabulary instruction without compromising the intensity of phonics instruction time.
- Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
- Six research staff were trained to conduct on-site fidelity observations of paraeducators with their assigned students. Fidelity observations involved a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (never implements correctly) to 5 (always implements correctly) for each of the instructional components. After training but prior to field observations, researchers viewed six videotaped tutoring sessions of paraeducators implementing instruction with students; students in the videotaped sessions were selected to represent a range of reading skills we expected to see in the field, with ages ranging from 4- to 7-years-old. To determine interrater reliability, we calculated the internal consistency of the observers’ mean implementation ratings for the videotaped sessions (using observers’ ratings as items and each videotape as subjects): Cronbach’s alpha was 0.97.
- What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
- After establishing reliability, researchers conducted a total of 156 observations for the 23 paraeducators over the course of the intervention, averaging 6.78 observations per tutor. Fidelity ratings averaged M = 4.41 (SD = 0.57).
- Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
Measures and Results
Measures Broader :
| Targeted Measure | Reverse Coded? | Reliability | Relevance | Exposure |
|---|
| Broader Measure | Reverse Coded? | Reliability | Relevance | Exposure |
|---|
| Administrative Data Measure | Reverse Coded? | Relevance |
|---|
Effect Size
Effect size represents the how much performance changed because of the intervention. The larger the effect size, the greater the impact participating in the intervention had.
According to guidelines from the What Works Clearinghouse, an effect size of 0.25 or greater is “substantively important.” Additionally, effect sizes that are statistically significant are more trustworthy than effect sizes of the same magnitude that are not statistically significant.
Effect Size Dial
The purpose of the effect size dial is to help users understand the strength of a tool relative to other tools on the Tools Chart.
- The range represents where most effect sizes fall within reading or math based on effect sizes from tools on the Tools Chart.
- The orange pointer shows the average effect size for this study.
Targeted Measures (Full Sample)
Average Reading Effect Size
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| Average across all targeted measures | Full Sample | 0.76* |
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Broader Measures (Full Sample)
Average Reading Effect Size
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| Average across all broader measures | Full Sample | 0.40* |
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Administrative Measures (Full Sample)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| Average across all admin measures | Full Sample | -- |
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Targeted Measures (Subgroups)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Broader Measures (Subgroups)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Administrative Measures (Subgroups)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
- For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
- Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
- If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
- Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
- Multilevel modeling was used to analyze student outcomes. The analytic approach is described on p. 25-28 and the results can be found in Tables 5-6 and pp. 30-33 of the manuscript.
Additional Research
- Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
- WWC & E-ESSA
- Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :
What Works Clearinghouse Review
Beginning Readers Protocol
Effectiveness: Sound Partners was found to have positive effects on alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension and no discernible effects on general reading achievement on beginning readers.
Studies Reviewed: 7 studies meet standards out of 11 studies total
Evidence for ESSA
English Learners
Program Outcomes: Two studies evaluated Sound Partners with English learners. One involved kindergartners and one first graders. Effect sizes were significantly positive compared to controls at both grade levels. The effect size across Woodcock and CTOPP measures was +0.60 for kindergartners, +0.15 for first graders. Follow-up studies found that these outcomes were still seen two years later, on Word Reading and Comprehension. The positive outcomes qualify Sound Partners for the ESSA “Strong” category, and for the “Solid Outcomes” rating (effect size of at least +0.20 over at least two studies).
Number of Studies: 2
Average Effect Size: 0.36
Struggling Readers
Program Outcomes: Two studies, one at the kindergarten level and the other at the first grade level, qualified for the review. The average effect size was +0.58 on measures from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test and CTOPP. These met the criteria for the ESSA “Strong” category, and for “Solid Outcomes” (two studies with effect sizes of at least +0.20). Follow-up studies of the kindergartners and first graders both found positive effects maintained two years later on word reading and comprehension.
Number of Studies: 4
Average Effect Size: 0.58
- How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
- 4
- Citations for Additional Research Studies :
Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(1), 53–86.
Mooney, P. J. (2003). An investigation of the effects of a comprehensive reading intervention on the beginning reading skills of first graders at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(05A), 85–1599.
Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., & Pool, K. (2000). Effects of tutoring in phonological and early reading skills on students at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 579–590.
Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997a). The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(1), 126–139.
Data Collection Practices
Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.
