Enhanced Core Reading Instruction
Study: Fien et al. (2015); Smith et al. (2016)

Summary

Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) is a multi-tiered reading intervention for kindergarten, first and second grade designed to meet the learning needs of students at-risk in reading. The Enhancing Core Reading Instruction model increases the level of explicitness of core reading instruction by redesigning the core reading program to focus on critical reading content, to be clear and systematic, and to provide deliberate and frequent practice opportunities (Baker, Fien, Baker, 2010; Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, 1997; Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons, & Coyne, 2002). Further, through an additional daily, 30-minute, small group intervention, at-risk readers are pre-taught critical content that appears in the next day’s core reading lesson, and are provided with more practice opportunities to learn critical reading skills and concepts. In small group lessons, at-risk readers are provided highly interactive and engaging learning opportunities.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2
Target Populations:
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Phonological awareness
  • Phonics/word study
  • Comprehension
  • Fluency
  • Vocabulary
Where to Obtain:
Baker, Fien, Smith, Kame’enui, Santoro, Dissen, & Travers
CTL Marketplace
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/
Initial Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

Please contact us for pricing information: readingctl@uoregon.edu

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: ECRI is a multi-tiered intervention that includes enhanced core reading materials and a comprehensive Tier 2 intervention. A classroom teacher provides the enhanced core reading instruction. Tier 2 intervention can be taught by either the classroom teacher, a paraprofessional, or a reading specialist.
Training Requirements:
2-3 days of training recommended

The ECRI materials include professional development workbooks for teachers and interventionists and a leadership guide for literacy leaders. The authors describe practical routines for enhancing core reading instruction in essential areas including foundational reading skills, vocabulary, and comprehension that are directly aligned with the Common Core State Standards. These workbooks are designed to be used as a study group, self-study or as part of a facilitated training.


Training materials were used over a four-year period as part of a large, randomized controlled trial. The materials have been revised for use outside of the research project based on feedback from teachers within the study.

Access to Technical Support:
readingctl@uoregon.edu
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
30
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
Minimum Number of Weeks:
30
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:

Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) is a multi-tiered reading intervention for kindergarten, first and second grade designed to meet the learning needs of students at-risk in reading. The Enhancing Core Reading Instruction model increases the level of explicitness of core reading instruction by redesigning the core reading program to focus on critical reading content, to be clear and systematic, and to provide deliberate and frequent practice opportunities (Baker, Fien, Baker, 2010; Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, 1997; Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons, & Coyne, 2002). Further, through an additional daily, 30-minute, small group intervention, at-risk readers are pre-taught critical content that appears in the next day’s core reading lesson, and are provided with more practice opportunities to learn critical reading skills and concepts. In small group lessons, at-risk readers are provided highly interactive and engaging learning opportunities.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
not selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

selected Phonological awareness
selected Phonics/word study
selected Comprehension
selected Fluency
selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
CTL Marketplace
Phone Number
Website
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/market/

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
Unit of cost

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)

Please contact us for pricing information: readingctl@uoregon.edu

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   3-5

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
30
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
Minimum number of weeks
30
not selected 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?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected 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 ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
2-3 days of training recommended

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
The ECRI materials include professional development workbooks for teachers and interventionists and a leadership guide for literacy leaders. The authors describe practical routines for enhancing core reading instruction in essential areas including foundational reading skills, vocabulary, and comprehension that are directly aligned with the Common Core State Standards. These workbooks are designed to be used as a study group, self-study or as part of a facilitated training.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
selected Other

If other, please describe:

ECRI is a multi-tiered intervention that includes enhanced core reading materials and a comprehensive Tier 2 intervention. A classroom teacher provides the enhanced core reading instruction. Tier 2 intervention can be taught by either the classroom teacher, a paraprofessional, or a reading specialist.
Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
Yes   

If yes, please describe: 

Experience teaching reading

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:
Training materials were used over a four-year period as part of a large, randomized controlled trial. The materials have been revised for use outside of the research project based on feedback from teachers within the study.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

readingctl@uoregon.edu

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.

Baker, Fien, Smith; University of Oregon; Funding Agency: Institute for Education Sciences, NCSER http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=780

Study Information

Study Citations

1) Fien, H., Smith, J. L., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Nelson, N. J. & Chaparro, E. (2015). An examination of the efficacy of a multitiered intervention on early reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(6) 606-621; 2) Smith, J. L., Nelson, N. J., Fien, H., Smolkowski, K., Kosty, D. & Baker, S. K. (2016). Examining the efficacy of a multitiered intervention for at-risk readers in grade 1. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4) 549-573.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Project ECRI was a cluster-randomized controlled trial that nested students and teachers within schools. In the first wave of the study (2009-2010), 18 schools in three school districts were randomly assigned to the treatment, 9 schools in each condition. Of these schools, two left after random assignment (1 treatment and 1 comparison). In the second wave of the study (2010-2011), 28 schools in six school districts were randomly assigned to the treatment, 14 schools in each condition.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Fall scores on the reading portion of the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition (SAT10) were used to assign students to Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 using the 2007 normative comparison. Students that scored between the 10th and 30th percentile on the SAT10 in the fall of first grade were assigned to Tier 2. Students that scored above the 30th percentile on the SAT10 or below the 10th percentile were assigned to Tier 1 and Tier 3, respectively.

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:
N/A

Specify which condition is the control condition:
N/A

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
Grade 1 120 147 0.00
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 1 6 0.86
American Indian 1 1 0.00
Asian/Pacific Islander 7 9 0.00
Hispanic 23 35 0.18
White 82 93 0.13
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch 52 72 0.15

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
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 15 17 0.06
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 52 79 0.27
Male

Mean Effect Size

0.18

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 Full Bobble

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.
In the first project wave, we recruited 22 schools in three Oregon school districts to participate in Project ECRI. Four of these schools elected to not participate in the study due to changes in school leadership between recruitment and the beginning of the study. The remaining 18 schools were randomly assigned to the treatment or comparison condition. We blocked on district before random assignment to control for core curricula and other important factors, ensuring similar schools in each condition. Because there was one district with only one participating school, that school joined another district for randomization. After random assignment, two schools participating in Wave 1 (one treatment and one comparison school) left the project, leaving 16 schools participating in Wave 1. In the second project wave, we recruited 20 schools in three districts in Oregon and eight schools in three districts in Massachusetts to participate and randomly assigned all schools to conditions. All recruited Wave 2 schools participated in the study, thus, the combined wave sample included 46 schools.

What was the unit of assignment?
Schools
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
selected Schools
not selected Teachers
not selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
4
Minimum group size
3
Maximum group size
5

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
30.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
30.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Participating teachers reported 13.49 total years of teaching experience, on average (M = 12.18 years for treatment teachers; M = 14.73 years for comparison teachers). Teachers in the treatment condition participated in three days of professional development on the ECRI instructional model prior to the beginning of the school year, and two days of follow-up activities in October. Professional development for teachers emphasized (a) instructional teaching routines; (b) overview of research on beginning reading content and skills including phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency in reading connected text; and (c) strategies for increasing student engagement in lessons. Small group instructors received two days of professional development in the fall and one day in January. Professional development for small group instructors emphasized instructional teaching routines and strategies for increasing student engagement in lessons. All professional development included teaching demonstrations by ECRI expert coaches and participant practice with coach feedback. Teachers and small group instructors also received comprehensive coaching support through classroom and small group visits once per month and regular study group meetings, facilitated by an ECRI coach.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Observations were conducted during core reading instruction in all treatment and comparison classrooms in the fall, winter, and spring. Unless schools reported classrooms were providing less than 90 minutes of core reading instruction, all observations were scheduled for at least 90 minutes. Observations included whole group and small group instruction during the core reading block. The Quality of Explicit Instruction observation (Nelson-Walker et al., in press) was used to measure fidelity of implementation of the ECRI intervention and the quality of explicit reading instruction in first grade classrooms.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Observations of implementation fidelity conducted by trained data collectors indicated nearly all treatment teachers used lesson maps (M = 0.90) and instructional templates (M = 0.89) during instruction, and instruction in treatment classrooms was consistent with the intent of the lesson maps and templates to improve the quality of explicit instruction (M = 0.77).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
As expected, observations conducted in comparison classrooms indicated comparison teachers rarely used lesson maps (M = .09) and instructional templates (M = .07) during instruction. Although treatment diffusion was minimal, some comparison teachers did have access to intervention materials.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
selected Full sample
selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
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:
We assessed intervention effects on each of the primary outcomes with a mixed-model (multilevel) time × condition analysis (Murray, 1998) to account for students nested within schools, the level of random assignment. The analysis tests net differences between conditions on change in outcomes from the fall (T1) to spring (T2) of Grade 1, with gains for individual students clustered within schools. The test of net differences provides an unbiased and straightforward interpretation of the results (Cribbie & Jamieson, 2000, Fitzmaurice, Laird, & Ware, 2004), opposed to covariate adjusted scores, which can be ambiguous. The statistical model includes time, condition, and the time × condition interaction, with time coded 0 at T1 and 1 at T2 and condition coded 0 for control and 1 for ECRI. The time × condition interaction estimate provides for the test of condition effects. With 44 schools, tests of time × condition used 42 degrees of freedom. Primary analyses included the students in each school that scored between the 16th and 39th percentile on the SAT10 in the fall of first grade. This nested time × condition analysis accounts the intraclass correlation associated with multiple students nested within the same schools.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
E-ESSA
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

WWC only reviewed the report “Examining the Efficacy of a Multitiered Intervention for At-risk Readers in Grade 1.” The findings from this review do not reflect the full body of research evidence on Enhanced Core Reading Instruction.

 

WWC Rating: Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

 

Full Report

 

Evidence for ESSA

Program Outcomes: A study in Oregon and Massachusetts compared first graders taught in Enhanced Core Reading Instruction to those taught in a control group. Differences on Woodcock Johnson and SAT-10 scales favored the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction group, and these were significant for Woodcock-Johnson Word Attack and SAT-10 Word Reading, qualifying Enhanced Core Reading Instruction for the ESSA "Strong" category.

Number of Studies: 1

Average Effect Size: 0.24

Full Report

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Disclaimer

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.