A Diagnostic Teaching Intervention for
Classroom Teachers:
Helping Struggling Readers in Early
Elementary School
in Rural America
Lynne Vernon-Feagans
University of North Carolina
The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI)
Targeting instructional match in every interaction…
The Targeted Reading Intervention
Lynne Vernon-Feagans
Kate Gallagher
Marnie Ginsberg
Steve Amendum
Kirsten Kainz
Peg Burchinal
Steve Knotek
Kelley Mayer
Jason Rose
Tim Wood
Natalie Phelps
Jeanne Gunther
Mandy Peters
Iris Padgett
The Rural Context
Challenges
• Children are poorer
• Children have lower prereadiness skills
• Housing is poorer
• Distances to services and
schools are greater
• Jobs are lower paying and in
the service sector
• Bus rides are longer
• Teachers are less skilled
• Tax base is lower
Assets
• Children are exposed to less
random violent crime
• More two parent families
• More home ownership
• A greater sense of place
• Teachers know many of the
families of the children they
teach
• Teachers have more
experience
• Families rate teachers more
favorably
Small Towns
Farming
Home deterioration
Trailers
Community Schools
Purpose
The Targeted Reading Intervention
(TRI) is designed to improve the literacy
teaching strategies of teachers in low
wealth rural communities, using an
individualized diagnostic teaching
model, with a specific focus on teaching
strategies that are effective with
struggling readers who do not make
reading gains using traditional reading
instruction.
The TRI Studies
• Cluster Randomized Clinical Trials to
assess the effectiveness of the TRI in a
series of 3 research studies
• Part of the National Research Center on
Rural Education Support (Tom Farmer & Lynne
Vernon-Feagans)
– www.nrcres.org/TRI.htm
• Funded by the Institute of Education
Sciences (IES)
Background on Struggling Readers
• Children’s early success in reading is critical
for their later schooling success (Juel, 1988;
Foorman et al., 1998)
• Research shows that by the end of first grade
children’s trajectories are set for school
(Alexander & Entwisle, 1988)
Two Groups most at Risk for
Reading Failure
• Low income children are the large group least
responsive to interventions (Foorman &
Torgesen, 2001; Torgesen et al., 2007)
• Children who have phonological processing
problems who are often identified as reading
or learning disabled are also less responsive
to intervention (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001)
• These two groups overlap
Model of Early
Reading
• Preventing Reading Failure in Young Children (1998)
• The National Reading Panel (2000)
• No Child Left Behind Legislation (2001)
– Reading First
• National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (2005)
Effective Interventions
for Struggling Readers
(Vernon-Feagans, Gallagher & Kainz, in press)
• 1. Explicit Instruction
• 2. Early Intervention in first few grades
• 3. One on one and small group
instruction
• 4. Effective classroom teacher/child
relationships
• 5. Diagnostic Teaching
The TRI Model of Diagnostic
Teaching
Targeted Reading Intervention
(Tier 2 Intervention)
• Collaborative consultation in the
regular classroom setting with the
classroom teacher
• Intensive, diagnostic reading
instruction for each struggling
reader by the classroom teacher
• Instructional match in each
teacher/child interaction
• Integration of word attack skills
within the context of words and
text and in guided oral reading
• Daily instruction 15 minutes per
day until child makes rapid
progress
• Delivered in one-on-one sessions
between teacher and child
The TRI Delivery Model
• 3 Day Workshop in the summer
• Continual teacher work during the summer with children
with email/phone distant consultation
• Identification of struggling readers at the beginning of
school
• Weekly, biweekly or monthly problem solving between
literacy consultant and teacher, using TRI strategies
• Weekly/biweekly grade level meetings with our literacy
consultants
• Training of an on site literacy consultant
Aligned with goals/needs of
rural teachers

Geared to low wealth schools
•
Can be accomplished without many material or
people resources
•
Can Be used with any curricula
•
Is supportive of isolated teachers
•
Is sustainable with current funding
TRI Materials
TRI Picture Dictionary
TRI
Referenc
e Tool
TRI
Professional
Development
Guide
Poster
s
• Reading
Model
TRI diagnostic
map
• Stages of
Word
Work
TRI Framework
Re-Reading for Fluency
(~2+ minutes)
Word Work
(~8+ minutes)
Guided Oral Reading
(~5+ minutes)
TRI Extensions
“What’s the student’s most pressing need?”
DiagnosticDate
Map
___________________
Student ___________________________
Assessment-Based plan
Assessment of Today’s Work
Moving Forward
Re-Reading for Fluency
Text
______________________
Rate the reading
1
2

Text Difficulty
3
4
Too easy
Just right
Too hard
Able to manipulate phonemes in….
Frequent phonics errors


3-sound
words?
4-sound words?



Green
Understands concept that one sound can
have multiple spellings
Yes

Spellings of target sound to learn


No


Strong in Segmenting by Sound?
Spellings of target sound to learn



Yes
No



Try One Strategy ________________
Is the reading automatic?
Yes
Repeat sound ________
Move to new sound ________
Repeat sound 2+ sessions from now ___
Fade this activity
Repeat w/ same sound ______
Repeat w/ a mix of sounds ____
Repeat sound 2+ sessions from now
Search for same sound ______
Add to Sort, Write, & Say sheet
Search for one sound _____ & then another
Repeat 2+ sessions from now
Flexible w/ the Try One Strategy?________
Pocket Phrases
Review
______________________
New
______________________
Repeat changing w/ 3-sound words
Begin/Repeat changing w/ 4-sound words
Repeat sound(s) _____
Move to new sound _____
Fade to oral only
Sort, Write, & Say
Word Division or Search for the Sound
______________________
______________________
______________________
Model fluent reading, this text
Re-Read the same text
Show off to class or adult
Move to next text
Word Work
Change One Sound
Quick Review of Sounds
______________________
Focus Sound
______________________


______________________
Target Sounds
______________________
Word Chain
______________________

No
Needs review of word or phrase



Repeat phrase(s) ____________
__________________________
Teach new phrase ___________
__________________________
Target word(s) _____________
_________________________
TRI: Primary Word Work Strategies
Word Work
(~8+ minutes)
– Segmenting
Words
– Change One
Sound
– Read, Write, &
Say
– Pocket Phrases
The Interaction of Decoding and Sight Word Development
The Interaction of Decoding &
Sight Words
Word Work: Change One Sound
TRI Framework
Guided Oral Reading
(~5+ minutes)
TRI Extensions
Guided Oral Reading for
Struggling Readers
Three Studies: TRI in Rural
Low-wealth Schools
• Study 1: a one semester TRI intervention in a
in non-Reading First schools in
kindergarten and first grade.
• Study 2: Is a two semester TRI intervention
in Reading First Schools in kindergarten
and first grade.
• Study 3: a two semester TRI intervention in
Texas and New Mexico, using distance
literacy consultation with laptop computers
and web cams
Research Design
• Randomly assigned schools to the intervention
and the control condition. Targeted all
kindergarten and first grade classrooms to be
part of the study.
– 3-5 focal children in each classroom were
randomly selected from those children
identified by the teacher as struggling learners
– 3-5 non-focal children in each classroom were
randomly selected from those children
identified by the teacher as not struggling
learners
Study 1: Non-Reading First
Schools
Year 1(non Reading First)
20 teachers
(n = 163)
Control
Experimental
Kindergarten
1st Grade
Year 2 (Reading First)
24 teachers
(n = 170)
Kindergarten
1st Grade
17 focal
17 focal
21 focal
20 focal
(4 teachers)
(4 teachers)
(6 teachers)
(6 teachers)
15 non-focal
16 non-focal
23 non-focal
22 non-focal
21 focal
22 focal
20 focal
22focal
(6 teachers)
(6 teachers)
(6 teachers)
(6 teachers)
26 non-focal
27 non-focal
20 non-focal
22 non-focal
Child Characteristics for Studies 1 and 2
EXP
CON
Race
Other
61%
32%
7%
33%
37%
31%
Gender
Male
Female
73%
27%
63%
37%
Parents Married
46%
54%
Maternal Education
M = 11.8
yrs
M = 13.3
yrs
African American
European American
Teacher Characteristics
# of years teaching
M = 18 yrs
Teacher Age
M = 43 yrs
Teacher Race
White
Black
Other
65%
30%
5%
National Board Certification
5%
Certification type
Temp
Regular
Specific grade certification
10%
40%
50%
Child Outcomes
(Fall and Spring Testing)
Phonological
Awareness
(CTOPPS)
Almost no focal children were able to
receive a score
Word Attack
(Woodcock
Johnson)
Use W scores
Letter/Word
Identification
(Woodcock
Johnson)
Use W scores
Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test
(PPVT)
Age standard scores
Change in the Intent to Treat
Design for Study 1
• No teacher was able to get through all
five children. Most teachers were only
able to work with 2 to 3 children
• Created an adequate fidelity and
inadequate fidelity group within the
focal experimental group
Five Groups of Children
•
•
•
•
•
1. Control non-focal
2. Control focal
3. Experimental non-focal
4. Experimental Inadequate Fidelity Focal
5. Experimental Adequate Fidelity Focal
W Gain Scores for Woodcock-Johnson
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
*
WJ-WA
WJ-LWI
(Effect sizes > 1)
*
*
Control Non-focal
Control Focal
Exp. Non-Focal
Group
Exp./Inadequate Focal
Exp./Adequate Focal
PPVT Age Standard
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
+
■ PPVT
+
p < .055
effect sizes = .7
+
p < .08
effect size = .5
Control Non-focal
Control Focal
Exp. Non-Focal
Group
Exp./Inadequate
Focal
Exp./Adequate
Focal
Grade retention
• 10 children were retained in grade. No
children from the experimental schools
were retained. They were all in the
control schools.
Study 2: Reading First
170 children in kindergarten and first grade
Year 1(non Reading First)
20 teachers
(n = 163)
Control
Experimental
Kindergarten
1st Grade
Year 2 (Reading First)
24 teachers
(n = 170)
Kindergarten
1st Grade
17 focal
17 focal
21 focal
20 focal
(4 teachers)
(4 teachers)
(6 teachers)
(6 teachers)
15 non-focal
16 non-focal
23 non-focal
22 non-focal
21 focal
22 focal
20 focal
22focal
(6 teachers)
(6 teachers)
(6 teachers)
(6 teachers)
26 non-focal
27 non-focal
20 non-focal
22 non-focal
Four Groups of Children
•
•
•
•
1. Control non-focal
2. Control focal
3. Experimental non-focal
4. Experimental Focal
W Gain Scores for Woodcock-Johnson
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
■ WJ - Basic Reading
*
Effect size = .7
*
Control Non-focal
Control Focal
Exp. Non-Focal
Group
Exp. Focal
W Gain Scores for Woodcock-Johnson
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
WJ-WA
WJ-LWI
*
Effect size = .7
*
Control Non-focal
Control Focal
Exp. Non-Focal
Group
Exp. Focal
Study 3: Web cam study in Rural
America
Texas and New Mexico
Control
Experimental
n = 358
109 focal
125 non-focal
65 focal
59 non-focal
Web cam consultation in Remote Locations
• UNC Consultants can see and hear the teacher
working with target children in real time so
teachers get feedback immediately. Teachers can
also see and hear the consultant in real time.
• Consultants can attend grade level meetings via
web cams. Teachers can see the consultant and
the consultant can see the teachers.
• Teachers can download information and training
videos from the web
Thank You
Targeting instructional match in every interaction…