RISE and RISEUp Action Research Paper

JAN RICHARDSON AND ELLEN LEWIS

RISE RISE Up & Action Research Study

Dear Readers: We are delighted to share with you the results of our RISE and RISE Up action research study. This educator-initiated study was conducted at 20 Title I schools and districts where teachers and administrators implemented the RISE framework. The formative assessment data they collected are so outstanding, as are the anecdotal comments we’ve heard from educators around the country, that Scholastic is developing RISE and RISE Up programs with a full spectrum of leveled reading books, lesson cards, and implementation guides. Stay tuned for updates! Sincerely, Jan Richardson and Ellen Lewis

OVERVIEW From its inception, the RISE framework was designed to meet the needs of striving readers in Title I schools—students who fall into the high-need demographic groups such as ELLs, children living in poverty, children in special education, transient school attenders, and all those who need an intense burst of literacy intervention, using Dr. Jan Richardson’s theory and practice. That’s why we implemented he RISE framework with a purposeful focus on the Title I demographic so that we could maximize the impact in a brief amount of time—to help children understand that reading is always supposed to make sense and, if they lose meaning while reading, they can rely on their own problem- solving strategies to regain it. The six-to-eight-week RISE framework allows instructors to teach multiple rounds of students in a year in a variety of configurations (see pages 79–81). Instructors work with a sense of urgency to achieve success by accelerating learning. They work with the belief that an intervention should be a solution, not a life sentence (Harvey & Ward, 2017). And that success is all the more striking because of the demographic composition of the schools where RISE and RISE Up have done nothing but soar. What makes us so confident? The data collected by the educators who implemented the RISE framework in their own schools and districts, from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Fairfax, Virginia, to Pinellas County, Florida. This paper presents the results from 20 Title I sites where we implemented the framework as part of our action research. The evidence it contains will help you to understand the possible impact—and to convince anyone who might be doubtful about the RISE framework’s effectiveness.

REVIEW OF THE DATA Reading assessment data were collected from August 2017 through June 2018 on 1,814 students who received the interventions, 1,273 for RISE and 541 for RISE Up. On average the children participated in 33 lessons in six to eight weeks and, as a result, across all grades, they achieved a three times greater rise in reading level than what was expected without an intervention.

AVERAGE STUDENT GROWTH (in months) BY GRADE (n=1,814) with 6 to 8 weeks of intervention

RISE

RISE UP

8.9

7.3

7.2

6.6

6.0

5.6

5.8

5.0

5.1

4.9

4.4

1st Grade

2nd Grade

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

7th Grade

8th Grade

SOME BACKGROUND

This section includes some background on the students, instructors, and intervention models.

Students All students were identified as striving readers according to benchmark assessment data gathered from Next Step Guided Reading Assessment (Richardson & Walther, 2013) or Benchmark Assessment System (Fountas & Pinnell, 2016). The following table shows the distribution of students by grade level. Students received RISE or RISE Up depending on the text level at which they were reading and their processing needs as determined by the abovementioned assessments. The majority of students reading below level N received RISE, and those reading at level N or higher received RISE Up. Some started with RISE because they needed instruction in decoding and word study. Once those students’ decoding and word study skills improved, the instructors shifted them to RISE Up and targeted comprehension. To determine whether students had adequate decoding and fluency skills to make that shift, instructors took running records daily.

Instructors Instructors who carried out the interventions were existing personnel at the schools: reading interventionists, reading teachers, guided reading specialists, special education teachers, English language teachers, retired teachers, teacher interns, and teaching assistants. They received training before the intervention was implemented, and thereafter continued their professional learning through daily collegial conversations (and, in one district, monthly training sessions). Indeed, the RISE framework is, itself, a tool for professional learning. As teachers implement it, they learn about the high-quality support needed to help striving readers overcome their reading challenges. Intervention Models Each school selected either the 45-minute or 60-minute model. Specifically, 18 schools chose the 45-minute, three-instructor RISE model, and two chose the 60-minute, four- instructor model. (See The Next Step Forward in Reading Intervention , pages 20–21 and page 79, for details on those models.) The schools that implemented RISE Up used the 45-minute, three-instructor model. (See pages 82–83 for details on that model.) Due to scheduling challenges and the time and intensity of the interventions, the RISE and RISE Up lessons usually replaced the students’ classroom guided reading instruction.

HOW PROGRESS WAS MEASURED Reading progress was measured by comparing pre- and post-intervention instructional reading levels. The reading levels were converted to time equivalent (TE) scores, which represent the number of months for expected reading performance. For example, students are normally at level E after 13 months in school, so the TE score would be 13. After two months of additional classroom instruction, those same students are expected to read at level F, with a TE score of 15. The following table shows instructional reading level expectations by month, with TE scores for each grade.

Fountas and Pinnell Instructional Reading Level Expectations

BOY After

After Month 2

After Month 3

After Month 4

After Month 5

After Month 6

After Month 7

After Month 8

EOY

Month 1

C/D TE=11 I/J T=-21 M/N TE=31 P/Q TE=41 S/T TE=51 V/W TE=61

D TE=12 J TE=-22 N TE=33 Q TE=43 T TE=53 W TE=63

E TE=13 J TE=23 N TE=33 Q TE=43 T TE=53 W TE=63

E/F TE=14 J/K TE=24 N TE=33 Q TE=43 T TE=53 W TE=63

F TE=15 K TE=25 O TE=36 R TE=46 U TE=56 X TE=66

G TE=16 K/L TE=26 O TE=36 R TE=46 U TE=56 X TE=66

G/H TE=17 L TE=27 O TE=36 R TE=46 U TE=56 X TE=66

H TE=18 L TE=28 P TE=39 S TE=49 V TE=59 Y TE=69

I TE=19.5 M TE=29.5

Grade 1

Grade 2

P TE=39 S TE=49 V TE=59 Y TE=69

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

www.fountasandpinnell.com/shared/resources/FP_LLI_Research_Research-and-Data-Collection-Project-Report.pdf

Using this method of measurement, if a RISE student begins the intervention reading at text level E (TE=13), and after two months reads at text level I (TE=19.5), his or her progress is 6.5 months, not 2 months as you might expect.

RISE Results On average, the RISE students, who received an average of 33 lessons delivered over 6 to 8 weeks, progressed 6.3 months. The following table provides details. It shows the average text levels and TE scores by which students in grades 1 to 5 progressed, pre- and post-intervention. It also shows the number of students per grade, the average number of sessions, and the average growth with RISE. The average growth is the difference between the pre- and post-TE scores. At all grade levels, the RISE students progressed at an accelerated rate compared to expected reading progress.

Average Growth of RISE Students in Grades 1 to 5

RISE Up Results On average, the RISE Up students, who also received an average of 33 lessons over 6 to 8 weeks, progressed 5.7 months. The following table provides details. It shows the average text levels and TE scores by which students progressed, pre- and post-intervention. It also shows the number of students per grade, the average number of sessions, and the average growth with RISE Up. The average growth is the difference between the pre- and post-TE scores. At all grade levels, like the RISE students, the RISE Up students progressed at an accelerated rate compared to expected reading progress.

Average Growth of RISE Up Students in Grades 3 to 8

KEY FINDINGS • On average, the RISE and RISE Up students accomplished over two months (33 lessons) what would typically be expected over six months. • By the end of the 6 to 8 weeks of the intervention, 74 percent of the RISE students were reading at least two text levels higher than where they started.

LEVELS OF GROWTH RISE Students (n=1,273)

5-6 Levels

3-4 Levels

2 Levels

1 Level

No Growth

10%

36%

28%

22%

Percent of Students

100%

• By the end of the 6 to 8 weeks of the intervention, 58 percent of the RISE Up students were reading at least two text levels higher than where they started.

LEVELS OF GROWTH RISE Up Students (n=541)

5-6 Levels

3-4 Levels

2 Levels

1 Level

No Growth

14%

43%

36%

Percent of Students

100%

• Students progressed at different rates. The majority of the students received 21 to 47 lessons (78 percent of the RISE students and 74 percent of RISE Up students). Some accelerated rapidly, while others needed more intervention time.

CONCLUSIONS Although students varied by age and the degree to which they were reading below grade level, they all progressed an average of six months in about two months. They accelerated at three times the rate they likely would have without the intervention. These results suggest that RISE and RISE Up, fueled by the RISE framework, are extremely effective short-term interventions for striving readers.

Page i Page ii Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8

Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs