Summary of Research
A2i is a system for literacy instruction that has been shown to significantly improve student reading outcomes. Meeting ESSA Tier 1 “strong” evidence requirements, A2i leverages technology-based and professional development components (online assessments, data-driven recommendations, and aligned instructional planning) to raise literacy outcomes in Grades K–3. The system uses data from brief online assessments of vocabulary, decoding, and comprehension to make individualized recommendations for each student. Specifically, A2i provides educators with the number of minutes each student needs across meaning-focused or code-focused instruction as well as teacher-managed or student-managed instruction. A2i data is also used to create student groups, provide individualized instructional lesson plans, and monitor student growth. With robust, ongoing professional learning over a three-year implementation, A2i supports both student and teacher growth.
Tier 1 “ Strong ” Standards
A2i Meets Evidence
A2i is backed by more than two decades of rigorous research from researchers at the Florida Center for Reading Research and the University of California, Irvine.
Evidence for ESSA and the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) , two of the nation’s watchdogs for effective educational research, have completed positive reviews of the evidence supporting A2i’s impact on student outcomes: • Evidence for ESSA reviewed three randomized controlled research studies. It concluded that the A2i system meets the highest level—Tier 1 “strong” evidence—of efficacy in improving student reading achievement for Grades K–3, as outlined by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which governs the United States’ K–12 public education policy. According to Evidence for ESSA, the overall effect size for the three research studies reviewed was +0.23, representing a large effect. These effect sizes report the statistical magnitude of a program’s impact. The rule of thumb in PreK–12 education research is that an effect size of 0.05 is Small, 0.05 to less than 0.20 is Medium, and 0.20 or greater is Large (Kraft 2020). • The WWC reviewed two randomized controlled research studies for students spanning Grades 1–3 and found that A2i meets Tier 1 evidence “without reservations” and had statistically significant positive effects on literacy outcomes. The first study focused on 396 students in first grade and concluded that the use of A2i improved students’ letter and word reading skills. The second study was longitudinal, following students from first through third grades (n = 1,573), and reported statistically significant positive effects caused by A2i on both alphabetic and comprehension outcomes.
1
Leading Teaching Research A2i Aligns to
The Science of Reading After observing more than 2,000 hours of literacy instruction and analyzing children’s fall and spring reading and vocabulary assessments, A2i researchers found that meaning-focused instruction (vocabulary, comprehension, and writing) and code-focused instruction (word reading) are two of the biggest predictors of students’ reading achievement. This finding is consistent with the Science of Reading—a large body of research that shows that proficient reading is dependent on solid language comprehension skills (background knowledge, vocabulary, language structure, print-concept knowledge, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge) and word recognition skills (phonological awareness, phonics knowledge, decoding skills, and sight word recognition) (Gough and Tunmer 1986, Hoover and Tunmer 2018, Scarborough 2001).
Meaning-focused instruction (vocabulary, comprehension, and
writing) and code- focused instruction
(word reading) are two of the biggest predictors of students’ reading achievement.
Implementation Research/ Instructional Grouping
A2i researchers used implementation and instructional grouping research to guide their work. Studies show that instructional time plays a significant and positive role in students’ literacy outcomes (Caroll 1989, Durkin 1978). Data also indicates that when children work one on one or in small groups with the teacher guiding them, they tend to acquire more skills. However, research also shows that children benefit from independent practice as they move beyond initial skill acquisition (Stanovich 1986, Palinscar et al. 1987). A2i accounts for each of these instructional models.
2 | A2i Summary of Research
3
After carefully reviewing classroom observations and achievement data, A2i researchers discovered that it is not just code-focused and meaning-focused instruction that predicts student literacy outcomes. It’s also how instruction is “managed” (who is directing the learner’s attention) either by adults or by the child (see Figure 1 ). Further, though all students need code-focused, meaning-focused, student-managed, or teacher- managed instruction, the amount of time required for each depends upon the combination of students’ reading, vocabulary, and comprehension skills as well as their proximity to the end of the third grade. An example of these recommendations for first-grade students at the beginning of a school year is shown below (see Figure 2 ). The recommendations depicted in Figure 2 show how student entering first grade below grade level require more teacher-managed code-focused instruction compared to their on-level classmates and how students reading above grade level benefit from more time in student-managed meaning-focused instruction.
Meaning-Focused
Code-Focused
Teacher- Managed
Student- Managed
Figure 1: Four Types of Reading Instruction
4 | A2i Summary of Research
Grade 1 Grade 3 Students, Reading Grade Equivalent in the Autumn Grade 2
Kindergarten
35
Teacher-Managed, Code-Focused
30
25
Teacher-Managed, Meaning-Focused
20
Student-Managed, Code-Focused
15
Student-Managed, Meaning-Focused
10
5
0
Figure 2: Recommended amounts of the four types of instruction for first-graders with reading skills varying from kindergarten to third grade at the beginning of first grade
5
Formative Assessment
A large body of research demonstrates that formative assessment—the process of using ongoing assessment to inform instruction—has a large and positive impact on student achievement (Kingston and Nash 2011, National Research Council 2012). A2i includes three online assessments of children’s decoding (Letters2Meaning), vocabulary (Word Match Game), and comprehension skills (Reading4Meaning). The Word Match Game and Letters2Meaning are adaptive and focus on early elementary skills like decoding single words and reading a sentence or two, cover Grades K–3, and are administered every six weeks. They are normed to subtests of the Woodcock- Johnson III assessment (Picture Vocabulary, Letter-Word ID, and Passage Comprehension subtests) and the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, further confirming the validity of the assessments. Reading4Meaning is a passage comprehension assessment that includes more complex tasks like understanding genre and inferencing and is intended for students reading at a second- or third-grade reading level. The assessments collectively produce three data points: a developmental scale score and grade- and age-equivalent scores. The Letters2Meaning and Word Match Game assessments are connected to four grade-level algorithms (K–3). The algorithms use a student’s current grade, the time of the year, and current reading and vocabulary levels to make precise recommendations for needed daily minutes of the four types of reading instruction for each child (code-focused, meaning-focused, student-managed, and teacher-managed instruction) to advance student learning. These instructional recommendations can be used to guide instruction regardless of curricula.
Professional Learning
A2i aligns with research-based professional development practices. A2i’s professional learning is intensive, sustained, content-focused, coherent, well-defined, and strongly implemented (e.g., Borko 2004, Desimone 2009, Darling-Hammond et al. 2017). A2i offers a wide array of tools to increase the likelihood that A2i will be implemented with high fidelity: 1) literacy scan templates, literacy plans, and tools that help gauge district readiness for implementation; 2) tools that help teachers, school leaders, principals, and district leaders implement the program system-wide; 3) online training that spells out why differentiation is essential, critical components of A2i, and how to maximize results; 4) huddles and individualized coaching plans that address assessment best practices, test scores, graphs, progress monitoring, implementation, research, and differentiation; and 5) a literacy framework that helps literacy outcomes specialists and administrators reflect on, discuss, and observe instruction. A2i also offers a course that teaches educators to identify and understand the critical components of literacy instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, encoding, decoding, vocabulary, background knowledge, comprehension, oral language, fluency, and writing), apply best practices as identified through the research, and connect and implement instructional practices discussed.
6 | A2i Summary of Research
A2i Has a of Change Clear Theory
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) encourages districts and schools to adopt evidence-based programs with a well-specified logic model explaining how the intervention will likely improve outcomes. Figure 3 shows the inputs needed (e.g., professional development support, technology, and online assessments) to successfully launch A2i and documents the targeted activities (minute recommendations to better personalize and differentiate small-group instruction) that lead to short-term (improved performance on standardized reading assessments) and long-term changes in students (reading at or above grade level by the end of Grade 3).
Program Inputs
Changes in Teachers
Changes in Students
Knowledge and Belief Knowledge of A2i-recommended instructional strategies Belief that they can implement the program components
Short Term
Professional Development Professional learning communities (PLCs) or A2i literacy huddles (LHs) (30- min grade-level meetings with LOS) In-class coaching or individualized classroom coaching (ICCs) (45-min one-on-one coaching sessions) On-demand support and flex days
Improved reading performance after one year of exposure
A2i Technology
Behavior Use of A2i system-generated instruction recommendations and other resources
Long Term Reading at or above grade level by end of Grade 3
Online student assessment Software platform Instruction and grouping recommendations for individual students Lesson planning tools
Use of differentiated small-group instruction
Figure 3: Theory of Change
7
Research Studies Prove Success
Free or Reduced Lunch (%)
Years Studied
Grade Levels
Effect Size*
Curricula
Size
Major Findings
Results
1 2005– 2006
C : 0.25
616 students 47 teachers 10 schools
57%
1
Students whose teachers used A2i demonstrated greater reading growth on the Woodcock-Johnson III Passage Comprehension and Letter-Word ID subtests, compared with the control group, controlling for fall reading and vocabulary scores and child and school characteristics. The more time teachers spent using A2i, the stronger students’ reading skills were by the end of the year.
Reading Mastery,
Open Court
2 2006– 2007
WR : 0.50 Students whose teachers participated in the A2i system made significantly greater gains on the Woodcock-Johnson III Picture Vocabulary and Letter-Word ID subtests than those whose teachers and schools were in the control group.
Open Court
369 students 25 teachers Seven schools
45%
1
Students in A2i intervention classrooms achieved about a two-month advantage in end-of-year word reading skills compared to those in the control condition. Teachers who used A2i provided more differentiated reading instruction than those in control classrooms. The more precisely teachers followed the A2i recommended dosage for instruction, the greater were students’ reading achievement scores.
3 2007– 2008
WR : 0.52 Students whose teachers used A2i outperformed students in a control group on the AIMSWeb Letter Sound Fluency, the Woodcock-Johnson III (Picture Vocabulary, Letter Word Identification, and Word Attack subtests), and the DIBELS assessments (Nonsense Word Fluency and Phoneme Segmenting Fluency subtests). Teachers using A2i provided significantly more individualized instruction.
Open Court
556 students 44 teachers 14 schools
60%
K
The more precisely teachers followed the A2i recommended dosage for instruction, the greater were students’ performances on the AimsWeb, Woodcock-Johnson III, and DIBELs assessments.
* Effect Size C :
Comprehension
WR :
Word Reading
Citations Results 1: Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). The early years: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315, 464–465. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134513 . Results 2: Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Schatschneider, C., Toste, J., Lundblom, E. G., Crowe, E., & Fishman, B. (2011). Effective classroom instruction: Implications of child characteristic by instruction interactions on first graders’ word reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 173–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.510179 . Results 3: Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., Meadows, J., & Li, Z. (2011). Assessment data-informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized control field trial. Elementary School Journal, 111, 535–560. https://doi.org/10.1086/659031 . Results 4: Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P. S., Bayraktar, A., Crowe, E. C., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics × instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 189–221. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.1 . Results 5–8: Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Crowe, E. C., Al Otaiba, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2013). A longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled study on the accumulating effects of individualized literacy instruction on students’ reading from first through third grade. Psychological Science, 24, 1408–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472204 .
8 | A2i Summary of Research
Results from randomized controlled trials demonstrate that the A2i system is more effective than traditional instruction (that is, students in A2i classrooms made more significant gains on standardized reading assessments compared to peers in control classrooms).
Free or Reduced Lunch (%)
Years Studied
Grade Levels
Effect Size*
Curricula
Size
Major Findings
Results
4 2008– 2009
C : 0.20 Students whose teachers used A2i made greater gains on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test than a comparison group using a vocabulary intervention.
Several curricula
448 students 33 teachers Seven schools
47%
3
The more precisely teachers followed the A2i recommended dosage for instruction, the greater were students’ reading comprehension gains. Students whose teachers used A2i demonstrated greater word reading skills on the Woodcock- Johnson III Letter-Word ID subtest than the control group. Students whose teachers used A2i intervention achieved about a two-month advantage in end-of- year word reading skills compared to those in the control condition. Students whose teachers used A2i demonstrated greater reading growth on the Gates-MacGinitie Passage Comprehension score than the control group.
5 2008– 2009 6 2009– 2010 7 2010– 2011 8 2008– 2011
WR : 0.32 C : 0.36
Several curricula
468 students 28 teachers
39–59%
1
WR : 0.44 C : 0.43
Several curricula
558 students 49 teachers
39–59%
2
WR : 0.25 C : 0.06
Several curricula
541 students 40 teachers
39–59%
3
WR : 0.77 Results revealed that the effects of A2i accumulated from first through third grade. Students who participated in A2i classrooms all three years achieved, on average, a fifth-grade reading level compared to a fourth-grade reading level for the control group students. Students who spent more years in A2i reading classrooms than in control classrooms made significantly greater gains in reading (Cohen’s d = 0.20 per year or 0.60 for three years compared with no years).
Several curricula
882 students 95 teachers
39–59% 1–3
Of the children who received A2i all three years, none achieved standard scores in reading below 85, and only 6% obtained standard scores of less than 90. This is in contrast to the control group, where 22% had standard scores below 90 and several had scores below 85, suggesting serious reading difficulties.
References Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher , 33, 3–15.
Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher , 18(1), 26–31.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., and Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher , 38(3), 181–199.
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Technical report no. 106. Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education , 7, 6–10.
Hoover, W. A., and Tunmer, W. E. (2018). The simple view of reading: Three assessments of its adequacy. Remedial and Special Education , 39(5), 304–312.
Kingston, N., and Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 30, 28-37.
Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher , 49(4), 241–253.
National Research Council (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, J. W. Pellegrino and M. L. Hilton, Eds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman and D. Dickinson Eds. Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Volume 1 . pp. 97–110. New York: Guilford Press.
9
A2i supports both student and teacher growth.
scholastic.com/a2i
5106-05 3/23 Item #760975
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs