Response to Intervention: Breakthroughs for Literacy

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-tier approach to the early identification and support of pupils from years 5 to 8 with learning and behaviour needs who are not achieving the age-expected level in reading and writing. Literacy interventions are selected by teachers on the basis of close case analysis of pupils’ reading and writing needs. RTI was evaluated using a Randomised Controlled Trial over one year (within a 5 month treatment period). The trial measured gains in literacy levels using the New Group Reading Test (NGRT). The NGRT, developed by GL Assessment and the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), assesses the reading and comprehension aspects of literacy. No test was used to evaluate progress in writing. 1545 pupils in years 5 and 7 participated in the trial.

Prior to randomisation, schools identified a target group of pupils who were in need of support to close their attainment gap. Data was also collected for the whole classes that contained the target group pupils, to see if a wider benefit could be detected. After data screening, 1371 pupils’ data was able to be assessed1.

Results

On average pupils in both the schools that implemented RTI and those that carried on with existing practice demonstrate improvements in their attainment between pre- test and post-test according to the NGRT Overall Reading Scale2 (see Table 1).

Table 1 – Improvements in reading and comprehension for all pupils involved in the RTI trial

Improvement in test scores between the pre- and post-tests (mean difference)

Control group 19.3

RTI 17.9

1 Extreme values were removed in order to meet the assumptions necessary for the use of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

2 NGRT also generates a Standard Age Score which adjusts pupils’ Overall Reading Scores according to age related expectations. This data showed similar results in relation to mean differences.

© Crown copyright 2014 1 Closing the Gap: Test and Learn To evaluate the progress made by target pupils in RTI schools compared to control group schools, and to control statistically for differences between (and variation in)

pre-test scores, ‘Gain Scores3’ were calculated4. Target group progress differences between the intervention and control groups were compared using an analysis of variance5 and effect sizes were calculated. Similar analyses were undertaken for the whole class within which the target group received the intervention and for FSM pupils within those classes6.

Does RTI enhance progress compared to existing practice in teaching school alliances?

RTI involves teachers of target pupils developing individualised plans to address pupil needs. RTI, compared to existing practice in teaching schools, produces no significant difference in progress in reading and comprehension skills for a target group of pupils identified as being in need of support to close their attainment gap7. However, the non-significant result was associated with a negative effect size. It should be noted that, missing target pupil identification data resulted in an unequal sample size. Schools are being contacted in order to reconcile the missing data. When the full data is available it may be that there is a change in result.

There was no apparent ‘knock on’ benefit of having some pupils targeted with RTI for the whole class8, or for FSM pupils within the class9.

Conclusions

Initial findings suggest that for improving progress in reading and comprehension with targeted pupils, RTI may be equal to (or possibly less effective) than existing practice in teaching school alliances. This finding should be considered inconclusive at this stage pending further data acquisition. There do, however, appear to be reduced benefits for whole classes in which there are targeted pupils compared to

3 Post-test score minus pre-test score.

4 See for discussion, Dimitrov and Rumrill (2003).

5 The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. ANCOVA with pre-test scores as the covariate was not used because not all of the data within the trials, as a whole, met the necessary assumptions for this test. There was also an unequal sample size between control and intervention.

6 ANOVA.

7 109)= 2.64, p = .104, d = -0.34.

8 F(1, 1490) = 273, p< .0005, d = -0.05.

9 F(1, 422)) = 51.2, p< .0005, d = -0.11.

© Crown copyright 2014 2 Closing the Gap: Test and Learn existing teaching school practice. As a further interim assessment, prior to collection of the missing information, equal numbers of similar pupils from other trials with a comparable treatment period were randomly sampled and used to amplify the current control group sample. Use of this equalised sample indicated that RTI may be equivalent to existing teaching school alliance practice for target pupils10.

The results above should be considered provisional, as further analyses are being conducted over the next 6 months for use in the final programme report in 2015.

These additional analyses will look at areas such clustered data and a range of variables, such as school Ofsted grade, teacher assessed fidelity of delivery and practicality. The current format has been designed to help with decisions about replication of trials in the second year (where appropriate) and to help schools to decide which replicated trials they might wish to participate in.

10 F(1, 159) = 0.302, p = .584, d = -0.09.