Effectiveness of Leveled

Literacy Intervention Program

Spring Mills Elementary School
3rd, 4th and 5th Grade Students

Link to Presentation: https://tinyurl.com/LLIatSM

Michael Fletcher, Kate Kimball, Jeremy Mitchell

Oakland University
Link to Final Paper
 Chapter 1: Introduction: Background/Rationale

● Success in reading is vital in elementary education

● Spring Mills, a K-5 building in Huron Valley Schools, has implemented LLI
(Leveled Literacy Intervention) in 3rd through 5th grades to address students
who are behind in reading
● Students targeted for intervention scored below benchmark, but did not qualify
for Special Education services.
● Spring Mills has had success graduating K-2 students out of intervention using
LLI, but the results and perceptions have been mixed at the 3-5 level.
 3rd Grade Interventions in Action

Students are pulled out in small groups

to participate in LLI with parapros.

Teachers in classrooms stop teaching new

material while LLI students are pulled out.
 Introduction: Assumption and Limitations

Assumptions

● That all staff and students answered survey questions honestly.

● That all staff administering LLI services are doing so with fidelity.

Limitations

● The study did not take into account the following factors:
○ Student Attendance
○ Additional Instructional help
○ Potential Outside Tutoring
○ Considering LLI effectiveness in settings beyond Spring Mills
 Introduction: Research Questions

This action research study answers the following questions:

● To what extent does the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) help close the
achievement gap between students in grades 3-5 who received LLI services
versus their grade level peers who did not receive the interventions?
● What are the student perceptions/attitudes of LLI in improving their reading?
● What are staff perceptions/attitudes of the effectiveness of LLI in developing
students’ reading achievement?
 Introduction of Research Topic
Chapter 2 Literature Review

Review of the Literature Summary of Literature

Link to Final Paper

 Overview

Selection of Subjects

Chapter 3 Evaluation/Research Design

Description of Instruments
Method of Study
Data Analysis

Summary
 Method of Study: Overview
The Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention

System (LLI) is a “short-term, supplementary intervention

system proven to improve literacy achievement of

struggling readers in grade K - 12 with engaging leveled

books and fast-paced systematically designed lessons”

(Heinemann Publishers, 2016).

 Method of Study: Selection of Sources

● NWEA MAP® Performance Data were collected for all grades 3-5 students.
○ Performance of those receiving LLI was compared to those not receiving
intervention.
● Perception surveys were administered to…
○ Students receiving the LLI interventions Link to Student Survey
○ Staff administering the LLI interventions (Reading Specialist and
Paraprofessionals)
○ Classroom teachers of students receiving LLI interventions Link to Staff
Survey

5th graders work w/ a para during

small group LLI instruction
 Method of Study: Evaluation/Research Design

Student Achievement Data were calculated and compared using the results from the

MAP® test and the Fountas & Pinnell Running Record administered in the fall and

spring of the 2016-17 school year. The purpose was to observe, describe, and

document the LLI program as it was naturally occurring during the 2016-17 school

year.
 Method of Study: Description of Instruments

The Huron Valley school district uses the NWEA Measures of Academic Progress®
(MAP®) universal screener in the fall and spring of each school year.
● Computer-adaptive test for assessing proficiencies in reading, language usage,
and mathematics.
● The difficulty of each question is based on how well a student answers all the
previous questions.
● Also used for progress monitoring students who qualified for reading
interventions.
 Method of Study: Description of Instruments

LLI Effectiveness Perception Surveys:

● The Staff Survey contained four Likert scale questions and one open-ended

question.

● The Student Surveys contained one YES or NO question and two open-ended

questions
 Method of Study: Data Analysis

NWEA MAP® Results

● Student growth “RIT” (scaled scores) from fall to spring were compared
between intervention students and the control group (non-intervention
students)

Perception Surveys

● Likert scale question response analysis

● Open-ended questions analyzed and compared for themes and patterns
 Method of Study: Summary

The research study looked at the efficacy of the LLI program using…

● Common set of data sources such as MAP® Test Results

● Student Perception Survey Questions

● Staff Perception Survey Questions

3rd Grade LLI Students

in Action
 Overview

Chapter 4 Triangulation of Data

Data Sources 1, 2 & 3

Results of the Study
Discussion of Results
 Results of the Study: Overview

Our study began by following…

● 20 out of 68 third grade students

● 14 out of 79 fourth grade students

● 18 out of 85 fifth grade students

...at Spring Mills Elementary. These students were recommended for LLI based on

the results of the 2016 fall screening of the MAP® assessment.

 Results of the Study: Data Source 1

● NWEA MAP® Reading Test administered in the fall and spring of each school

year. The research team used the assessment results from the fall 2016

screening and compared them to the spring 2017 test results.

● At the beginning of the study it was hypothesized that if LLI was an effective

program for students who are behind in reading, then there should be a

reflection in students’ MAP® Reading scores from fall to spring; thereby

justifying the students’ reading growth.

 Results of the Study: Data Source 1
MAP Test Average Growth - All vs Intervention vs. Non
Intervention

To determine growth, students’ fall 2016 and spring 2017 3rd Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth
All 186.04 194.79 8.75

MAP® Reading RIT (Scaled Scores) average growth Non Intervention 189.65 196.98 7.33
Intervention 177.40 189.55 12.15
scores were compared between intervention and
nonintervention students. 4th Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth
All 198.22 205.92 7.71
The average RIT growth points for… Non Intervention 205.17 210.64 5.47
Intervention 184.04 196.31 12.27
● All students - 7.14 points (196.74 → 203.89)
● Nonintervention students - 5.64 points (201.06 → 206.70) 5th Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth
All 205.96 210.94 4.98
● LLI Intervention students - 10.77 points
Non Intervention 208.36 212.47 4.11

(186.44 → 197.22) Intervention 197.89 205.79 7.89

Thus, one can deduct that LLI small group intervention is All Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth
All 196.74 203.89 7.14
producing better growth results.
Non Intervention 201.06 206.70 5.64
 Results of the Study: Data Source 1

3rd Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth

All 186.04 194.79 8.75

Non Intervention 189.65 196.98 7.33

Intervention 177.40 189.55 12.15

 Results of the Study: Data Source 1

4th Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth

All 198.22 205.92 7.71

Non Intervention 205.17 210.64 5.47

Intervention 184.04 196.31 12.27

 Results of the Study: Data Source 1

5th Grade Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth

All 205.96 210.94 4.98

Non Intervention 208.36 212.47 4.11

Intervention 197.89 205.79 7.89

 Results of the Study: Data Source 1

All Fall Average Spring Average Average Growth

All 196.74 203.89 7.14

Non Intervention 201.06 206.70 5.64

Intervention 186.44 197.22 10.77

 Results of the Study: Data Source 1

● From a critical lens, one could argue that it is easier to move the growth needle
when there is a wide deficit to overcome, whereas growth might be more
difficult when you are already high performing.
● However, outperforming by 5.13 points, nearly 100% better, is substantiating
evidence that the intervention program is successful.
 Results of the Study: Data Source 1

● The disheartening news is that while these students are growing at a higher
rate than their non intervention peers, they are still behind grade level in reading.
● The intervention group’s final average spring RIT score was 197.22
○ Still 3.84 points behind their nonintervention peer’s fall average score of
201.06
○ However, they were only 0.48 higher than than the 196.74 average score of
all students in the fall.
 Results of the Study: Data Source 2

● 20 of 23 staff members completed the perception survey.

● When asked if teachers saw a difference between students receiving LLI
services and those who did not, 40% of respondents answered “undecided”
while 25% responded “disagreed,” 20% said “agree,” 15% said “strongly agree.”
None of the respondents indicated that they “strongly disagree” that LLI made a
difference for students receiving services.
● Of the twenty teachers who completed the survey, six chose to provide
additional input and feedback. All additional feedback provided had a negative
perception of the programs effectiveness. Link to Full Staff Survey Results
Results of the Study: Data Source 2
Results of the Study: Data Source 2
Results of the Study: Data Source 2
Results of the Study: Data Source 2
 Results of the Study: Data Source 2

Staff comments:

● Although I see growth with students reading levels who are using the LLI program, I don't see much carryover with strategies in the classroom.

● The program may work, but with the program being run by people who do not work everyday, it is not noticed in the upper grades.
In the lower grades, it is more noticeable, but still little carried over into the classroom.

● This program is extremely beneficial for all students in our school.

● I am not sure if the LLI works or not, I feel one huge problem with the intervention is ABSENTEEISM. Whether it is the student or our schedule
or the para is absent-the 6-8 week intervention ends up only receiving 4-5 weeks. I am also unsure that the classroom teacher could run an
effective intervention with a class full of students

● The program does not work for those few students that are really dyslexic. Those students need a more structured approach in an intervention.
I feel we, at HVS, would have more success in a shorter period of time, if we adhered to 3 in a group as is proposed for the intervention.
The LLI program moves lower el kids through levels more quickly. Upper el dives into the depth and breath of each level, and the students
move more slowly through fewer levels. The program operates on an even/odd numbered lesson system. These rotate between instructional
and independent levels.

● To be honest, I am not trained or highly familiar with components or strategies that make up the LLI intervention program. I know that the LLI
intervention program is utilized with my students that participate in literacy support groups. The work done in the support group is separate
from the classroom intervention. While I'm sure that the student's are utilizing strategies from the LLI program, I am not aware of the specific
strategies used in the program. Due to my lack of personal experience with the LLI program, I stated that I am undecided to several questions.
I am unable to speak to the specifics of the LLI program. I do highly agree that each of the students that attend the LLI intervention groups and
receive classroom intervention have shown growth this year.
 Results of the Study: Data Source 2

● The results seem to suggest a disconnect in communications between the

paraprofessionals administering the LLI interventions and the classroom
teachers.
● Most teachers are unaware of the strategies taught during interventions which
prevents them from seeing those strategies in the classroom.
● This, in turn, makes it difficult for the teachers to reinforce those strategies,
which could be a key contributor to the apathy or dissatisfaction felt by the staff
towards LLI.
● This lack of communication and reinforcement of skills could also contribute to
results that do not demonstrate the full potential of the LLI program.
 Results of the Study: Data Source 3

● 34 students receiving LLI participated in the Student Perception Survey

● 30 of 34 students surveyed said YES they feel like they are better readers as a
result of LLI
● In the comment section, students said they liked LLI and they really liked their
LLI teachers. Students also requested books at a more challenging reading
level and larger room to meet for their intervention groups.
● Conclusions were drawn that students enjoyed the intervention time, the
program, and also felt there was a positive impact on their reading ability.
 Results of the Study: Discussion of Results

The research team concluded that the LLI program is effective when interventions
are conducted with fidelity and by highly trained reading teachers. The data
supports the positive correlation between students who received LLI and reading
growth based on the results of the fall and spring MAP® Reading scores.

Therefore, the research team confers with Ransford-Kaldon’s (2010)

recommendation that small group reading interventions are an effective way of
delivering literacy intervention for students who are not achieving grade level
standards.
 Conclusions
Chapter 5 Recommendations

Conclusion & Recommendations Implications for Future Research

 Conclusion and Recommendations: Conclusions & Recommendations

The results of the study indicate that the LLI program does positively impact
students who receive reading interventions.

The research team recommends that Spring Mills Elementary continues to use the
LLI program for their reading inventions to help close the achievement gap.

It is recommended that Spring Mills Elementary begins to explore the disconnect

between the success rate of the program and the dissatisfaction amongst
classroom teachers. The research team also recommends that the district offers
teachers and support staff opportunities to attend LLI information sessions and
professional development so they are better trained on the program’s content and
strategies being taught.
 Conclusion and Recommendations: Implications for future research

Implications
● Understanding that this research was a snapshot of the effectiveness of LLI for one school year,
continued research to see if these results are repeated over time would help to see if LLI is continually
effective for students in grade 3-5
● A longitudinal study following students who received LLI as they enter middle school and beyond
would help determine if the effects of LLI last beyond the year students received services.
● We have a hunch that having small group instruction is the cause of the growth seen in students
receiving intervention. To deduce if LLI was the cause of the growth observed, a controlled experiment
should be completed with one group receiving LLI and the other receiving generic small group
instruction.
● Due to the fact the participants for this research were not randomly selected, the effectiveness of the
LLI program cannot be generalized. Conducting a experiment with randomly-selected participants who
receive LLI would help determine if this intervention is effective for students in grades 3-5.
 Thank you to all of our
professors, but especially...
Dr. Feun!
Michael Fletcher, Kate Kimball, Jeremy Mitchell
Oakland University
 Contact Us
Michael Fletcher: michael.fletcher@hvs.org
Kate Kimball: kkimball@grandblancschools.org
Jeremy Mitchell: jmitchel@grandblancschools.org

Michael Fletcher, Kate Kimball, Jeremy Mitchell

Oakland University