1. Gender effects in a randomized trial of individual tutoring with children in care Robyn Marquis & Robert J. Flynn School of Psychology & Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services (CRECS) University of Ottawa (Canada) EUSARF 2014, Copenhagen September 3, 2014

2. Canada & Ontario

3. Low educational achievement of young people in care: Research in Canada In Canada, results similar to those in USA & UK Flynn & Biro (1998): higher rates of suspension and grade retention than for peers in general population Flynn et al. (2004): In samples of young people in care: –10-15 years of age: 80% scored in same range as lowest third of general Canadian population on parental ratings of reading, spelling, and math –5-9 years of age: 78% scored in same range of lowest third of Canadian population (same criteria)

4. Effect size = size of effect of intervention Cohen’s d or Hedges g (nearly identical) Criteria for effect sizes in education: –What Works Clearinghouse (2011): 0.25 –Lipsey et al. (2012) (medians): Individual interventions: 0.29 Small-group interventions: 0.22 Classroom: 0.08 Whole school: 0.14 Overall: 0.18 A note on effect sizes in education

5. Tutoring: A useful intervention Systematic review & meta-analysis by Ritter et al. (2006, 2009): –Studies of children in general population –21 randomized studies, 28 cohorts –Tutoring produced positive effects: Reading overall (d = 0.30)* Reading global (d = 0.26)* Reading oral fluency (d = 0.30)* Reading letters & words (d = 0.41)* Reading comprehension (d = 0.18) Writing (d = 0.45)* Mathematics (d = 0.27)

6. Direct-Instruction Tutoring & Maloney’s Teach Your Children Well Direction-instruction teaching method: –Well-organized, structured, effective method of teaching reading & math skills –For special & general education students –See National Institute for Direct Instruction web site (http://www.nifdi.org/)http://www.nifdi.org/ M. Maloney’s Teach Your Children Well: –DI-based (http://www.maloneymethod.com/)http://www.maloneymethod.com/ –Combined with behavior management –Uses tutor manuals, learn-to-read series of books, workbooks, math CD-ROM, training

7. Our randomized trial (Flynn et al., 2012) Collaboration between: – 9 Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario & – University of Ottawa (CRECS) Two main questions: 1. Does individual direct-instruction tutoring help children living in foster care to catch up in reading & math? 2. Do girls and boys benefit equally from direct-instruction tutoring?

8. Method Participants: 77 foster children –Children in foster care (grades 2-7, ages 6-13) and their foster parents (tutors) –Randomly assigned to control or intervention groups 2008-2009 school year –Wait-list control group (n = 35) –Intervention group (n = 42): Tutoring by foster parents, using Maloney’s TYCW method, for 30 weeks, 3 hrs/week

9. Outcome measure: –Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT4): Word Reading Sentence Comprehension Reading Composite Spelling Math Computation –Mental health measures Method

10. Method - Analysis Sample Foster children reassessed at post-test: –Total N = 64 –30 children who had actually received the tutoring intervention –34 children in wait-list control condition Intervention and control conditions still equivalent, despite attrition

11. Question no. 1: Does individual direct-instruction tutoring help children living in foster care to catch up in reading & math? Results

12. WRAT4 Word Reading: Results at post-test (N = 64) (g =.19, p =.19, 1-tailed, ns; post-test scores adjusted for pre-test scores)

13. WRAT4 Reading Comprehension: Results at post-test (N=64) (g =.38, p =.035, 1-tailed; post-test scores adjusted for pre-test scores

14. WRAT4 Reading Composite: Results at post-test (N = 64) (g =.29, p =.096, 1-tailed; post-test scores adjusted for pre-test scores

15. WRAT4 Spelling: Results at post-test (N = 64) (g = -.08, p =.37, 2-tailed, ns; post-test scores adjusted for pre-test scores)

16. WRAT4 Math Computation: Results at post-test (N = 64) (g =.46, p =.009, 1-tailed; post-test scores adjusted for pre-test scores)

17. Question no. 2: Do girls and boys benefit equally from direct-instruction tutoring? Results

18. WRAT4 Word Reading: Pre/post change, by gender & condition GIRLS (d =.39) BOYS (d =.01) (*p <.05, 2-tailed)

19. WRAT4 Sentence Comprehension: Pre/post change, by gender & condition GIRLS (d =.12) BOYS (d =.44) (*p <.05, 2-tailed)

20. GIRLS (d =.25) BOYS (d =.19) (*p <.05, 2-tailed) WRAT4 Reading Composite: Pre/post change, by gender & condition

21. WRAT4 Spelling: Pre/post change, by gender & condition GIRLS (d =.15)BOYS (d =.19) (*p <.10, 2-tailed)

22. WRAT4 Math Computation: Pre/post change, by gender & condition GIRLS (d =.41) BOYS (d =.21) (*p <.05, 2-tailed)

23. Results – Conclusions regarding gender effects Girls: –Made statistically significant gains on 4 out of 5 WRAT4 outcome measures –d > median of.29 on Word Reading and Math Computation Boys: –Made statistically significant gains on 3 out of 5 WRAT4 outcome measures –d > median of.29 on Sentence Comprehension

24. Overall conclusions Tutoring by foster parents helps foster children to catch up in reading and math Girls and boys both benefit in reading and math More well-controlled evaluations of interventions are needed

25. Thank you for your attention References: For papers by Forsman & Vinnerljung (2012), Flynn et al. (2012), and Harper & Schmidt (2012), see special issue of Children and Youth Services Review, 34 (6), June, 2012, on improving educational outcomes of young people in care. Contact: Robert Flynn (rflynn@uottawa.ca). Feel free to write to me by e-mailrflynn@uottawa.ca