Transcript The Reading Difference Profile Ages 6-8

Oregon Branch of the
International Dyslexia Association
Lecture Series 2007-2008
Response to Intervention
And
Pattern of Strengths and
Weaknesses:
Specific Learning Disabilities 2008
Jim Hanson, M.Ed.
[email protected]
1
Goals of the Presentation
Response to
Intervention
Pattern of Strengths
& Weaknesses
Complimentary, not
exclusive
approaches
2
What Parents Want to Know
Why doesn’t
my child read
well?
What can we
do about it?
3
ORBIDA Position Statement
RTI-Response to
Intervention or Problem
Solving Model
Strengths and Weaknesses
Parent’s right to both
4
Let’s Be Perfectly Clear
Strengths and
Weaknesses (PSW)
Model
IS NOT
Ability/Achievement
Discrepancy Model
5
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
Doesn’t Discriminate
Disabled and nondisabled readers
Children who were
found to be difficult (and
easy) to remediate
RTI and PSW are new
to the law and schools,
not new to research
Vellutino et al. (2000) p.
235
6
What is Response to
Intervention?
Researched-Based General Education
Reading Curriculum
Universal screening (all students) on Big
Ideas (Phonemic Awareness, Phonics,
Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension)
Small group interventions with lowest 20%
See if they respond
7
RTI Definition
RTI is
– The practice of providing high-quality instruction and
intervention
– matched to student need,
– monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about
change in instruction or goals
– and applying child response data to important educational
decisions. (NASDSE, 2005)
8
Progress Monitoring
9
Research findings
CBM with “goal raising rule” for students responding well:
effect size .52 SD
CBM with “change the program rule” for students not
responding well:
effect size .72 SD
Results in teachers planning more comprehensive reading
programs
Fletcher, et.al. 2007
10
Oregon Experience
U of O, Bethel, Tigard-Tualatin, Oak Grove, MLC
Reading First - NCLB Funds, K-3 - High Poverty/Low Achieving
Schools, Cohort A - 33 schools in 14 districts - 3yrs,17 schools Cohort
B - 8 districts -1yr, Cohort C - 6 non RF schools matched for
comparison
Oregon RTI Initiative - IDEA Funds, district - wide reform, TTS
contract years/numbers of Schools, 5 districts – 1 yr, 9 additional
districts 2006-2007, secondary preparation grants
Support for All Students Reading – SIG Funds, emphasis
on secondary – Bethel contract
Parent Education – SIG Funds ORPTI contract
11
RtI Risks: Integrity
Integrity of Intervention:
is it being delivered
correctly?
20% by school or by
district?
DIBELS lowest 20% or
district benchmarks?
Allow teacher to
nominate kids for
intervention?
Reliability among
schools, school
districts, and states
12
Challenges
Readiness of districts
Training Rural districts
Lack of understanding of infrastructure
needs for systems change
Balance between prescriptive and hands-off
Professional development time
13
Response to Intervention
Dual Discrepancy:
First, below their peers on group
screening and
Second, did not respond adequately to
interventions.
14
From RtI
to PSW and Neurological
Theory
15
Options (either – or both)
Response to Intervention
 Research-based curriculum
 Assessment of progress
 Tiered interventions
 Part of comprehensive
evaluation
Pattern of Strengths &
Weaknesses
 Norm-referenced assessment
based
– Academic comparison
– Academic-cognitive
comparison
Part
of comprehensive
evaluation
16
Main Idea of PSW






Many academic and cognitive abilities in the
average range
Specific academic weaknesses
Specific cognitive weaknesses
Research-based links between the academic
and cognitive weaknesses
Unrelated cognitive abilities are average or
above
Full Scale IQ is irrelevant, except for MR
17
Dyslexia: Improving the Science
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability
that is neurobiological in origin. It is
characterized by difficulties with accurate
and/or fluent word recognition and by
poor spelling and decoding abilities.
These difficulties typically result from a
deficit in the phonological component of
language that is often unexpected in
relation to other cognitive abilities and the
provision of effective classroom
instruction. Secondary consequences
may include problems in reading
comprehension and reduced reading
experience that can impede growth of
vocabulary and background knowledge”
NICHD (1994).
18
The sea of strengths:
Neurological Models-Shaywitz
“The phonological model
crystallizes exactly what we
mean by dyslexia… a
circumscribed, encapsulated
weakness is often
surrounded by a sea of
strengths: reasoning,
problem solving,
comprehension, concept
formation, critical thinking,
general knowledge, and
vocabulary” Shaywitz (2003).
19
Not just phonological weakness?
“Rote memorization and rapid word
retrieval are particularly difficult for
dyslexics” Shaywitz (2003).
20
Wolf’s Double Deficit Model
 Phonological
Processing
 Rapid
Automatized
Naming
21
Shaywitz, Fletcher, and McGrew
1.
2.
3.
Phonologic
Weakness
Memory
Rapid Word
Retrieval
1.
2.
3.
1.
Phonologic
Awareness
2.
Working
Memory
Rapid Naming 3.
Phonological Awareness
(Ga, PC)
Working Memory (WM) &
Associative Memory (MA)
Processing Speed (Gs), &
Naming Facility (NA)
22
Neurology and CHC converge
23
What is CHC Intelligence
Theory?





Cattell, Horn and Carroll
7 Broad Categories of
Intelligence
Clean, Not Mixed
Factors (No Sharing)
Many Narrow
Categories of
Intelligence Underneath
Each Broad Factor
Less Emphasis on a
Full-Scale Score
24
25
Regression Coefficients

> .3
= strong relation

.1-.3
= moderate relation

<.1
= non-sign
26
Phonemic Awareness 3
Qu i c k T i m e ™ a n d a
Gra p h i c s d e c o m p re s s o r
a re n e e d e d t o s e e t h i s p i c tu re .
27
Comprehension-Knowledge
Qu i c k T i m e ™ a n d a
Gra p h i c s d e c o m p re s s o r
a re n e e d e d t o s e e t h i s p i c tu re .
28
Oral Language
Qu i c k T i m e ™ a n d a
Gra p h i c s d e c o m p re s s o r
a re n e e d e d to s e e th i s p i c t u re .
29
Working Memory
30
Long-term Retrieval
31
Processing Speed
32
Fluid Reasoning
33
Visual-Spatial Thinking
34
Comprehensive Evaluation:
Conclusions for Reading
Phonological Deficit?
 Vocabulary Deficit?
 RAN Deficit?
 Working Memory Deficit?
 Processing Speed Deficit?
 Associative Memory Deficit?

35
Doesn’t that make sense?

When we test students with poor reading
achievement, we expect to find that at least
one or two of the cognitive abilities that
underlie reading are compromised. If there
are no cognitive weaknesses, it’s probably
not a neurologically based learning
difference!
36
Flanagan & Ortiz:
 Aptitude-Achievement
Consistency:
 Achievement low, deficit in at
least one relative cognitive
ability, most abilities average or
above.
37
Consistency-Discrepancy (Naglieri) and
Concordance-Discordance (Fiorello &
Hale)
Processing Strength to Academic Strength
(no significant difference)
 Processing Strength to Academic Weakness
(significant difference)
 Processing Weakness to Academic
Weakness (no significant difference)
 Processing Strength to Processing Weakness
(significant difference)

38
Another approach: Academics only






Word recognition & spelling <90 (phonological poor, spatial
& motor skills good)
Reading fluency <90, accuracy good (automaticity problem:
RAN poor)
Reading comprehension <90, 7 points below word reading
(vocabulary, working memory & attention poor, phonics
good)
Math computations <90, all reading good (executive
functioning, working memory & attention poor, phonics and
vocabulary good)
Spelling <90 (residuals of poor phonics, fluency often
impaired)
Word recognition, fluency, comprehension, spelling & math
<90 (language and working memory poor)
39
Just the sounds…
 Children who were weakest in phonological awareness
only performed best on basal curriculums that taught the
alphabetic principle explicitly Fletcher et al. (2003)
 Auditory Discrimination in Depth (Lindamood)
 Alphabet Phonics (Orton Gillingham)
 Phonographics*
 Project Read
 Read Spell Pat
 Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading (SRA)*
 *Some research-based evidence
40
Just the sights…eight weeks of
intervention in Georgetown
 Visual imagery (SI) is being tested
 Cocktail of Visual & Phonemic Awareness
(TAAS)
 Better Non-word reading and PA3 (p<.05)
 Reading accuracy improves; rate still poor
 Real word reading and comprehension
improvements, but they are not significant.
 Increases in left and right hemisphere functioning
 Eden (2005)
41
Just the pictures
PAL Looking Games
42
Just the associations
PAL Alphabet Retrieval Games
Rewards (Archer)
Phonics for Reading (Archer)
Corrective Reading (SRA)
43
Just the meaning…
 Children with poor reading comprehension and
adequate decoding (who often demonstrate
problems with oral language, crystallized
intelligence and fluid reasoning) might profit
from training in meta-cognition, accessing
visual-spatial imagery skills, linking, and explicit
teaching of Theme Identification
Keene, E. & Zimmerman, S., (1997). The mosaic
of thought: Teaching comprehension in a readers’
workshop. Heineman: Portsmouth, NH.
44
More comprehension
Collaborative Strategic Reading (Vaughn)
 Reading in the Content Area (Kinsella)
45
Just…what was that?
Multi-sensory techniques may
improve reading in children with
memory span deficits (selfmonitoring, generalization,
integration, feedback)
Swanson, H. and Saez, L. (2003)
46
Just my speed…
 For Processing Speed and RAN (affecting
fluency)
 RAVE-O and PAL+Fluency Bowers, P. and
Ishaik, G. (2003).
 Six Minute Solution (Hiebert)
 Read Naturally (Imhott)
47
Just about everything.
Students with phonemic, RAN, and
memory span deficits had to learn
sight words first and then internal
phonological structure
Fletcher et. al (2003)
48
When fluency training doesn’t
matter…
49
When Slingerland goes awry…
50
When even research-based phonemic
awareness instruction is ineffective…
51
The first and last question
How do we improve the
educational outcome for this
student?
52
President’s Message
“I would hope that the goal here is
to expand the methods of
assessment available to the
practitioner and not to limit them.
It seems possible that these two
very valuable approaches can be
utilized along a continuum of
collecting information about a
child that would culminate in a
very clear and comprehensive
evaluation that would be of value
to all.” Huff, L. (2005, February).
President’s Message. NASP
Communique, 33, 2-3.
53
Thanks!
54
Sources and Acknowledgements
 Portland Public Schools LD Integration Committee
 Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association
 Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as
inadequate response to instruction: the promise and potential problems.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 137-146.
 Fletcher, J., Morris, R., & Lyon, G.R. (2003). Classification and definition of
learning disabilities: an integrative perspective. In H. Swanson, K. Harris, &
S. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp 30-56). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press
 Geary, D. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: problem solving
differences and cognitive deficits. In H. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham,
(Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp 199-212). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
 Eden, G. (2005, October 8). Understanding the reading brain: Functional brain
imaging studies of reading and reading disabilities. Powerpoint presented at
the 2005 OHSU Fall Science Partnership.
55
More Sources and Acknowledgments
 Fletcher, J. (2004). Neuropsychology of reading & learning
disabilities.Powerpoint presentation.
 Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
 Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete sciencebased program for reading problems at any level. New York, NY:
Alfred A. Knopf.
 Flanagan, D., and Ortiz, S. (2004). CHC cross-battery
assessment and LD determination: Theoretical and empirical
advances in the evaluation and identification of learning
disabilities. Powerpoint presentation.
 Floyd, R., Bergeron, B., et. al. (2005). Are Cattell-Horn-Carroll broad
ability composite scores exchangeable across batteries? School
Psychology Review, 34 (3), 329-357.
 McGrew, K. (2005). from http://www.iapsych.com/
56
More Sources
www.w-w-c.org What works
http://www.ldonline.org/njcld/operationaliz
ing.html
57