Transcript Slide 1

Intensifying Beginning Reading Intervention
for Students who Don’t Respond
Michael Coyne
Neag School of Education
University of Connecticut
[email protected]
www.cber.org
Neag School
of Education
Research
Conduct school-based research on developing and
evaluating evidence based practices in literacy, behavior
supports, and assessment
Translating Research to Practice
Support schools, districts, and states in adopting,
implementing, and sustaining evidence based practices
Neag School
of Education
Context
Overview
 Framework for thinking about intensifying
intervention for students who don’t respond
 Randomized trial evaluating the effects of
adjusting kindergarten intervention based on
students’ response to intervention
7/17/2015
Neag School
3
of Education
Context
~5%
Tier 3:
Specialized, Individualized
Intervention for Students
with Intensive Needs
~15%
Tier 2:
Supplemental
Intervention for Students
Performing Below Grade
Level
Tier 1:
Comprehensive &
Coordinated
Instruction
for All Students
~80% of Students
7/17/2015
Neag School
4
of Education
Context
RTI: Critical Components
 Comprehensive & coordinated classroom instruction for all
students. The effectiveness of classroom instruction is
evaluated through universal assessments.
 Universal assessments are also used to identify students who
require additional intervention
 Supplemental intervention and ongoing progress monitoring
for students at risk for performing below grade level
 Intensified intervention support for students who do not
respond to core instruction and targeted intervention
7/17/2015
Neag School
5
of Education
Context
RTI: Critical Components
 Comprehensive & coordinated classroom instruction for all
students. The effectiveness of classroom instruction is
evaluated through universal assessments.
 Universal assessments are also used to identify students who
require additional intervention
 Supplemental intervention and ongoing progress monitoring
for students at risk for performing below grade level
 Intensified intervention support for students who do not
respond to core instruction and targeted intervention
7/17/2015
Neag School
6
of Education
Tier 1 Supports
Comprehensive & Coordinated Classroom
Instruction for All Students
 Comprehensive -addresses all key academic or
behavioral outcomes
 Evidence based program(s), strategies, &
materials
 Implementation is coordinated & prioritized
 Differentiation for the range of learners
 Fidelity of implementation is emphasized and
documented
 Ongoing teacher support
7/17/2015
100% of Students
Neag School
7
of Education
The goal of classroom instruction is to
enable a high percentage of students
to meet grade level goals
80% of Students
7/17/2015
Neag School
8
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Supplemental Intervention For Students at Risk
for Performing Below Grade Level
 Screening data used to identify students
needing additional intervention
 Intervention options are evidencebased, consistent, and coordinated
 Intervention is planned, scheduled
and implemented to best leverage resources
 Student response to intervention is assessed
through progress monitoring data
20%
80% of Students
7/17/2015
Neag School
9
of Education
Progress Monitoring: CBM
Stacy

A first grade student who moved to Center School in December.

On the January benchmark ORF assessment, she read 4 correct
words per minute (cwpm).

According to benchmark goals for Winter of 1st grade, Stacy is at
high risk for failing to meet the end of year goal.

An analysis of assessment protocols indicated that Stacy:




7/17/2015
Had established phonemic awareness
Knew all her letter sound correspondences
Lacked a strategy for decoding words
Knew very few sight words
Neag School
10
of Education
Progress Monitoring: CBM
Stacy’s Instructional Plan
20%
 Take part in all classroom
reading instruction (i.e., core
instruction).
 Receive small group
intervention (5-6 students)
focusing on decoding, for 30
minutes, four time a week.
 Monitor progress weekly.
7/17/2015
Neag School
11
of Education
Progress Monitoring: CBM
Adjust intervention
60
50
40
Aimline
30
20
10
Dec.
Scores
7/17/2015
Jan.
Scores
Feb.
Scores
March
Scores
April
Scores
May
Scores
June
Scores
Neag School
12
of Education
Progress Monitoring: CBM
Adjust intervention
60
50
40
Aimline
30
20
10
Dec.
Scores
7/17/2015
Jan.
Scores
Feb.
Scores
March
Scores
April
Scores
May
Scores
June
Scores
Neag School
13
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Adjusting Intervention
20%
Alterable Components







7/17/2015
Content
Instructional Design
Programs/Materials
Interventionist/ Interventionist Expertise
Grouping
Dosage
Scheduling
Neag School
14
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Adjusting Intervention
20%
intensity/resources
Content
 Reading
 Comprehension, Vocabulary, Phonemic
Awareness, Phonics, Fluency
 Content becomes increasingly targeted
7/17/2015
Neag School
15
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Adjusting Intervention
20%
intensity/resources
Instructional Design




Initial teaching of skills/strategies
Reteaching of skills/strategies
Review and practice of skills/strategies
Features of effective instruction
 Explicit instruction
 Scaffolded instruction
 Opportunities to practice with high quality feedback
7/17/2015
Neag School
16
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Adjusting Intervention
20%
intensity/resources
Program/Materials





7/17/2015
“Double dose” of core materials
Intervention component of core materials
School designed strategies/activities
Stand alone program
Highly scripted/systematic program
Neag School
17
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Adjusting Intervention
20%
intensity/resources
Interventionist





Student
Volunteer
Paraprofessional
Classroom Teacher
Specialist
Interventionist Expertise




7/17/2015
Amount of training with intervention
Experience implementing intervention
Student success
Availability of coaching/support
Neag School
18
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Adjusting Intervention
20%
intensity/resources
Grouping
 Size of intervention group
 10 students, 4 students, one-on-one
 Within class grouping
 Across class grouping
 Across grade grouping
7/17/2015
Neag School
19
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Adjusting Intervention
20%
intensity/resources
Dosage
 How much time per day?
 How many days per week?
 How many weeks?
Scheduling
 When will intervention take place?
 Where will intervention take place?
7/17/2015
Neag School
20
of Education
Tier 2 Supports
Adjusting Intervention
20%
Intervention Implementation
 Continuum of scheduling, grouping,
and delivery alternatives are
coordinated at a school-wide level to
best leverage personnel, expertise,
materials, and resources
7/17/2015
Neag School
21
of Education
Project ERI
Two Approaches to RTI
 Standard Protocol
 Uses a consistent approach to providing multi-tier
supports in which standardized interventions are
implemented that can address multiple students’ needs.
 Problem Solving/Individualized
 Uses an individualized approach to providing multi-tier
supports in which a team develops interventions that
target each student’s individual needs.
7/17/2015
Neag School
22
of Education
Project ERI
Project ERI
Early Reading Intervention
Funded By:
Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education
Early Intervention for Young Children with Disabilities: Goal 3
Project Director: Deborah Simmons, Texas A&M University
7/17/2015
Neag School
23
of Education
Project ERI
 Texas A&M: Deborah Simmons, Shanna HaganBurke, Oi-man Kwok, Minjung Kim, Leslie Simmons,
Caitlin Johnson, & Aaron Taylor
 University of Connecticut: Chrissy Civetelli, Sharon
Ware, Ashley Capozzoli
 University of Central Florida: Mary Little & D’Ann
Rawlinson
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education, through Grant R324E060067 to Texas A&M University. The opinions
expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of
Education.
7/17/2015
Neag School
24
of Education
Project ERI
Research Question: Year 03
 Does adjusting instructional support based on
response to intervention lead to increased
learning outcomes for kindergarten students
receiving a small group beginning reading
intervention?
7/17/2015
Neag School
25
of Education
Project ERI
Participants
 9 schools in TX, CT, & FL
 17 interventionists
 Interventionists were school identified and included
paraprofessionals, reading teachers, special education
teachers, and other specialists
• 101 kindergarten students
 67 treatment students
 34 comparison students
7/17/2015
Neag School
26
of Education
Project ERI
Participants
 Students were screened on measures of alphabet
knowledge and phonological awareness to identify
those students who were most at risk for experiencing
reading difficulties at the beginning of kindergarten
(e.g., performing below the 30%)
 Students who qualified were randomly assigned to the
treatment (ERI modified) or comparison conditions
(ERI standard)
 Interventionists were also assigned to treatment or
comparison conditions (some interventionists taught
groups in both conditions)
7/17/2015
Neag School
27
of Education
Project ERI
The Early Reading Intervention
 Small-group beginning reading intervention that focuses
on key foundational reading and spelling skills.
 Phonemic skills: first and last sound isolation, blending, and segmentation
 Alphabetic skills: letter name/sound identification, word decoding, letter
dictation, and whole word spelling
 126 carefully sequenced and highly scripted 30-minute
lessons
 Previous research supports the efficacy of ERI on early
pre-reading and reading outcomes
(Simmons et al., in press; Simmons et al., 2007)
7/17/2015
Neag School
28
of Education
Project ERI
ERI Standard Condition
 ERI was implemented as designed
 Small groups (3-5)
 30-minutes per day, 5-days per week
 Started at Lesson 1 and progressed sequentially
through the program (1 lesson per day)
 Students took 4 program specific mastery
assessments over the year
7/17/2015
Neag School
29
of Education
Project ERI
ERI Modified Condition
 Implementation of ERI was adjusted based on students’
response to the intervention
 Ongoing response data
 Interventionists collected informal data on student response weekly
and students took 8 program specific mastery assessments over the
course of the year
 Regrouping
 Students were regrouped based on data from program mastery
assessments
 Regrouping opportunities occurred approximately every 4 weeks
 Program Pacing
 Groups repeated or skipped specified lessons based on data from
program mastery assessments
7/17/2015
Neag School
30
of Education
Project ERI
Measures
Phonemic Awareness Skills
DIBELS: Phonemic Segmentation Fluency
CTOPP: Blending Words
Alphabetic Skills
WRMT: Letter-Sound Checklist
DIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency
WRMT: Word Attack
WRMT: Word ID
Test of Written Spelling
7/17/2015
Neag School
31
of Education
Project ERI
Measures
Effect Size
Phonemic Awareness Skills
DIBELS: Phonemic Segmentation Fluency
.25
CTOPP: Blending Words
.47
Alphabetic Skills
WRMT: Letter-Sound Checklist
.49
DIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency
.30
WRMT: Word Attack
.44
WRMT: Word ID
.62
Test of Written Spelling
.36
7/17/2015
Neag School
32
of Education
Project ERI
Effect Sizes
 Magnitude of the effect of an intervention
Effect Size: d
Magnitude
Improvement
Index
0.25
small
10 percentile
points
0.5
medium
20 percentile
points
0.8
large
30 percentile
points
Improvement Index: the expected change in percentile rank for an
average comparison group student if the student had received the
intervention.
7/17/2015
Neag School
33
of Education
Project ERI
Summary & Implications
 In this study, adjusting instructional support based
on response to intervention lead to reliable learning
gains of moderate magnitude across multiple
measures assessing phonemic, alphabetic, reading,
and spelling skills.
 Adjustments in intervention were fairly modest in
scope and relatively feasible for school personnel to
carry out.
7/17/2015
Neag School
34
of Education