RTI in 2005 Understanding/Diagnosing Reading Disabilities within a RTI Model Marilyn Korth, Altmar-Parish-Williamstown School District Tricia Hamlin, Southern Cayuga Central School District Amanda Miller, Saint.
Download ReportTranscript RTI in 2005 Understanding/Diagnosing Reading Disabilities within a RTI Model Marilyn Korth, Altmar-Parish-Williamstown School District Tricia Hamlin, Southern Cayuga Central School District Amanda Miller, Saint.
RTI in 2005 Understanding/Diagnosing Reading Disabilities within a RTI Model Marilyn Korth, Altmar-Parish-Williamstown School District Tricia Hamlin, Southern Cayuga Central School District Amanda Miller, Saint Catherine’s Center for Children Karrie Clark, Carthage School District & James McDougal, PsyD State University of New York at Oswego [email protected] LD Within an RTI Model AGENDA Brief history of Special Education: how it has influenced our practice Critiques of traditional assessment practices Contemporary Approaches- Early Literacy to Literacy 1975, PL 94-142 Provided educational rights and goals for children previously underserved or excluded Solidified the dominant place of Special Education in School Psychology Discrepancy based model influenced assessment practices Characteristics of the “Traditional Assessment Practices” Medical model, deficit oriented, child centered One at a time focus “Wait to fail” “Refer-test- place” Heavy on diagnosis light on cure “Correlation approach” Surveys of our SPs role 50-55% of time in traditional assessment 20% direct intervention 17% in consultation (problem solving) 6% systems level consultation 2% PE and R Fagan & Wise, 2000, Reschly, 2000, Related to Traditional Assessment? Inconsistencies in Identification 1988 27 % of identified children in Utah were ED, the ED rate in CA was 2.5 % of identified children Forness & Kavale, 1990 Huge Increases in Identification From 1976 to 2002 the classification of children with specific learning disabilities increased 300% President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education July 1, 2002 Related to the Traditional Model? Reading Failure 80% of of those with SLD (40% of all Sp Ed students) are there because they haven’t learned how to read Cultural Bias African American students are twice as likely as whites to be labeled MR and 50% more likely to be designated as emotionally disturbed (A New Era 2002) Related to the Traditional Model? 6 million children currently in special education Federal funding is 8.5 billion dollars Placement in special education programs most often result in little gain or negative outcomes (A New Era 2002) The Link to LD Assessment: Past and Future Discrepancy based procedures Problems with these models A new approach LD Assessment: Past & Future The Ghost of LD PAST Definitional Concerns What is LD? What isn’t LD? Discrepancy based models Wait to fail The Promise of LD Future A New Era Preventative approach Validated Models Response to Intervention NY Learning Disability Definition 1997 A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which manifests itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include students who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected achievement and actual achievement determined on an individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning IDEA's Definition of Learning Disability ". . . a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia." However, learning disabilities do not include, "…learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage." Example of State Requirements for LD Diagnosis Achievement Intelligence Discrepancy Severe Discrepancy Determination by Formula Kate obtains an IQ score of 90 and an achievement score of 74. Is this 16-point difference large enough to be considered a ‘significant difference’ between ability and achievement? Data: Ability Score ………………………………………………... 90 Reliability of Ability Score ……………………………. … 0.91 Achievement Score ……………………………………….. 74 Achievement Reliability ………………………………….. 0.91 Correlation Between Ability and Achievement Scores .. 0.47 Methods for Determining Severe Discrepancy Deviation from Grade Level Standard Deviation from the Mean Standard Score Comparison Regression Formula In our example of Kate she would be LD with the first 3 methods but not with the 4th. Reliability concerns Determination of LD Diagnosis is based in part on: State determinations of severe discrepancy method of calculating severe discrepancy Different methods of calculating a discrepancy will result in different students being classified Validity Learning disability is result of unexpected low achievement. Also implies that children with unexpected low achievement (LD) are distinct from expected low achievement (i.e., low achievement and low intelligence). Validity Validity of construct relies on its uniqueness and utility Validity of a discrepancy based model assumes that ability-achievement discrepant children are qualitatively distinct from regular “low achievers”. Also assumes that identifying LD will lead to useful interventions specific to that group. Assessing Validity of LD Fletcher et al. (2001) describe means of validating LD diagnosis Prognosis Response Distinct to intervention cognitive profiles Cognitive Domains Meta-Analysis Hoskyn & Swanson (2000) Stuebing et al. (2002) Stuebing et al. Substantial overlap between IQ-discrepant & IQ-consistent poor readers Differences between groups on several cognitive domains were negligible or small Research indicates little need for using IQ tests in assessing LDs Prognosis Do LD students and ordinary lowachievers differ in development of reading ability? O’Mally et al. (2002) found little evidence of differences between groups. Several longitudinal studies found little or no differences in reading development between groups. Response to Intervention Research generally finds that discrepancy based LD vs. low-achievers do not respond differently to interventions. Vellutino, Scanlon, Lyon (2000) reported that IQ-achievement discrepancy did not predict differences between groups on responses to intervention or which group would be more easily remediated. Assessing Validity of LD: Summary Research indicates little or no differences between discrepancy based LD students and ordinary low achievers based on: Cognitive Profiles Prognosis Response to intervention Validity Current definitions and diagnosis of LD students lacks uniqueness (distinct group of learners) and utility (clear differences in treatment and prognosis). Traditional Assessment Practices Critiqued No support for discrepancy based models of LDprognosis, uniqueness, RTI, cog profiles The reliability and validity of traditional classification practices is poor (Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000; Reschly, & Ysseldyke, 2002) Traditional Assessment Practices Critiqued- continued “Assignment of differential treatment based on student ability, aptitude, or categorical condition has not produced promising results” (pg. 6) Reschley & Ysseldyke, 2002, Best Practices in School Psychology NYS proposed Amendments to Part 200 May 17, 2005 New definition of LD More structured eligibility determination section Some guidance on assessment/diagnosis NYS Learning Disability Definition proposed amendments 5/17/2005 A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which manifests itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include students who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected achievement and actual achievement determined on an individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning NYS Learning Disability Definition proposed amendments 5/17/2005 (C) Eligibility Determinations (2) A student shall not be determined eligible for special education if the determinant factor is: (i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency (including oral reading skills) and reading comprehension strategies (*new language proposed) ( Proposed Amendment to the Commissioner, pp. 22 of 67) NYS Learning Disability Definition proposed amendments 5/17/2005 (C) Eligibility Determinations (6) Learning disabilities. In determining whether a student has a learning disability as defined in Section 200.1(zz)(6) of this Part the school district: (i) May use a process that determines if the student responds to scientific, researched based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section; and ( Proposed Amendment to the Commissioner, pp. 22 of 67) NYS Learning Disability Definition proposed amendments 5/17/2005 (C) Eligibility Determinations (ii) is not required to consider whether a student has a significant discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation or mathematical reasoning ( Proposed Amendment to the Commissioner, pp. 23 of 67) Discussion Time- you make the call! Potential problems and barriers to implementing the new regulations Potential benefits related to the new regulations RTI Assessment Model: NASP Recommendations Identification and Eligibility Determination for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities April 25, 2003 NASP Recommendations Maintain current LD definition but change eligibility criteria Eliminate ability-achievement discrepancy Introduce multi-tier model with dual criteriasignificantly low underachievement, insufficient response to intervention (RTI) Criteria 1. Significantly Low Achievement States or School Districts may set criteria for “significantly low achievement” As in current law exclusionary criteria would still apply- not primarily the result of visual, hearing….. Criteria 2. Insufficient Response to Intervention Despite at least 2 empirically based interventions over a period of at least 6 weeks Interventions administered in general education Lack of response not due to low effort, cultural differences, LEP, or nonattendance Characteristics of the Multi-Tier Assessment Model Tier 1. High quality instructional and behavioral supports for all students in general education Tier 1. Components include.. Research based instruction & behavior supports Ongoing CBM of basic skills, instructional level matched to students skills Remedial instruction and group interventions within general education Characteristics of the Multi-Tier Model Tier 2. Targeted intensive prevention or remediation services for struggling students Tier 2. Components include.. Research based/intense services targeted to the student’s individual needs Time limited services Linked to a problem solving process including general & Sp Ed teachers and support services personnel Initiated though formal referral, parental notification and consent Tier 2. Problem solving includes. Precise charting of progress- general education interventions Formal documentation of progress toward targeted goals A verified level of intervention fidelity Comparison to local norms- if available Characteristics of the Multi-Tier Model Tier 3. Comprehensive evaluation by a multi-disciplinary team to determine eligibility for special education and related services Tier 3. Components include.. Low achievement and insufficient response criteria met Referral to a Multidisciplinary Team MDT conducts a comprehensive evaluation Characteristics of Evolving RTI Assessment Models Prevention focused Focused on the “ecology” not the child Consultative based Scientifically supported Data-based (short term empiricism) Elements of an Evolved School Psychology-continued Emphasis on intervention rather than diagnosis Focused on the success of all students not just those referred for Special Education With Emphasis on Prevention at Each Level Universal Targeted Reduce new cases of academic failure/problem behavior Reduce current cases of academic failure/ problem behavior Intensive Reduce complications, intensity, severity of current cases Implications for Intervention Assessment techniques should lend themselves to intervention Assessments that measure important subskills, are repeatable and directly related to instruction The Consultation Process Problem Identification Problem Analysis Plan Implementation Plan Evaluation RTI Assessment & Monitoring Tasks are scientifically based, relevant to the curriculum, frequently administered Assess baseline and instructional level Develop student goals Assess student progress/ evaluate intervention plan RTI in Literacy: Examples of new skills & resources DIBELS Peer tutoring CBM BEA Scientifically based interventions (e.g., Big 5 ideas) Graphing & progress monitoring Discussion Time- you make the call! How consistent are these practices with the status quo in your district? What will be required to implement change? RTI Practices Defining RTI Criteria Issues in RTI Measurement Timing Standard for assessing response The nature of the intervention Source; Lynn Fuchs, 2003 Issues in measurement: Timing Final Status- measure post intervention response. Did child meet a pre-determined performance level. Growth- measure students periodically across the intervention. Base decisions on the amount of learning Dual Discrepancy- measures both performance level and growth are measured Source; Lynn Fuchs, 2003 Issues in measurement: Standard for Response Normative- Response is compared to the full range of student performance (need local norms). Limited Norm- Response compared to others receiving the intervention (need intervention norms) Benchmark- Response is compared to a predetermined goal (40 CRWs, Slope of 1.5 words per week) Issues in measurement: Nature of the intervention General Education- validated instructional practices with perhaps some limited adaptation for the student. Intensive Instruction- Departs from GE, intense problem solving or standard tutoring protocols, usually in small groups. Source; Lynn Fuchs, 2003 NRCLD National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Doug & Lynn Fuchs LD Identification: Using CBM to Identify Students Who Are Not Responsive to Instruction: The Fuchs Operationalize unresponsiveness as CBM dual-discrepancy CBM performance level is below classmates CBM slope (rate of learning) is below classmates Rationale for Dual Discrepancy All students do not ultimately achieve same degree of reading competence Just because reading growth is low, student doesn’t automatically receive special education services If learning rate is similar to other classmates, student is profiting from the regular education environment LD Identification: Using CBM to Identify Students Who Are Not Responsive to Instruction If a low-performing student does not grow where other students are thriving, special intervention needs to be considered Alternative instructional methods must be tested to address mismatch between student’s learning requirements and requirements in conventional instructional program CBM Teachers assess students’ academic performance, using brief measures, on a frequent basis The major purposes are To describe rate of response to instruction To build more effective programs What We Look For in CBM INCREASING SCORES: Student is becoming a better reader. FLAT SCORES: Student is not profiting from instruction and requires a change in the instructional program. Sarah’s Progress on Words Read Correctly Words Read Correctly Sarah Smith Reading 2 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jessica’s Progress on Words Read Correctly Words Read Correctly 180 Jessica Jones Reading 2 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May In RTI, CBM Used For … Identifying Risk One-time screening Monitoring response to GE Reversing Failure without SE Individual adaptations to class instruction Preventive tutoring Designating response (or lack thereof) to identify LD One-Time Screening with CBM Students are tested at one point in time. Those scoring below a score are designated at risk for RD. At-risk students enter preventative tutoring. CBM Screening to Designate Risk K: < 15 sounds/min 1: < 15 words in text/min 2: < 50 words in text/min 3: < 70 words in text/min 4-6: < 15 maze replacements/2.5 min CBM Monitoring of Response to GE Administer weekly CBM to all students in the class. Identify subset of children whose level of performance and rate of improvement is substantially less than class peers. CLASS STATISTICS: Computation Identify students whose response to general education < class peers. T eac her: Mrs . Smith Report through 3/17 Score Average score Standard deviation Discrepancy criterion 39.5 12.6 26.9 Slope Average sl ope Standard deviation Discrepancy criterion +0.98 0.53 +0.45 Students identified with dual discrepancy criterion Anthony Jones Erica Jernig an Score 19.0 18.0 Slope +0.05 +0.23 Donald Ross Using CBM to test effectiveness of adaptations to class instruction Computation 4 70 D I G I T S 60 50 G 38 40 30 20 10 0 Sep O ct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr W ait. Not enough scores for decision. Y ou need at least 8 sco res to make a decision. A1 S1 M1 M2 M3 D1 D2 D3 F1 F2 May Laura Smith Student data trend < goal line: Computation 3 50 D I 40 G 30 I T 20 S G T 14 10 Make a teaching change. 0 Sep O ct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Uh-oh! Make a teaching change. S tudent's rate of p rogres s is les s than the goal line. A1 S1 S2 M1 M2 D1 Student data trend > goal line: Brian Jones Computation 3 50 T D I 40 G 30 I T 20 S G 12 10 0 Raise the goal. Sep O ct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr OK!!Raise the goal. S tudent's rate of p rogres s exc eeds th e goal line A1 S1 S2 M1 M2 D1 May NRCLD Preventive Tutoring Content Letter-sound recognition Decoding Sight word recognition Fluency building Partner reading Writing incorporated into correction procedures For Information about the OSEP LD Initiative http://www.nrcld.org/ www.air.org/ldsummit/ www.ld.org/advocacy/CommonGround.doc www.erlbaum.com Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice, Renée Bradley, Louis Danielson, and Daniel Hallahan (Eds.), 2002 For Information about Progress Monitoring Materials Reading probes [email protected] Math probes and/or software: “Monitoring Basic Skills Progress” Pro-Ed: 512-451-3246 Web math system: www.digitallearning.com AIMSweb software, measures, admin & scoring guides www.aimsweb.com or http://www.edformation.com For Information about Progress Monitoring, Training & Research National Center for Student Progress Monitoring [email protected] Research Institute on Progress Monitoring http://progressmonitoring.org Reading CBM: Fuchs Kindergarten: Letter-Sound Fluency Grade 1: Grades 2-3: Passage Reading Fluency Grades 4-6: Maze Fluency Word-Identification Fluency RTI Assessment Pre-Literacy to Literacy Assessment DIBELS: Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski, etc NRCLD & National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: Doug and Lynn Fuchs DIBELS Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Reading First Initiative Result of The No Child Left Behind Act Research based program built on information compiled by the National Reading Panel Purpose: To ensure that more children receive effective reading instruction in the early grades http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html DIBELS Information One-minute fluency measures are individually administered to assess the development of prereading and early reading skills. Benchmarks for K through 3rd Grade. Recently added 4-6 norms based on Fuchs work. What does the DIBELS measure? Specific skills addressed are: initial sound fluency letter naming fluency phonemic segmentation nonsense word fluency oral reading fluency Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (http://reading.uoregon.edu) Phonemic Awareness (DIBELS - Initial Sounds Fluency; Phoneme Segmentation Fluency) Alphabetic Principle (DIBELS – Nonsense Word Fluency) Fluency with Text (DIBELS – Oral Reading Fluency) Vocabulary Comprehension Initial Sound Fluency ISF Example This is breakfast, hamster, grass, and lipstick (point to pictures). 1. Which picture begins with /l/? 01 2. Which picture begins with /g/? 01 3. Which picture begins with /h/? 01 4. What sound does “breakfast” begin with? 01 Measures phonological awareness Student is asked to identify picture that corresponds to beginning sound given orally by examiner Asked to produce beginning sound of an item presented Phonemic Segmentation Fluency PSF Example duck /d/ /u/ /k/ gone /g/ /o/ /n/ 3/6 too /t/ /oo/ seen /s/ /ea/ /n/ ____/5 rush /r/ /u/ /sh/ hoot /h/ /oo/ /t/ ____/6 shop /sh/ /o/ /p/ bat /b/ /a/ /t/ ____/6 Measures ability to segment three and four phoneme words Student is asked to say all sounds of a given word Examiner models correct response if incorrect on first example Letter Naming Fluency LNF Example SlunsXkUxi lDHhTcrDgt uanrUwCMJi nqRmtXORBF sdldwafEFW XmzcjCQISb kJBOWhqKso __/10 __/10 __/10 __/10 __/10 __/10 __/10 Measures letter naming ability Student is asked to name as many letters as they can in one minute Student may ask examiner if they do not know a letter Nonsense Word Fluency NWF Example yiz wan zoc ful mik _/15 zum nuf kun ruv fod _/15 vep ij op juj sug _/13 zuz ov vit wam buk _/14 Measures letter-sound correspondence and blending ability Student is asked to read make-believe words Student may segment word into sounds or read word as a whole Oral Reading Fluency ORF Example The Sand Castle My uncle, my dad, and my brother and I built a giant sand castle at the beach. First we picked a spot far from the big waves. Then we got out buckets and shovels. 5 10 15 19 24 29 33 34 Measures reading competence - accuracy and fluency (1st grade and up) Student reads aloud for one minute Omissions and substitutions counted as incorrect Can use to measure story recall Functions of the DIBELS Classroom Monitoring Compare student results in primary grade classrooms to the appropriate benchmarks. Alter group instruction based on results. Student Intervention and Monitoring Tailor instruction for individual students not meeting benchmarks, the area(s) of concern are targeted for intervention. Monitor student progress using probes available on the website. DIBELS Classroom Monitoring Example Three Kindergarten Classrooms at Readnwrite Elementary School assessed with the DIBELS at Mid year and End of the year % of student perform ance per category Overall Kindergarten Mid-Year DIBELS Performance 100% 50% 0% ISF LNF PSF Subtest Deficit Emerging Established NWF Overall Kindergarten DIBELS Performance: Mid to Year End ISF LNF PSF NWF % of student performance per category 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ISF M Deficit Emerging ISF E LNF M LNF E PSF M PSF E NWF M NWF E Established Subtest DIBELS Student Intervention and Monitoring Example First grade student referred for low reading skills at Readnwrite Elementary School. Assessed and monitored with the DIBELS Case Example Instructional Benchmark Anna’s Performance Initial Sounds or Onset Fluency 25+ initials sounds/minute by winter of Kindergarten 13 initial sounds/minute Letter Naming Fluency 37 letters named/minute in fall of Kindergarten 43 letters/minute No Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 35+ phonemes/minute by spring of Kindergarten 30 phonemes/minute Yes Nonsense Word Fluency 50+ letter sounds/minute in winter of 1st grade 16 letter sounds/minute Yes Test Concern? Yes Based on this information, an intervention was developed to target phonemic awareness. Next Step: Intervention Began by practicing letter identification Then moved onto phonemes Worked Broke on elongating sounds phoneme sounds apart Asked Anna within words to listen for phoneme sounds Intervention con’t Worked on blending sounds Monitored progress once per week over several weeks Graphed results with student Certificate of achievement at the end of intervention period Made intervention fun! D ate 1/25/05 1/18/05 1/11/05 1/4/05 12/28/04 12/21/04 12/14/04 12/7/04 11/30/04 11/23/04 11/16/04 11/9/04 11/2/04 10/26/04 10/19/04 10/12/04 10/5/04 9/28/04 9/21/04 Score Intervention Progress Graph A nna's C a s e E xa mple 70 60 50 40 30 I SF LN F P SF N WF 20 10 0 Where do I get more information? The manual, probes, and benchmarks are available at no charge on the following website: http://dibels.uoregon.edu You must register as a user to be able to download materials Interventions Early Reading Interventions Early Reading Interventions http://reading.uoregon.edu 5 Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (3 of which are assessed by the DIBELS Measures) Site provides interventions for teaching these Big Ideas in Beginning Reading Teaching the Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (http://reading.uoregon.edu/instruction) Organizing Principles: Earlier rather than later Schools, not just programs Evidence, not opinion Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (http://reading.uoregon.edu) Phonemic Awareness (DIBELS - Initial Sounds Fluency; Phoneme Segmentation Fluency) Alphabetic Principle (DIBELS – Nonsense Word Fluency) Fluency with Text (DIBELS – Oral Reading Fluency) Vocabulary Comprehension Strategic Integration of Beginning Reading Skills (http://reading.uoregon.edu/instruction) Early Reading Interventions www.pbskids.org Between the Lions http://pbskids.org/lions/ Or use search feature on PBS Kids site to locate intervention ideas that are tied to the skills assessed by the DIBELS measures. Research Findings – Between the Lions Mississippi Project (Grace & Prince, 2002) Significant differences were made in several key reading skills of children at high risk of reading failure in two communities in Mississippi. The students who participated in the project did not outperform their non-viewing peers on ALL measures, but meaningful differences were found and it was concluded that the series could be an important component of reading interventions. Research Findings – Between the Lions Summative Evaluation (Linebarger, 2000) Kindergarten children who watched the show outperformed those who did not by nearly 4 to 1 on measures of phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, and concepts of print. Average performance for those who watched improved by 50% (pre-test to post-test) and 13% for those who did not watch. Intervention Ideas Phonemic Awareness (adapted from www.pbskids.org/lions/) Use wordplay in songs, poems, and oral language; and use words that rhyme or begin with the same sound to foster Phonological Awareness. Between the Lions examples: Songs and poems help kids hear the sounds in words: Limericks spotlight simple rhyming words. Tongue twisters spotlight initial consonant sounds (alliteration). Other poems, songs, and wordplay draw attention to rhyming and other sound patterns Intervention Ideas Fluency (from www.pbskids.org/lions/) Use guided, repeated oral reading Repetition of predictable, rhythmic, and rhyming text Encourage students to read predictable text in a series of books Simple, predictable, repetitive text helps learners gain momentum RTI Practices RTI in literacy with students in text Students in Text: Assessment to Intervention Assessment DIBELS: ORF, Story Retell CBM Comprehension Measures Intervention Ideas/Resources Peer Tutoring BEA Graphing Website Curriculum Based Measurement “Curriculum-based measurement, or CBM, is a method of monitoring student educational progress through direct assessment of academic skills. CBM can be used to measure basic skills in reading, mathematics, spelling, and written expression. It can also be used to monitor readiness skills. When using CBM, the instructor gives the student brief, timed samples, or "probes," made up of academic material taken from the child's school curriculum.” (Wright 2005) CBM Progress Monitoring - Correctly Written Sequences Baseline Weekly Monitoring 100 90 80 78 74 Number or Percent 70 60 59 58 55 50 40 30 28 20 20 31 28 26 24 20 18 10 10 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 Trial CS Errors Percent CS Linear (Percent CS) 6 7 Curriculum Based Measurement Curriculum based assessment can be used to measure things such as reading fluency and comprehension, math fluency, spelling, and writing fluency Many practitioners use it as a method to track student progress while others use it as a class wide screening method to help guide instruction and in curriculum development Why use curriculum based Measurement? This method is very quick and simple to administer This type of assessment can be directly linked to classroom instruction It provides information that teachers can use to modify the instruction for individual students or a whole class Many people, such as teachers, school psychologists, and paraprofessionals are able to collect the data Why use curriculum based measurement? Teachers can quickly determine the average academic performance of a classroom The information can be used to monitor an individual student or a whole class based on local norms It is a quick measure that provides information about fluency and accuracy when used for reading The administration of CBM probes is quick to simple to score, so the probes can easily be given multiple times weekly Why use curriculum based assessment? CBM is sensitive to short-term student gains that other measures aren’t able to pick up Results of testing with CBM can more easily reflect a local average rather than comparing student performance to a national average http://www.studentprogress.org/ http://www.interventioncentral.org/index.sh tml http://www.nrcld.org/ Reading Comprehension Reading comprehension can be assessed through the story recall subtest of the DIBELS It provides the child the opportunity to recall details from a story that they have read in a one minutes time period. This looks at the amount of information a student retained from a reading passage and is quickly and easily obtained Reading Comprehension Reading fluency probes have also been created with three questions to be used as a comprehension check at the end of the probe. (found on http://www.joewitt.org/ Reading%20Grade%20levels.htm) Reading Comprehension Silent reading passages can also be used to measure comprehension by asking the student to choose the appropriate term based on a stories context (Found on http://www.edformation.com/ promo/mcbm.htm) Other passages have been created from popular children’s literature and can be found on (Found on http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/ 456%20files.htm) Peer Tutoring Using CBM to assess reading levels and monitor progress Research According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2004), “as many as 40% of children in classrooms fail to make adequate reading progress.” Up to 25% of the adult population is illiterate Peer tutoring can help through “oral reading with feedback and guidance which leads to meaningful improvements in reading for students (NRP, 2000).” Research (cont.) “Peer tutoring produced more than twice as much achievement compared to computer-assisted instruction, three times more than reducing the class size from 35 to 30 students, and almost four times more than lengthening the school day by one hour (Levin, Glass, and Meister, 1984).” Research (cont.) Benefits both the tutor and tutee academically (Garcia-Vazquez & Ehly, 1995). Also used to foster social skills, positive relationships, and self-esteem for both (Mercer, et al., 2001). Feasible and beneficial for students who are receiving services for learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, and developmental delays (Cook, Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Castro, 1986 ) Cross-Age Peer Tutoring Variety of different models A form of cooperative learning under a teacher’s guidance in which an older student who can often benefit from additional reinforcement of skills is paired with a younger student who may or may not need remediation (Thrope & Wood, 2000). Supplements classroom instruction Adapted to the student’s pace, style, and level of understanding (Jacobson, Thrope, et al., 2001). Benefits of Cross-Age Peer Tutoring Tutors and tutees benefit academically Analysis of ten cross-age peer tutoring pairs show consistent academic gains in both students (Thrope & Wood, 2000). Tutee receives immediate feedback Error correction Answers to questions Encouragement Learns correct reading through modeling (Jacobson, Thrope, et al., 2001) Tutors are viewed as role models (Thrope & Wood, 2000). Core Guidelines Schools have freedom in designing peer tutoring programs as they like, however a core set of guidelines are encouraged to increase reading fluency Select peer tutoring activities that supplement classroom instruction Provide thorough training to tutors, ensuring they have mastered the necessary techniques Use research based treatments for tutees Conduct periodic integrity checks Monitor the effectiveness of the program (CBM) (Garcia-Vazquez et al., 1995 & Wright, 2004) Case Example: New York Urban School District Implemented under Safe Schools Healthy Students Initiative Three urban elementary schools Facilitated by five SUNY Oswego graduate students under the guidance of Jim Wright and Kristi Lorah-Cleary Participants Tutors are teacher nominated third and fourth graders who are reading within one grade level of their current grade placement Tutees are teacher nominated second and third graders who are reading below grade level but at a minimum of early first grade Tutor Training Students took part in four 45 minute lessons covering the following: Peer tutoring and appropriate behaviors How to give praise to tutees “Listening While Reading” to build reading fluency Review of previous lessons and graduation “Listening While Reading” “Modeling by reading aloud helps students understand what fluency sounds like and is essential to its development” (Worthy & Broaddus, 2001). Benefits include gains in rate, accuracy, phrasing, segmentation, and expression (Chomsky, 1978; Schreiber, 1987). “Listening While Reading” Book is placed so both the tutor and tutee can read from it Tutor reads one page of text aloud to the tutee Tutee reads the same page aloud to the tutor while the tutor provides error correction as needed At the end of each page, students are instructed to verbally praise the tutee’s effort Sessions Total of 30 sessions will occur over the course of the program Sites vary slightly 30 minute sessions, three times per week Progress Monitoring Used to look at the effectiveness of the peer tutoring intervention Each week the students are monitored using Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) reading probes Probes are used to determine whether the number of correctly read words (CRW) per minute that a student reads increases over time indicating whether the intervention was effective or not Tutee Progress Monitoring 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 10/11 10/26 11/10 11/25 12/10 12/25 1/9 1/24 2/8 2/23 3/9 3/24 4/8 4/23 5/8 5/23 6/7 Correctly Read Words Per Minute Keith Grade 2 Monitoring Level 1:1 Assesment Date Baseline/CRW Monitoring/CRW Tutee Progress Monitoring 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 10/11 10/26 11/10 11/25 12/10 12/25 1/9 1/24 2/8 2/23 3/9 3/24 4/8 4/23 5/8 5/23 6/7 Correctly Read Words Per Minute Alyson Grade 2 Monitoring Level 1:1 Assesment Date Baseline/CRW Monitoring/CRW Tutor Progress Monitoring 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 9/26 10/11 10/26 11/10 11/25 12/10 12/25 1/9 1/24 2/8 2/23 3/9 3/24 4/8 4/23 5/8 5/23 6/7 Correctly Read Words Per Minute Leslie Grade 3 Monitoring Level 2:2 Assesment Date Baseline/CRW Monitoring/CRW Tutor Progress Monitoring 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 9/26 10/11 10/26 11/10 11/25 12/10 12/25 1/9 1/24 2/8 2/23 3/9 3/24 4/8 4/23 5/8 5/23 Correctly Read Words Per Minute Shannon Grade 4 Monitoring Level 2:2 Assesment Date Baseline/CRW Monitoring/CRW www.interventioncentral.org For a complete description of the Peer Tutoring Project and materials necessary for implementation please visit the website created by Jim Wright- “Intervention Central” Brief Experimental Analysis CBM are useful methods to use in combination with BEA to identify the least intrusive and most effective intervention to use with a student. What’s BEA? A model used to predict which intervention will be most effective & feasible for a student We "test-drive" different interventions before “buying one” to see which “runs best & gets best mileage” BEA can be used with variety of academic or behavior problems Focus Today: Academics (particularly oral reading) 4 Main Steps… Step 1. Collect Baseline -Current performance level before new intervention -Something to measure later performance against -Can use: CBM, Classroom quizzes, worksheets, reading series , other Step 2. Choose interventions to “test-drive” Selected based on Main Reasons for Academic Difficulty *Which is Based on Instructional Hierarchy (Effective Instruction Accuracy Fluency Generalization) Possible Reading Interventions 1) Motivation: choices and incentives 2) Motivation & Practice- 1 & passage preview 3) Motivation, Practice, & Modeling- 2 & LPP 4) Motivation, Practice, Modeling, & Help- 3 & error correction 5) Better Instructional match: easier materials (Listed from easiest to most difficult and intrusive) Step 3. Briefly “Test-Drive” interventions sequentially from least to most intrusive measure student performance after each “Test Drive” Administer & Monitor each Intervention… 3 Times Accounts for variability/checks for consistency Like a “mini-replica” of the experiment This increases our confidence in uncovering the best intervention. 4. Compare “test – drives”… Graph outcome of each intervention Ex. If using CBM: Graph CRW’s & errors for each intervention and compare. Which intervention “ran the best”? Which produced greatest increases in performance? If 2 were equally effective, which was least intrusive? Balance effectiveness with feasibility BEA Goal is Reached Appropriate intervention for student is identified… Long-Term Implementation (Extended Analysis Phase) Turn the identified intervention into a long-term intervention Measure progress over time Use same method as used for baseline Use novel passages, quizzes, ect. that student hasn’t been given before This allows us to assess if progress is generalizing to novel text See if student is progressing as desired… Alter intervention as needed. Strengths of BEA Interventions are tailored to individual student need Saves time in long run by predicting effective/feasible interventions early on Adaptable to use with variety of academic or behavior problems Quick and easy BEA Case Example: Haley Reason for Referral 10-year old female Fourth grade Referred for reading difficulties Baseline performance CBM used Instructional for reading at a late third grade level (3-2) Reading 48 words correctly per minute with 5 errors Brief Experimental Analysis Interventions developed according to Main reasons for academic difficulty… This BEA identically repeated three times = three BEA trials or “mini-replicas”: (week 1, 2, & 3) Allowed consultant to check for consistency/ account for variability CRWs Per Minute Outcome: CRWs Per Minute grouped by Intervention 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Baseline Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention Phase Intervention 3 Intervention 4 Median Errors per Minute Errors Per Min 5 4 3 2 1 0 Baseline Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention Phase Intervention 3 Intervention 4 Results Summary Intervention 3 (motivation, practice and modeling) was most consistently effective.. So it was implemented long-term Extended Analysis Phase: 1. Level 3-2 book used. 2. LPP/RR/Motivation implemented. 3. 30 min.,2x/week, 5 weeks. Monitoring Process Progress measured after each session… Median performance taken on three novel 3-2 level CBM passages Haley graphed own daily performance on chart to see progress Results: CRWs per Minute: Extended Phase CRWs Per Min 100 80 60 40 Baseline 3/22 3/25 3/29 4/1 Date 4/8 4/19 4/22 48 to 97 CRWs per minute (Baseline to end of intervention) #Errors ranged from 3 to 7 per minute during Extended Phase Summary Successful reading improvement over time through use of intervention specially designed for Haley’s individual needs. Intervention identified using BEA model Graphing and Templates How to use graphs to display assessment and progress monitoring data. Templates • Have been already constructed for your use in order to input data using DIBELS, CBA, BEA and Peer Tutoring. • All you have to do is input the data and then click on the graph tab. • You do not need to know how to construct your own graph – however if this is something you want to learn directions are included. Templates • Have been already constructed for your use in order to input data using DIBELS, CBA, BEA and Peer Tutoring. • All you have to do is input the data and then click on the graph tab. • You do not need to know how to construct your own graph – however if this is something you want to learn directions are included. Examples of the templates and corresponding Graphs…… DIBELS Individual Student Graph DIBELS Grade Level Assessment Template DIBELS Grade Level Assessment Graph CBM Template CBM Graph Adding a slope to CBM graph • With Excel, No problem 60 Susie's Reading Progress 50 Correctly Read Words 40 30 CRW Errors 20 10 0 1/1/1900 1/2/1900 1/3/1900 1/4/1900 1/5/1900 1/6/1900 Date 1/7/1900 1/8/1900 1/9/1900 1/10/1900 1/11/1900 Susie's Reading Progress 60 50 Correctly Read Words 40 CRW 30 Errors 20 10 0 1/1/1900 1/2/1900 1/3/1900 1/4/1900 1/5/1900 1/6/1900 Date 1/7/1900 1/8/1900 1/9/1900 1/10/1900 1/11/1900 Debbie's Reading Progress 30 25 Correctly Read Words 20 CRW 15 Errors 10 5 0 1/1/1900 1/2/1900 1/3/1900 1/4/1900 1/5/1900 1/6/1900 Date 1/7/1900 1/8/1900 1/9/1900 1/10/1900 1/11/1900 Debbie's Reading Progress 30 25 Correctly Read Words 20 CRW 15 Errors 10 5 0 1/1/1900 1/2/1900 1/3/1900 1/4/1900 1/5/1900 1/6/1900 Date 1/7/1900 1/8/1900 1/9/1900 1/10/1900 1/11/1900 How to access these templates www.oswego.edu/~mcdougal/ Discussion Time- you make the call! What are the most prominent needs that must be met in order for you to respond to the RTI initiative? (training, administrative/district support, resources) RESOURCES http://www.joewitt.org/Reading%20Grade%20levels.htm This website has curriculum based assessment probes for students in first through fifth grade with comprehension questions at the end of each probe. It also offers instructions for interventions with students as well as progress monitoring. http://www.edformation.com/promo/mcbm.htm Pre-made ORF passages may be purchased from the Aimsweb site linked below. These passages are based on grade-level fiction stories written for the purpose of assessing students' reading skills. You can purchase close passages for Curriculum based assessment monitoring for grades 1 through 8. RESOURCES http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/456% 20files.htm The passages found here are taken from well known children's literature. There are about 20 passages at each grade level for grades 4, 5, and 6. The following resources can be found on www.interventioncentral.org a website created by Jim Wright. http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/cbaManual.pdf This website provides a comprehensive manual created for teachers. It provides administration guidelines as well as examples of monitoring probes. http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/ok api.shtml OKAPI creates CBA reading probes from text. A short piece of text can be entered and the OKAPI program will analyze the difficulty level of the text as well as create a CBA probe to be used in progress monitoring. This is an extremely quick and simple toll to use. The following resources can be found on www.interventioncentral.org a website created by Jim Wright. http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interv entions/cbmwarehouse.shtml CBA Warehouse “A world of CBM resources under one roof…” http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/chartdog_2_ 0/chartdog.php This allows graphing of information collected through curriculum based assessment quickly and easily. REFERENCES http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/cb aManual.pdf http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/WebPages/CBM_ReadingPP/CBMReading.html References Chafouleas, S.M., Riley-Tillman, T.C., & McGrath, M.C. (2002). Making successful intervention decisions through testing intervention packages: A manual for conducting brief experimental analysis (BEA). Chomsky, C. (1978). When you still can’t read in third grade: After decoding, what? In S.J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 13-30). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Cook, S.B., Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Castro, G.C. (1986). Handicapped students as tutors. The Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 483-492. Daly, E.J.,III, Witt, J.C., Martens, B.K., & Dool, E.J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574. Fuchs, L. & Fuchs, D. (2004). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Accelerating growth in reading and mathematics. Communiqué (insert). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. References Cont… Garcia-Vazquez, E. & Ehly, S. (1995). Best practices for facilitating peer tutoring programs. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology- III (pp. 403-411). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Gravois, T.A., & Gickling, E.E. 2002)Best Practices in Curriculum Based Assessment. Best Practices in School Psychology IV,56,885898. Haring, N.G., Lovitt, T.C., Eaton, M.D., & Hansen, C.L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Howell, K.W., Kurns, S., & Antil, L. 2002)Best Practices in Using Curriculum Based Evaluation. Best Practices in School Psychology IV,48,753-771. References Cont… Jacobson, J., Thrope, L., & Fisher, D. Cross-age tutoring: A literacy improvement approach for struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(6), 528-536. Retrieved on March 27, 2004 HW Wilson. Levin, H., Glass, G., & Meister, C. (1984). Cost effectiveness of four educational Interventions. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, Stanford University. Mercer, C.D. & Mercer, A.R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall. References Cont… National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the Subgroups. Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Schreiber, P.A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children’s syntactic processing. In R.Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 243-270. New York: Academic Press. Shinn Mark. R.(2002)Best Practices in Using Curriculum Based Measurement in a Problem Solving Model. Best Practices in School Psychology IV,44,371-397. Thrope, L., & Wood, K. (2000). Cross-age tutoring for young adolescents. The Clearing House, 73(4), 239-243. Retrieved March 27, 2004 from ProQuest. References Cont… Worthy, J. & Broaddus, K. (2001). Fluency beyond the primary grades: From group performance to silent, independent reading. Reading Teacher, 55(4), pp. 334-344. Retrieved March 11, 2005 from EbscoHost. Wright, J. (2004). Curriculum based measurement: A manual for teachers. Retrieved on February 14, 2005 from www.interventioncentral.org