Addressing the Needs of
Students With Persistent
Reading Difficulties Through
Intensive Intervention
Douglas Fuchs, Devin Kearns, and Laura Magnuson
Vanderbilt University, Boston University, and American Institutes for Research
April 11, 2014
This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q110005. Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions
or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this document is intended or should be inferred.
Session Overview
1. The intensive intervention framework (5 min.)
2. Overview of Data-Based Individualization (DBI) in
reading (10 min.)
3. Critical elements of DBI in reading (25 min.)
4. Important considerations for making DBI work (5 min.)
5. Group discussion (15 min.)
2
The Intensive Intervention
Framework
3
What Is Intensive intervention?
Intensive intervention addresses severe and
persistent learning or behavior difficulties. Intensive
intervention should be:
 Driven by data
 Characterized by increased intensity (e.g., smaller
group, expanded time) and individualization of
academic instruction and/or behavioral supports
4
Five DBI Steps
1. Secondary intervention program, delivered with greater
intensity
2. Progress monitoring
3. Informal diagnostic assessment
4. Adaptation
5. Continued progress monitoring, with adaptations
occurring whenever needed to ensure adequate
progress
5
A Bird’s Eye
View of DBI
6
Overview of DBI in Reading:
Why Do We Do DBI?
7
Why? Many Students With
Disabilities Are Struggling in School
U.S. elementary-age children with learning
disabilities (LD) below 20th percentile on
comprehension
High school students with LD
years below grade level in reading
64%
3.4 years
Fraction of high school students with LD
who drop out
¼
Percentage of students with LD with paid
employment, two years postsecondary
46%
8
Why? Unfounded and Naïve
Beliefs About Teaching Kids with LD
“Virtually all children and youth with
disabilities, including those with very serious
learning problems, are helped sufficiently by
the core curriculum with co-teaching,
modifications to the core instructional
program, or other such supports.”
Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2014, p. 14
9
Why? Primary and Secondary
Prevention Often Are Not Enough
The Medical Analogy:
High Blood Pressure Treatment
Inexpensive
diuretics
Beta-blockers
ACE inhibitors
Other novel,
patient-specific
treatments
Low-salt diet
Stress reduction
10
A Case Study: Kelsey
In fourth grade
Reads at a second-grade level
Participated in a secondary intervention using a
research-validated program
Group of six
Explicit instruction
30 minutes, 4 times a week, for 7 weeks
Led by knowledgeable paraprofessional
11
Kelsey’s Secondary Intervention
Progress
Progress monitored on a measure
of passage reading fluency
Baseline
Initial
Instruction
Instructional Change
Number of w ords read correctly in 1 minute
140
120
100
Goal Line
80
Her aim/goal line
(where we want her weekly
scores to be)
60
40
Her progress
(her actual scores)
20
0
Date
12
Kelsey Is Not Responding to
Secondary Prevention
 Kelsey is exactly the type of child who needs intensive intervention.
• Kelsey received good instruction.
Many children in intensive intervention participated in good programs.
Their problems are not anyone’s “fault.”
• Kelsey needs a more intensive instructional program.
Some children just need
more
time
structure
practice
clarity
different
methods of explanation
content
teacher attention
13
After Secondary
Prevention:
What Do We Do
for Kelsey Now?
Secondary intervention
delivered with fidelity
Non-Responders
Does student
need a smaller
group?
Does student need
more time in
intervention?
Does student have
problem with attention/
motivation?
Secondary
Intervention with…
 Smaller group
 1:1 intervention
Secondary
Intervention with…
Secondary
Intervention with…
and/
or
 Additional sessions
 More sessions per week
 More minutes per
session
and/
or
 Strategies to
promote attention/
engagement
Non-Responders
Qualitative Changes to Intervention based on
assessment data, including, but not limited to…
 Change interventionist
 Adjust language/vocabulary use
 Explicit instruction and error correction
 Modified response format
14
Data-Based Individualization
Improving Skills for Students With Intensive
Needs
15
Steps of DBI in Reading
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Secondary prevention with greater intensity
Progress monitoring
Diagnostic assessment
Adaptation of the intervention
Iterations
• 5A. Progress monitoring
1
2
3
4
• 5B. Analysis
• 5C. Adaptation
Danielson & Rosenquist, 2014; Lemons, Kearns, & Davidson, 2014
5
16
Secondary Prevention With
Greater Intensity
17
Secondary Prevention With Greater
Intensity
 Secondary prevention program
• Not an approach or a loosely structured set of activities
• Research-validated program (tested by researchers)
• Clear sequence of lessons
• Explicit instruction (I do, we do, you do) approach (Archer & Hughes, 2011)
• Fidelity of implementation
 Greater intensity (quantitative changes)
• Greater frequency, length of sessions, or duration
• Smaller group size
• Less heterogeneity in the group (students more similar in level)
18
Kelsey’s Secondary Prevention
Program
Research-Based (Fuchs, Kearns et al., 2012)
Explicit Systematic Focused on Foundational Skills
Sight words
Sound-symbol correspondence
Decoding
Spelling
Reading level-appropriate texts
19
Kelsey’s Progress After Secondary
Prevention
Slight improvement in oral reading
fluency rate, and accuracy
Oral reading fluency (accuracy; %)
Oral reading fluency (rate)
MAZE
20
Intensifying Secondary Prevention:
Quantitative Changes
Time
4 days
 5 days
Group 4 students  3 students
21
Progress Monitoring
22
Choose a Progress Monitoring (PM)
Measure
 Reliable and valid measure
(evaluated by researchers)
• Use “Academic Progress Monitoring
Tools Chart” available at
intensiveintervention.org
 Easy-to-administer measure
• Takes little teacher and student time
• Easy to score
 Measure can be given weekly
• Enough parallel forms
• Designed for regular administration
23
Collect Initial Data and Create an
Aimline
 Determine the correct level
• Student’s instructional level
• Not student’s grade level
 Determine student’s aim and plot it
Kelsey is doing second-grade oral
reading fluency
• Using second-grade benchmark
(85)
or
• Using second-grade expected rate
of improvement (to 72)
24
Collect Data Through Initial DBI
 Collect data weekly
 After seven weeks (8 data points), evaluate progress
 Is student tracking the aimline?
• Yes—stay on target
• Above—increase the goal or stay on target
• Below—diagnose and adapt instruction
25
Diagnostic Assessment
26
Informal Diagnostic Assessment
Error analysis of PM data
Classroom assessments
and work samples
Standardized
assessments
(if possible)
27
Using the Assessment Results
1. Review the diagnostic
assessments
2. Come up with a theory
about what might be
causing the student’s
academic difficulty
3. Start considering
adaptations
Spellings include
all sounds
Replaces nonwords
bunny
vu… IDK
with real words
knife
twin
Good sight word
knowledge
PM errors are mainly
spinfor…polysyllabic
IDK count?
words
28
Adaptation
29
Adaptation for Kelsey:
Quantitative Changes
 20 minutes with teacher in small group, rather than 15
minutes
 5 minutes of one-to-one time with teacher
 15 minutes of partner practice, rather than whole-group
reading activities in general education
30
Adaptation for Kelsey:
Qualitative Changes
Skip ahead in the scope
and sequence to the
polysyllabic lessons
Supplement with polysyllabic strategies …
Polysyllabic Strategy Options
Lovett, Lacarenza, & Borden, 2000
Peeling off
“I peel off (affix) at the
beginning (or end) of the
word. The root is ____.
The word is ____.”
(p. 468)
Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2002
Vowel alert
“First, I will try /first
pronunciation/, then I will
try /second
pronunciation/, and see
which gives me a real
word.” (p. 469)
Overt strategy
Covert strategy
32
32
Polysyllabic Strategy Options
DISSECT
BEST
Lenz & Hughes, 1990
O’Connor et al., 2002; O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty,
& Bell, 2005; O’Connor & Bell, 2004







Discover the context
Isolate the word’s prefix
Separate the word’s suffix
Say the word’s stem or base word
Examine the word’s stem
Check with another person
Try to find the word in the
dictionary




Break the word apart
Examine each part
Say each part
Try the whole thing in context
Mnemonic strategies
Polysyllabic Strategy Options
Wilson, 2002
Syllable marking
Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998
Tracking with syllables
34
Polysyllabic Strategy Chosen
 How to decide:
• Think about the principles for intensive
intervention
– Which strategies have small steps?
– Which strategies have precise language (3Cs
language: clear, concise, consistent)?
– Which strategies lend themselves to modeling real
reading behavior?
 Choices
• Peeling off
• Vowel alert
• Overt and covert strategies
35
Results of Adaptation
36
Iterations
37
Check Progress Weekly:
Are the Adaptations Still Working?
38
After Four Points Below the Line,
Diagnose and Adapt Again
 What should we do now?
 Diagnose: What is the source of the
problem?
 Adapt: How can we change the program
again to produce greater growth?
39
Important Considerations for
Making DBI Work
Tips From Our Work in Schools
40
Make Sure You Choose a Valid and
Reliable PM System
Running records
Program-specific
mastery measures
41
The Instructional Platform Is a
PROGRAM
An adequate resource but not an
instructional platform: Not
systematic and explicit
42
The Instructional Platform Is a
PROGRAM
An adequate website with
actual lesson plans, but it
is not a program that is
tightly and carefully
designed
43
The Adaptations Make Sense
Brain workouts
Neurofeedback training
Working memory treatment
Balance training
To date, few scientific
studies suggest these
“cognitive” approaches
work: Stick to academics
Kearns & Fuchs (2013)
44
Monitor Progress Enough
 Every other week is not enough during DBI.
 Weekly monitoring is needed to show small changes.
45
Make Sure All Key Individuals Come
to DBI Meetings
 Do not forget to loop them in early in the process.
 Make sure the entire staff knows about DBI and basically
what will happen.
 Include other service providers, such as speech
pathologists, who may have insight and ideas.
46
NCII Resources
 Tools Charts
• Academic Intervention:
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools
• Progress Monitoring:
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/progress-monitoring
47
NCII Resources
 DBI Training Series
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/content/dbi-trainingseries
 Webinars
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resources/webinars
• Register now for our April 29th webinar: “So What do I do
Now? Strategies for Intensifying Intervention when Standard
Approaches Don’t Work”
48
Group Discussion
49
References
Archer, A. L., Gleason, M.,,& Vachon, V. (2002). REWARDS (Reading Excellence: Word Attack & Rate Development Strategies).
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.
Danielson, L., & Rosenquist, C. (2014). Introduction to the TEC special issue on data-based individualization. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 46, 6–12.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important?. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 46, 14.
Lemons, C. J., Kearns, D. M., & Davidson, K. A. (2014). Data-based individualization in reading: Intensifying interventions for
students with significant reading disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46, 20–29.
Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 23, 149–158, 163.
Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (l998). The Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing program for reading, spelling, and speech, Austin,
TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., & Borden, S. L. (2000). Putting struggling readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate
phonological and strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 458–476.
O’Connor, R. E., Bell, K. M., Harty, K. R., Larkin, L. K., Sackor, S., & Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the
intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 474–485.
O’Connor, R. E., & Bell, K. M. (2004). Teaching students with reading disability to read words. In A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K.
Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 479–496). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes
in teaching and child outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455.
Wilson, B. (2002). The Wilson Reading System. Millbury, MA: Wilson Language Training.
50
Disclaimer
This module was produced under the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No.
H326Q110005. Celia Rosenquist serves as the project
officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily
represent the positions or polices of the U.S. Department of
Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department
of Education of any product, commodity, service, or
enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be
inferred.
51
National Center on Intensive Intervention
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW
Washington, DC 20007-3835
866-577-5787
www.intensiveintervention.org
Email: ncii@air.org
52