EDUC 5555:
Assessment & Intervention
Class 10
Tier 2 & 3
Supplemental and Intensive Instruction
Buzz-Bang
• Buzz Bang Activity: a Counting Game, we will count in sequence beginning with “one”
– If your number is a multiple of 3, then say “Buzz” in place of saying your number
– If your number is a multiple of 4, then say “Bang” in place of saying your number
• Reflections
– Anyone get nervous? Did it cause a mistake?
– What was your thought process?
– How does this relate to our students that struggle in math?
Class 10 Objectives
Participants will be able to
• Use Aimsweb MCAP reports diagnostically
• Know how to Progress Monitoring
• Walk through a case study through the lens of
RtI
• Prepare for next week’s final assessment &
complete course evaluation
How to analyze M-CAP tests:
Available for 2nd- 8th graders that take the M-CAP
• There are 2 Options for using the M-CAP for
diagnosis:
– Option #1: through the Aimsweb data system,
individual item analysis
– Option #2: using the Aimsweb item analysis
reports to look at student tests
How to analyze M-CAP tests:
Available for 2nd- 8th graders that take the M-CAP
Option #1
Option #1
Input item analysis
Option #1
Option #1
Class level look
Option #1
Student level look
Option #1
Option #1
Another look at M-CAP item analysis
• Included in this class’s materials are the
reports for Grades 2-6 M-CAP tests, showing
what each test item is testing for, and giving
instructional recommendations for each test
item.
• Teachers could use these reports as “blue
prints” for identifying student needs or
weaknesses
Option #2
Item Analysis using MCAP
Option #2
Jigsaw Activity
Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics:
Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools
• As a whole class, review pages 5-7, beginning
with “Summary of the Recommendations”
• On pages 11-12, the 8 recommendations are
listed; Assign small groups or partners one of the
8 recommendations
• Each recommendation needs to be read through,
focusing on these 3 main ideas:
– What the recommendation is
– How to carry out this recommendation
– Potential roadblocks and solutions
Assessment in a
Special Education and RtI model
Benchmarking
All students
Three times a year
All areas
At grade-level
No accommodations
Progress Monitoring
To monitor progress of
individual students and
determine rate of
improvement and need for
adaptation of intervention
Weekly, biweekly, monthly
assessments
In area of need
At instructional level
Progress Monitoring
Research has demonstrated that when teachers
use formative evaluation [progress monitoring]
for instructional decision-making purposes:
– students achieve more
– teacher decision making improves
– students tend to be more aware of their
performance
(e.g., see Fuchs, Deno, Mirkin, 1984; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Ferguson,
1992; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991; Stecker, Fuchs, &
Fuchs, 2005)
Level of Intervention and Monitoring Frequency
Tier 3
Progress Monitoring (< 25th%ile)
Tier 2
(Every two weeks or weekly)
Strategic Monitoring (25th-50th%ile)
(Monthly)
Tier 1
75-80% of students
Universal Screening
(Three times per year)
Using AIMSweb Individual or Comparison Reports:
Box Plots
¼ of scores Above
Average
¼ of scores
Fourth Quartile
(75th – 100th%ile)
Third Quartile
(50th- 74th %ile)
Average
¼ of scores
¼ of scores Below
Average
Median or Middle Score
Second Quartile
(25th-49th %ile)
First Quartile
(0-24th%ile)
3 Options for Progress Monitoring
• Using Survey Level Assessment and
Instructional Level probes
• Using Grade level probes
• Using Sub Skill probes
Survey Level Assessment
(Finding a student’s Instructional Level)
• To find a student’s Instructional Level using
Survey Level Assessment, administer below grade
level probes until the student scores at or above
the 25th%ile for that grade level’s norms. (see
Appendix A & Appendix B in Progress Monitoring
Guide in Class Materials).
• Progress Monitor at that level until the student
scores at or above the 75th%ile for that grade
level probe. (Once they reach that goal, bump
them up a grade level for progress monitoring.)
Where do you enter the survey level information data
Click on button to get graph
John
Conducting a Survey Level
3rd grade
passage
Assessment
62/4
John
4th grade
passage
49/7
John
5th grader:
5th grade passage
26/12
Using Grade level probes for
Progress Monitoring
• Grade level probes can be used for simplified
progress monitoring
• Assess on a regular basis using the grade level
probe, with the goal for the student to score at or
above the 75th%ile.
• For high achieving students, a more appropriate
goal would be AT LEAST the 90th%ile for their
grade level. Students thought to be gifted in
math would score at or above the 96th%ile using
a grade level CBM probe.
Using Sub Skill Probes
• Sub skill probes (Addition, Subtraction, Add/Sub,
Multiplication, Division, Mult/Div) are actually
Mastery Measures, as they directly align to and
assess a specific skill.
• These probes can be used when a specific area of
weakness in computation is identified, (i.e.
Addition facts) and should always be used in
tandem with either a M-CAP or M-COMP probe
so that general outcomes are not ignored.
Progress Monitoring
Consider the 3 options for progress monitoring,
and when each option would be most
appropriate (consider the type of student and
the needs of the student):
• Survey Level Assessment and Instructional
Level probes: who, how often, and why?
• Grade level probes: who, how often, and why?
• Sub Skill probes: who, how often, and why?
Decisions based on data-points
Decisions are based on at least 4 data points
• If all 4 scores fall above goal-line, responding to instruction
(increase goal if continues for 4 more data points)
• If scores are hovering about the goal line, continue what you
are doing.
• If all 4 scores are below goal-line, but parallel, decide to
“wait” for 4 more points to see if student performance
accelerates in level to reach original goal.
• If all 4 scores fall below goal-line, not responding to
instruction, revise plan and implement different teaching
strategy.
• Mark change on graph with vertical line.
Derived from:
Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) and Shapiro (2006)
Data Decision Guidelines
ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (and continue to progress monitor)
--Is the intervention being done with fidelity
--Is the student in the right level of materials
--Has the student been in school? Are they getting enough minutes
of intervention per week?
Should the intervention be “tweaked”? Changed? Is there a better
Intervention to “match” the student needs?
Staff should work together to discuss the data, the student, and what
intervention changes would have a better chance of success.
An important note about
Progress Monitoring:
While Benchmark assessments must be
standardized to the 8 minute timings,
progress monitoring has some flexibility,
and may be shortened to 2-5 minutes,
so long as the teacher is consistent in the
amount of time given each time
he/she progress monitors.
What Is the Status of Progress
Monitoring in Your School?
In Your Classroom?
• What efforts have you already made
toward implementation of progress
monitoring?
• What are your goals for implementation
for this year?
• Considerations:
–
–
–
–
32
Time
Money
Technology
Training
ACTION PLAN
Math Difficulties for Students
with Learning Disabilities (LD)







Perception
Memory
Language
Behavior
Auditory
Reasoning
Motor
33
Math Difficulties for
Students with LD
• Conceptual vs. procedural difficulties
• Procedural: Incorrect or misordered
procedures
• Conceptual: incorrect response from
absent or incorrect principles or
concepts
34
LD/Math-Related Problems
(see Chart 4)
• Conceptual vs. procedural difficulties?
– Perception
– Executive function
• Dysfluency (efficiency, accuracy, flexibility)
• Lacking a sense of ‘ten-ness’ (Fiefer & De Fina, 2005)
35
Intervention Principles
Student-teacher ratio
Repetition
Scripted procedures/lessons
Pace
Sequence
Concrete representations
36
RTI: An Individual Case Study:
Math Computation
• Jared is a fourth-grade student. His teacher,
Mrs. Rogers, became concerned because Jared
is much slower in completing math
computation problems than his classmates.
37
Tier 1: Math Interventions for Jared
• Jared’s school uses the district-adopted
math curriculum. In addition to the core
curriculum, the program contains
intervention exercises for students who
need additional practice or remediation.
The instructor, Mrs. Rogers, works with a
small group of children in her room—
including Jared—having them complete
these practice exercises to boost their math
computation fluency.
38
Tier 2: Math Interventions for Jared
• Jared did not make sufficient progress in his Tier 1
intervention. So his teacher consulted with other
teachers at her grade level (her PLC). It was
decided that Jared would be placed on the
school’s educational math software, FASTT Math
(Fluency and Automaticity through Systematic
Teaching with Technology), an intervention
program that helps students develop fluency with
basic math facts, at their individualized level.
Jared worked on the software in 10-minute daily
sessions to increase computation fluency in basic
multiplication problems.
39
Tier 2: Math Interventions for Jared (Cont.)
• During the Tier 2 intervention, Jared
was progress monitored monthly
using M-COMP probes to see how he
was progressing toward grade level
goals.
• He was also progress monitored
weekly using a Sub Skill probe, with a
focus on Multiplication Facts. The
goal was to bring Jared up to at least
40 correct digits per 2 minutes.
40
Tier 2: Math Interventions for Jared:
Progress-Monitoring
41
Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared
• Progress-monitoring data showed that Jared did not
make adequate progress in his Tier 2 intervention. So he
was referred to the School-Wide Assistance Team
(SWAT). The team and teacher noted that Jared counted
on his fingers when completing multiplication problems.
This greatly slowed down his computation fluency. The
team decided to use a research-based strategy, taped
problems, to increase Jared’s computation speed and
eliminate his dependence on finger-counting.
During the Tier 3 intervention, Jared continued to be
assessed using Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)
Math probes.
42
Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared
Time-Delay Math Computation Intervention:
• A series of math worksheets were created (2 digit
times 2 digit; no regrouping).
• For each worksheet, a digital recording (MP3 file)
was made in which the computation problems and
their answers were read aloud several times.
– In the first reading, there was no delay between the
problem and the answer.
– In the second reading, there was a four-second delay
between the problem and its answer.
– In the third reading, there was a two-second delay
between the problem and its answer.
– In the final reading, there was a two-second delay
between the problem and its answer.
Source: McCalum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing
43
multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434.
Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared
Time-Delay Math Computation Intervention (cont.):
• Jared was given a math worksheet 3 times per week.
With the worksheet, he was given an iPod with the
digital file of the problems and answers being read.
• In each session, Jared listened to the tape while he
completed the math worksheet. He was encouraged
to ‘beat the tape’ by answering the problem before
the taped reader read the answer.
• At the end of the session, Jared’s worksheet was
collected.
• Jared’s math computation speed was independently
assessed using CBM math computation probes.
Source: McCalum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing
44
multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434.
Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared
Time-Delay Math Computation Intervention: Building
Intervention Capacity:
• High school students were recruited to make the
digital files of problems and answers read aloud.
• The school saved the worksheets and related digital
files for the taped-problems intervention to use with
other students.
Source: McCalum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing
45
multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434.
Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared:
Progress-Monitoring
46
Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared
Time-Delay Math Computation Intervention: Outcome
• The progress-monitoring data showed that Jared
was well on track to meet his computation goal. At
the SWAT follow-up meeting, the team and teacher
agreed to continue the fluency-building intervention
for at least 3 more weeks. It was also noted that
Jared no longer relied on finger-counting when
completing number problems, a good sign that he
had overcome an obstacle to math computation.
Source: McCalum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing
47
multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434.
In conclusion…
“Ineffective instruction does not
mean bad teaching. It simply means
the treatment is not producing the
desired behavior.”
~ Ken Howell
Great Things Are Possible!
Instructions for Next week’s
Final Assessment
Bring with you to class next week:
• Data you have collected on a student that you are
concerned is having difficulty in math (CBM data,
CFA data, Topic test, etc.) or class-wide data that
indicates a specific problem with a concept or
skill
Your final assessment will include you and a team of
2 other teachers (your temporary PLC) creating a
Plan of Action for that student or class.
Endorsement Program Evaluation
Before our final class next week, please take 10
minutes to complete this program evaluation:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CSDMATH
Also for Next week:
Don’t forget to bring your payment ($45 made
payable to SUU) for the SUU registration fee