RTI Professional Learning Webinar
Series:
Using Research to Select
and Design
Effective Interventions
.
Session #6 11/5/09 3-4:30 pm
State of Research on RTI Reading
1
USED/Mathematica may contact some of
you for your feedback on this event
After you join the webinar as usual go to the Chat
Window and type the following, and send it to
“This Room”:
1. Your district name and school name or
organization name or “parent.”
2. A phone number for you/the organization.
3. An e-mail address for you/the organization.
4. The name and title of every person in
attendance with you.
2
Who are we?









Teachers
Administrators
Counselors or Social Workers
Psychologists
County Office or DOE
Parents
PK-5, 6-8, 9-12, post-secondary
Statewide Organizations
Other?
3
Welcome and
Introductions
 John Wight, GaDOE
 Dr. Kimberly Anderson, REL-SE at SERVE
Center at UNCG
 Dr. Carol Connor, Florida State University and
Florida Center for Reading Research
4
REGIONAL EDUCATION
LABORATORY- SOUTHEAST (REL-SE)
Operated by the SERVE Center at UNCG
Executive Director
Dr. Ludwig van Broekhuizen
Toll Free: 800-755-3277 www.serve.org
5
Serving Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
North Carolina, and South Carolina
Georgia liaison: Dr. Kim Anderson
kanderson@serve.org
404-657-6174
6
The Regional Educational Laboratory (REL)
System
7
REL-SE MISSION
To serve the educational needs of the
Southeast, using applied research,
development, dissemination, and
training and technical assistance, to
bring the latest and best research and
proven practices into school
improvement efforts.
8
REL-SE Services
1. Outreach and dissemination of research,
evaluation, and policy information
2. Technical assistance to SEAs and LEAs
3. “Issues & Answers” publications
4. Randomized Controlled Trial experimental
studies on interventions of relevance to our
region
•
AMSTI/Alabama and K-PAVE/Mississippi
9
Series Framework: EBDM Cycle
10
WEBINAR SERIES OVERVIEW
SESSION 1
SESSION 2
• Series
Introduction
• RTI
Overview
INTRODUCTION
SBR &
EBDM
• Understand
Scientifically
Based
Research
and the
EvidenceBased
DecisionMaking Cycle
SESSION 3
• Understand
methodologies
used in ed.
research, and
their
strengths and
weaknesses
for
determining
“what works”
TYPES OF
RESEARCH
METHODS
11
SESSION 4
CRITICAL
READING
PROTOCOL FOR
STUDIES ABOUT
INTERVENTIONS
• Understand
how to
assess the
rigor and
findings of
studies
• Practice using
the Critical
Reading
Protocol
Webinar Series Overview
sessions 5 & 6 session 7
• IES
Practice
Guide
RTI Math
• IES
Practice
Guide
RTI
Reading
STATE OF
RESEARCH
ON RTI
INTEVENTION
REVIEW
PROTOCOL
• Determine the
desired
outcomes,
program
features,
implementatio
n issues, and
extent of
evidence on
an
intervention.
session 8
• Learn what
Fidelity of
Implementation is and
how to
monitor it
effectively.
FIDELITY OF RTI
IMPLEMENTATION
12
session 9
PROMISING
PROGRESS:
LOOKING
FORWARD
• Learn from
colleagues
in GA how
they put the
concepts
and tools
from this
series into
action.
TODAY’S OBJECTIVES
1.
Learn the findings and recommendations of the
USED Institute of Education Sciences practice
guide (2009), Assisting Students Struggling with
Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi-Tier
Interventions in the Primary Grades
Practice Guide posted on GaDOE website
2. Discuss implications of the recommendations for
your RTI practice with a national expert (coauthor of the guide, Dr. Connor)
3. Preview session 7
13
Objective #1 WARM-UP:
RTI Reading
2 min. Chat
Facilitators lead their groups
Individuals utilize chat box
 What do we feel most comfortable
about in our RTI reading practice?
 What do we have the most questions
about?
14
Objective #1
USED Institute of Education Sciences practice
guide (2009), Assisting Students Struggling
with Reading: Response to Intervention and
Multi-Tier Interventions in the Primary Grades
Objective #2
Discuss implications of the recommendations for
your RTI practice with a national expert, Dr.
Carol Connor
15
IES Practice Guide Response to Intervention
Carol McDonald Connor
Florida State University
Florida Center for Reading Research
Webinar November 2009
History of Response to Intervention





Based on Teacher Referral
Wait-to-Fail approach
Overuse of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
Variation in Prevalence State to State
Disproportionate Representation of
Minorities
RTI: IDEA 2004
 In December, 2004, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
provided response to intervention as a practice
for identifying students with learning disabilities.
 Recommends but does not require abandoning
use of the IQ-discrepancy
 Urges early screening and intervention
 Recommends a multi-tiered intervention strategy
 Integrate services between general and special
education : the third attempt
What Are Early Intervening Services?
A major change in the law is the emphasis on early
intervention services for children “at risk” for
academic problems.
The law encourages states to move away from IQ
discrepancy and towards a more dynamic type
of assessment.
The law encourages early identification of reading
difficulties rather than waiting until grade 2 or 3.
Key Principles of RTI
 Incorporate prevention and early intervention
rather than waiting until grades 2-3
 Include universal screening to identify student
needs
 Effective practices implemented class-wide in
general education (primary intervention or Tier
1)
 Successive levels of support increasing in
intensity and specificity provided to students as
needed (secondary/tertiary intervention)
(Dickson & Bursuck, 1999; McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005; O’Connor, 2000;
O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty, & Bell, 2005; O’Connor, Harty, Fulmer, 2005; Vaughn, LinanThompson, & Hickman, 2003)
Potential Benefits of RTI
 Early and targeted intervention for students at risk
 Use increasingly more intensive tiers of instruction
 Early identification through universal screening
practices
 Confidence that students who participate in effective
RTI models and are referred for special education are
less likely to be students who are academic
casualties from inadequate or inappropriate
instruction
See for review: Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004
TIER I: CORE CLASS INSTRUCTION
TIER I
Tier I is defined differently by experts.
Only common feature:
Universal screening of all students
Other possible components:
Ongoing professional development
for classroom teachers on how to
use research
Differentiated instruction
Progress monitoring of all students
or of students “at risk” on a monthly
or weekly basis
High quality reading instruction
Scientifically based reading
instruction
TIER II: SMALL GROUP INTERVENTION
 Tier II is individual or smallgroup intervention in
addition to the time allotted
for core reading
instruction.
TIER II
 Tier II includes curriculum,
strategies, and procedures
designed to supplement,
enhance, and support Tier
I.
 Can backtrack and/or
elaborate/reinforce
classroom curriculum.
Individual Cases for Tier 2
from Vaughn research
TIER III: INTENSIVE INTERVENTION
 Tier III is specifically
designed and customized
individual or small-group
reading instruction that is
extended beyond the time
allocated for Tier I and Tier II.
TIER
III
NOTE: Some states/districts
use 3 tiers and other states
use 4 tiers.
Assisting Students Struggling with
Reading: Response to Intervention and
Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary
Grades
The report is available on the IES website:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee &
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/pr
acticeguides/
Panelists







Russell Gersten (Chair)
Donald Compton
Carol M. Connor
Joseph Dimino
Lana Santoro
Sylvia Linan-Thompson
W. David Tilly
Search for Coherence
Panel collaborates to develop 5 to 10 assertions
that are:
•
•
•
•
Forceful and useful
And COHERENT
Do not encompass all things for all people
Do not read like a book chapter or article
Jump start the process by using individuals with
topical expertise and complementary views
The Topics
 Universal Screening
 Tier 1
 Progress monitoring
 Differentiated instruction
 Tier 2
 Intensive systematic small group instruction
 Progress monitoring
 Tier 3
 Daily intensive instruction
Recommendation 1
Screen students for potential reading
problems at the beginning of the year
and again in the middle of the year.
Regularly monitor the progress of
students who are at elevated risk for
developing reading disabilities.
 Level of Evidence: Moderate
Evidence
 Five correlation studies have demonstrated that certain
types of measures can be used to accurately predict
future student performance.
 A series of of screening measures can be used to
assess proficiency in key areas:





Letter naming fluency (K-1)
Phoneme segmentation (K-1)
Nonsense word fluency (1)
Word identification (1-2)
Oral reading fluency (1-2)
 Emerging evidence that monitoring oral language skills
(e.g., vocabulary) and reading comprehension may be
associated with student outcomes
Suggestions
 Create a building-level team to facilitate the
implementation of universal screening and
progress monitoring.
 Select a set of efficient screening measures
that identify children at risk for poor reading
outcomes with reasonable accuracy.
 Technical characteristics to consider
 Use benchmarks or growth rates (or a
combination of the two) to identify children
at low, moderate, or high risk for developing
reading difficulties.
Roadblocks
 It is too hard to establish district-specific
benchmarks.
 Universal screening falsely identifies too
many students.
 Some students might get “stuck” in a
particular tier.
 Some teachers place students in tutoring
when they are only one point below the
benchmark.
Roadblocks
 It is too hard to establish district-specific
benchmarks.
 Suggested Approach: National standards
are a reasonable alternative to
establishing district-specific benchmarks.
Roadblocks
 Universal screening falsely identifies too
many students.
 Suggested Approach: The panel
recommends using universal screening
measures to liberally identify a pool of
children.
 Progress monitoring can be used to further
refine students most at risk for
underachievement.
Roadblocks
 Some students might get “stuck” in a
particular tier.
 Suggested Approach: To ensure students
are receiving the correct amount of
instruction schools should frequently
reassess - allowing fluid movement among
tiers.
Roadblocks
 Some students may be placed in tutoring when
they are only one point below the benchmark.
 Suggested Approach: If a students’ score falls
within the confidence interval
 Conduct an additional assessment
or
 Progress monitor for a period of 6 weeks
Recommendation 2
Provide differentiated reading
instruction for all students based on
assessments of students’ current
reading levels (tier 1).
 Level of Evidence: Low but increasing
Evidence
 One quasi-experimental and one efficacy study
examined how student reading growth varied by
the degree to which teachers employed a
specific differentiation program.
 Differentiation program relied on assessments of
students
 On average, treatment students made greater gains
 Student reading growth was higher for teachers with
greater implementation fidelity
 Efficacy studies for kindergarten, first and third grade
are being reviewed for publication
Suggestions
 Provide training for teachers on how to collect
and interpret student data on reading efficiently
and reliably.
 Develop data-driven decision rules for providing
differentiated instruction to students at varied
reading proficiency levels for part of the day.
 Differentiate instruction for all students including varying time, content, and degree of
support and scaffolding - based on students’
assessed skills.
Foundational Reading Skills in Grades K-2
Grade
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Skill
Phonemic awareness
Letter sounds
Listening comprehension
Vocabulary development
Phonemic awareness
Phonics
Fluency (high frequency words)
Fluency with connected text (second half of
the year)
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Phonics
Fluency with connected text
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Roadblocks
 It is difficult for teachers to interpret
assessment results and subsequently use
the information for instruction.
 Using multiple small groups is difficult
when some children have difficulty paying
attention, working independently, and
interacting with peers.
Roadblocks
 It may be difficult to interpret the
assessment results and subsequently use
the information for instruction.
 Suggested Approach: Provide ongoing
professional development focused on
administering assessments, interpreting
results, and using the information to make
data-driven instructional decisions.
Roadblocks
 Using multiple small groups is difficult
when some children have difficulty paying
attention, working independently, and
interacting with peers.
 Suggested Approach: Classroom
management procedures should be firmly
in place.
Recommendation 3
Provide intensive, systematic instruction on
up to three foundational reading skills in
small groups to students who score below
the benchmark on universal screening.
Typically these groups meet between three
to five times a week for 20-40 minutes (tier
2).
 Level of Evidence: Strong
Evidence
 Eleven studies met WWC standards or
met WWC standards with reservations
Reading Skill
Studies that found
significant effects
Phonemic Awareness 2 of 5 studies
Decoding
5 of 9 studies
Reading
Comprehension
Reading Fluency
5 of 7 studies
Vocabulary
Of the 11 studies only 1 measured and
found effects
Only 1 study
.
Reading Skill
Studies that found
significant effects
Phonemic Awareness 2 of 5 studies
Decoding
5 of 9 studies
Reading
Comprehension
Reading Fluency
5 of 7 studies
Vocabulary
Of the 11 studies only 1 measured and
found effects
Only 1 study
Suggestions
 Use curriculum that addresses the components
of reading instruction (phonemic awareness,
phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and
fluency) and relates to students’ needs and
developmental level.
 Implement this program three to five times a
week, for approximately 20-40 minutes.
 Build skills gradually and provide a high level of
teacher-student interaction with opportunities for
practice and feedback.
Roadblocks
 Some teachers or reading specialists
might worry about aligning the tier 2
intervention program with the core
program.
 Finding an additional 15 to 50 minutes a
day for additional reading instruction can
be a daunting task.
Roadblocks
 Some teachers or reading specialists might
worry about aligning the tier 2 intervention
program with the core program.
 Suggested Approach: Alignment is not as critical
as ensuring that instruction is systematic,
explicit, and focuses on high priority reading
components.
 New evidence (O’Connor et al) suggests that tier
2 targeting student weaknesses is more efficient
than using “off the shelf” programs
Roadblocks
 Finding an additional 15 to 50 minutes a day for
additional reading instruction can be a daunting
task.
 Suggested Approach: Schools should determine
who will provide the intervention.
 If teachers provide intervention - small group instruction
can occur when students are working independently at
classroom learning centers.
 If interventionist provides the instruction - lessons can
occur at times that not conflict with other critical content
areas.
Recommendation 4
Monitor the progress of tier 2 students at
least once a month. Use these data to
determine whether students still require
intervention. For those still making
insufficient progress, school-wide teams
should design a tier 3 intervention plan.
 Level of Evidence: Low
Evidence
 Of the eleven studies that met WWC
standards (or met with reservations) only 3
reported using mastery checks or progress
monitoring in instructional decision
making.
Suggestions
 Monitor progress of tier 2 students on a regular
basis using grade appropriate measures.
Monitoring of progress should occur at least
eight times during the school year.
 While providing tier 2 instruction, use progress
monitoring data to identify students needing
additional instruction.
 Consider using progress monitoring data to
regroup tier 2 students approximately every six
weeks.
Roadblocks
 Students within classes are at very
different levels for tier 2 intervention.
 There is insufficient time for teachers to
implement progress monitoring.
Roadblocks
 Students within classes are at very
different levels for tier 2 intervention.
 Suggested Approach: Consider grouping
students across classrooms.
Roadblocks
 There is insufficient time for teachers to
implement progress monitoring.
 Suggested Approach: Consider using
paraprofessionals or other school staff.
Recommendation 5
Provide intensive instruction daily that
promotes the development of various
components of reading proficiency to students
who show minimal progress after reasonable
time in tier 2 small group instruction (tier 3).
 Level of Evidence: Low
Evidence
 Although 5 studies were reviewed none
reported statistically significant impacts on
reading outcomes.
 Research reveals little about students
whose response to typically effective
interventions is low.
 Recommendation 5 represents the opinion
of the panel
Suggestions
 Implement concentrated instruction that is
focused on a small but targeted set of reading
skills.
 Schedule multiple and extended instructional
sessions daily.
 Include opportunities for extensive practice and
high quality feedback with one-on-one
instruction.
 Plan and individualize tier 3 instruction using
input from a school-based RtI team.
 Ensure that tier 3 students master a reading skill
or strategy before moving on.
Roadblocks
 The distinction between tier 2 and tier 3 instructional
interventions can often be blurry.
 Because most tier 3 students have problems with
decoding and fluently reading connected text, some may
have tier 3 interventions that only highlight these areas.
 School and staff resources are often too limited to
support individualized instruction for tier 3 students.
 Schools tend to give the least experienced teachers the
toughest-to-teach students.
 Adding multiple and extended instructional sessions to a
daily schedule can be overwhelming for some students
and a challenge for schools in terms of scheduling.
 Some students who require tier 3 instruction do not
catch-up despite intensive, one-on-one instruction.
Roadblocks
 The distinction between tier 2 and tier 3
instructional interventions can often be blurry.
 Suggested Approach: The tiers are a way to
continually vary resources to match the nature
and intensity of instructional need.
 Many tier 3 students will have tier 1 & tier 2
instruction as part of their reading program.
Roadblocks
 Because most tier 3 students have problems
with decoding and fluently reading connected
text, some may have tier 3 interventions that
only highlight these areas.
 Suggested Approach: Targeting important
comprehension proficiencies (summarizing, use
of story grammar elements, vocabulary
development, & listening comprehension
development) need to be part of any solid tier 3
intervention.
Roadblocks
 School and staff resources are often too limited
to support individualized instruction for tier 3
students.
 Suggested Approach: Consider creative
alternatives
 Parent or senior citizen volunteers to reinforce tier 3
instruction
 Technology
 Many individualized instruction activities work well
with small homogenous group instruction
Roadblocks
 Schools tend to give the least experienced
teachers the toughest-to-teach students.
 Suggested Approach: Reevaluate school
schedules to ensure that more experienced
teachers or specialists are providing tier 3
instruction.
 Provide professional development focusing on the
elements of instructional design and planning.
Roadblocks
 Adding multiple and extended instructional sessions to a
daily schedule can be overwhelming for some students
and a challenge for schools in terms of scheduling.
 Suggested Approach: Consider breaking the additional
instructional time into shorter sessions.
 It may be necessary to use time allocated to social
studies or science.
 Provide tier 3 instruction while other students participate
in learning center activities, independent projects, or
enrichment activities.
Roadblocks
 Some students who require tier 3 instruction do
not catch-up despite intensive, one-on-one
instruction.
 Suggested Approach: Obtaining significant
progress toward reading proficiency should be
the primary goal.
 Instruction should involve more than merely
providing students with an opportunity to
demonstrate reading skills they already know.
Discussion
Which aspects of the report are surprising?
• Recommendations
• Levels of evidence
• Suggestions
• Roadblocks
Discussion
Which recommendations from the
Practice guide are the highest
priority for you?
Why?
Questions?
 Thank You!
 cconnor@fsu.edu
Objective #3: Preview session 7
November 19, 2009 3-4:30pm
Putting Research to Daily Use: Reviewing
Interventions
Understand how to review an intervention’s desired
outcomes, evidence of effectiveness, features, and
implementation issues—to see if it meets your needs:
Intervention Review Protocol
**there will be several downloadable materials
72
Accessing this event evaluation
&
Accessing session 7
materials and webinar
 John Wight
73
Thank you for being here today!
Dr. Kim Anderson
– kanderson@serve.org
– 404-657-6174
The SERVE Center/REL-SE
– 800-755-3277
– www.serve.org
John Wight, GaDOE
 jwight@doe.k12.ga.us
 404-656-0478
Dr. Carol Connor, Florida State University
 cconnor@fcrr.org
74