Response to Intervention RTI Preventing and Identifying LD

1
Response to Intervention(RTI) Preventing and
Identifying LD

• Douglas Fuchs and Lynn S. Fuchs
• Vanderbilt University

2
Presentation Outline
1. The Traditional IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
2. The Alternative Responsiveness-to-Interve
ntion
3. Implementing RTI An Overview
3
Major Alternative to IQ-Achievement Discrepancy

• Defining LD As
• Severe Low Achievement
• Using RTI

4
Defining LD in Terms of Severe Low Achievement

• With RTI
• LD as nonresponders to validated instruction.
• Assumption If a child does not respond to
  instruction that is effective for the vast
  majority of children, then there is something
  different about the child causing the
  nonresponse.
• RTI eliminates poor instructional quality as a
  viable explanation for learning difficulty.
  

5
Two Purposes of RTI

• To reorient service delivery to provide early
  intervention
  
• To provide an alternative method of LD
  identification

6
Newest IDEA

• Cites Two Methods for LD Identification
• 1. IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
• 2. RTI

7
Typical RTI Procedure

• All children in a class, school, district are
  tested once in the fall to identify student at
  risk for long-term difficulties.
  
• The response of at-risk students to GE (Tier1) is
  monitored to determine whose needs are not met
  and therefore require more intensive tutoring
  (Tier 2).
• For at-risk students, research-validated Tier 2
  tutoring is implemented. Student progress is
  monitored throughout intervention. Students are
  re-tested following intervention.
• Those who do not respond to the validated
  tutoring are identified
  
• As LD
• For multi-disciplinary team evaluation for
  possible disability certification and special
  education placement.

8
Advantages of RTI Approach

• Provides assistance to needy children in timely
  fashion. It is NOT a wait-to-fail model.
  
• Helps ensure that the students poor academic
  performance is not due to poor instruction.
  
• Assessment data are collected to inform the
  teacher and improve instruction. Assessments and
  interventions are closely linked.
  
• In some RTI models (e.g., Heartland, IA
  Minneapolis, MN Horry Co., SC), nonresponders
  are not given labels, presumed
  
• to stigmatize
• to represent disability categories (e.g., LD, BD,
  MR) that have little instructional validity.

9
Within RTI Identification

• Tier 2 tutoring is viewed as the test to which
  at-risk students respond to determine
  disability.
  
• That response needs to be measured and
  categorized as responsive (not LD) or
  unresponsive (LD) using an appropriate tool for
  such measurement.

10
Implementing RTI

• An Overview

11
Approaches to Implementing RTI

• Along Five Dimensions
• 1. Number of tiers (2-5)
• 2. How at-risk students are identified
• - Percentile cut on norm-referenced test
• - Cut-point on curriculum-based measurement
  (CBM)
  
• 3. Nature of preventative treatment
• - Individualized (i.e., problem solving)
• - Standardized research-based protocol
• 4. How response is defined
• - Final status on norm-referenced test or using
  a benchmark
  
• - Pre-post improvement
• - CBM Slope and Final Status
• 5. What happens to nonresponders
• - Designated as having a disability
• - Undergo abbreviated evaluation to categorize
  LD, BD, MR
  

12
Several Viable Approaches to Implementing RTI

• In this presentation, we feature
• the most widely researched model.
• 1. 3-Tiers
• 2. Standardized Research-Based Preventative
  Treatment
  
• 3. CBM Benchmark to Designate Risk
• 4. CBM Slope/Final Status to Define Response
• 5. Nonresponders Undergo Abbreviated Evaluation
  to Distinguish LD, BD, and MR
  

13
RTI Dimension 1Three Tiers

• Tier 1
• General education
• Research-based program
• Faithfully implemented
• Works for vast majority of students
• Screening for at-risk pupils, with weekly
  monitoring of at-risk response to general
  education
  
• Tier 2
• Small-group preventative tutoring
• Tier 3
• Special education

14
Tertiary Prevention Specialized Individualized

Systems for Students with Intensive Needs
CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE SUPPORT
5
Secondary Prevention Specialized Group Systems
for Students with At-Risk Behavior
15
Primary Prevention School-/Classroom- Wide Syst
ems for
All Students, Staff, Settings
80 of Students
15
Enhancing Tier 1

• Using Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in
• Reading and Math

16
PALS for Grades 2-6Developed by Douglas Fuchs,
Lynn S. Fuchs, and colleaguesVanderbilt
University

• www.peerassistedlearningstrategies.net

17
PALS Research

• Based on Juniper Gardens Classwide Peer Tutoring
  model
  
• Over 15 years of experimental research
• Title I and Non-Title I schools
• Urban and suburban schools
• High, average, and low achievers
• Students in special education
• Validated Practice status from U.S. Department
  of Education

18
Partner Reading

• Conducted for 11-12 minutes
• Stronger reader reads aloud for 5 minutes
• Weaker reader reads same text aloud for 5
  minutes
  
• Weaker reader retells story for 1-2 minutes
• Readers read quickly, correctly, and with
  expression
  
• Coaches listen, correct mistakes, and mark points
  (1 point for each correctly read sentence and 10
  points for story retell)

19
Paragraph Shrinking

• Conducted for 10 minutes
• Stronger reader reads new text aloud for 5
  minutes, summarizing each paragraph
  
• Name the most important who or what (1 point)
• Name the most important thing about the who or
  what (1 point)
  
• Shrink it to 10 or fewer words (1 point)
• Weaker reader reads new text aloud for 5 minutes,
  summarizing each paragraph
  
• Coach listens, corrects mistakes, and marks
  points
  

20
Prediction Relay

• First 5 minutes
• Stronger reader
• Makes prediction (1)
• Reads half page (1)
• Checks prediction (1)
• States main idea (3)
• Makes new prediction
• Continues to read

• Second 5 minutes
• Weaker reader
• Makes prediction (1)
• Reads half page (1)
• Checks prediction (1)
• States main idea (3)
• Makes new prediction
• Continues to read

21
Two Kinds of PALS Research

• Randomized Controlled Trials
• Classrooms randomly assigned to PALS vs.
  control.
  
• Fidelity of treatment implementation assessed.
• Individually administered pre-/posttests by
  trained examiners.

22
Improvement in Reading
Improvement Over 16 Weeks
23
Two Kinds of PALS Research

• School-Wide Evaluations
• Schools choose to implement PALS school-wide (or
  not).
  
• No fidelity of treatment implementation
  assessed.
  
• Group administered high-stakes tests.

24
Report Card Scores Based on Students Performance
on the TCAP (CTB/McGraw-Hill)
GOWER
93
94
Subject
MATH 76.0 (61) 107.8 (12)
READING 74.0 (60) 112.5 (25)
Language Arts 61.7 (60) 91.8 (33)
Science 74.4 (58) 95.6 (24)
Social Studies 60.1 (61) 81.4 (53)
Note 1 A score of 100 means that students of a
school are progressing at a rate equivalent to
that of the national rate. Note 2 The numbers
in parentheses represent Gowers standing in
relation to the Metro Schools other 66
elementary schools.
25
(No Transcript)
26
Important Features of PALS

• Reciprocal roles (Coaches and Readers)
• Structured activities
• Individualized
• More time engaged on task
• Includes all students
• Opportunities for success for all students
• Encourages positive peer interactions
• Practical AND effective

27
How Can Intervention Specialists Use PALS?

• To strengthen Tier 1
• To accomplish responsible and meaningful
  inclusion
  
• To utilize paraprofessional or volunteer time and
  effort effectively
  
• To structure pull-in (cross-age or same-age)
  tutoring
  

28
Effectiveness ofFirst-Grade PALS

• Students in PALS and PALS Fluency outperform
  controls in PA, decoding, and word recognition
  
• Students in PALS Fluency outperform controls in
  fluency and comprehension
  
• Effective for students in Title 1 and
• Non-Title 1 Schools
• Effective for all learner types

29
Berry ElementaryFirst-Grade TCAP Reading Scores
in Two Consecutive Years
Percentile (Total Reading)
School Year
30
PALS Activities forFirst Graders

• Phonological Awareness (counting sounds,
  segmenting, and blending)
  
• Letter-Sound Correspondences
• Decoding (words and sentences)
• Fluency (sight words, stories, and book reading)

31
Structure ofFirst-Grade PALS

• Teacher-led practice
• New Sounds, Hearing Sounds/Sounding Out, Sight
  Words, Rocket Words, Stories
  
• Partner activities conducted in pairs
• Sounds and Words, Speed Game,
• Partner Reading (added during Week 10)
• Teacher monitoring
• Teams and reward system

32
Partner Activities

• Sounds and Words
• Saying sounds
• Sounding out
• Reading sight words
• Reading story
• Speed Game (increase fluency and word recognition
  through timed readings)
  
• Partner Reading (partners take turns for 10
  minutes reading pages from trade
  books--introduced during Week 10)

33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
PALS Programs

• Reading
• Kindergarten through Grade 6
• Math
• Kindergarten through Grade 6
• For more information
• flora.murray_at_vanderbilt.edu

36
RTI Dimension 2 Standardized Research-Based
Preventative Treatment

• Tutoring
• Small groups (2-4)
• 3-4 sessions per week (30-60 min per session)
• Conducted by trained and supervised personnel
  (not the classroom teacher)
  
• In and out of classroom
• 10-20 weeks

37
Tutoring

• Small Groups (11, 13, 15, 110)
• 10-12 wks, 3-4x per wk, 35-45 min per session
• Point system for motivation
• Immediate corrective feedback
• Mastery of content before moving on
• More time on difficult activities
• More opportunities to respond
• Fewer transitions
• Setting goals and self monitoring
• Special relationship with tutor

38
Tutor Training

• Demonstration of each activity
• Practice with each other
• Demonstration of entire tutoring session
• Practice with each other
• Scheduled practice with other tutors, supervised
  by trainer
  
• Practice with real students
• Practice with trainers (as students)
• Provide tutor with detailed feedback at each
  step
  
• Weekly tutoring meetings to update on next series
  of lessons and problem solve

39
First-Grade Reading Tier 2 Tutoring

• Validated-Tutoring Protocol using Randomized
  Controlled Field Study Conducted in 42
  First-Grade Classrooms in 10 Metro Schools

40
Overview of Our Study

• Identified AR children
• Assessed AR students on cognitive and academic
  measures and collected teacher ratings of
  attention/distractibility
  
• Randomly assigned AR students to tutoring and
  control conditions tutored children in small
  groups 4 times per week for 9 weeks
  
• Posttested students (will follow children at end
  grades 2-4)
  

41
RESULTS

• The first-grade tutoring program resulted in
  improved performance on
  
• Word identification
• Reading Fluency
• Comprehension
• RD prevalence was lower among tutored students.

42
Tutoring

• Small groups (groups of two to four students)
• 4 times per week outside classrooms
• Each session
• 45 min of tutor-led instruction
• 10 minutes of sight words practice
• 5 minutes of letter sounds practice
• 15 minutes of decoding practice
• 15 minutes of reading fluency practice

43
Tutor-Led Instruction

• Lessons are scripted
• Detailed wording of steps and prompts involved in
  each activity
  

44
Tutoring Script
45
Tutoring Lesson

• Steps included in the Sounds, Sight Words, and
  Decodable Words activities
  
• Introducing new sound or word
• Choral practice
• Individual practice
• 2 opportunities to produce correct sounds or
  words
  
• Writing practice
• Reading activities
• Choral reading of previous story
• Echoing the tutor, one line at a time
• Choral reading of story
• Choral reading of new story
• Echoing the tutor, one line at a time
• Choral reading of story
• Individual speed reading
• Each student reads new story 3 times, for 30
  seconds
  
• Opportunity to earn incentives for increasing
  reading fluency

46
Number of Sessions

• Research tutoring groups completed 36 sessions.
• 64 lessons created within lesson sequence
• 16 weeks worth of lessons (4 times per week)

47
Topic Mastery/Review

• Mastery of the topic was assessed each day.
• If every student in the group achieved mastery of
  sight words on the first day of that set, the
  group moved to the next set on the following
  day.
• Each student had two trials to master sight words
  during the session.
  
• The group progressed to the next set regardless
  of mastery status after two sessions on the same
  set.
  
• To ensure that the group would be able to cover
  more words and sounds
  

48
Tutoring Sets
49
Tutoring Mastery Checklist
50
Sequence of Sounds and Words
51
Sequence of Sounds and Words
52
Sequence of Sounds and Words
53
Sequence of Sounds and Words
54
Tutoring Sets
55
Early Tutoring Set
56
Early Tutoring Set
57
Later Tutoring Set
58
Later Tutoring Set
59
Later Tutoring Set
60
Later Tutoring Set
61
Tutoring Fluency Activity

• Speed Game
• Each student reads words three separate times for
  30 seconds each time.
  
• If student reads farther on 2nd or 3rd try
  compared to 1st reading, fill in star on Star
  Chart.
  
• Incentive given when all stars on Star Chart are
  completed.
  

62
Tutoring Fluency Activity
63
Tutoring Fidelity Checklist
64
First-Grade Math TutoringValidated-Tutoring
Protocol using Randomized Controlled Field Study
Conducted in 41 First-Grade Classrooms in 10
Metro Schools
65
Overview of Our Study

• Identified AR children
• Assessed AR children and a sample of NAR peers on
  cognitive and academic measures and collected
  teacher ratings of attention/distractibility
  
• Randomly assigned AR students to tutoring and
  control conditions tutored children in small
  groups 3 times per week for 16 weeks
  
• Posttested AR and NAR students on fact fluency,
  computation, concepts/applications, and
  arithmetic story problems (will follow children
  at end grades 2 and 3)

66
RESULTS

• The first-grade tutoring program resulted in
  improved performance on
  
• Math Calculations
• Math Concepts/Applications
• Math Word Problems
• Woodcock-Johnson III Calculation
• MD prevalence was lower among tutored students at
  the end of 1st grade and at end of 2nd grade.

67
Tutoring

• Small groups (11 groups of two students and 16
  groups of three students)
  
• 3 times per week outside classrooms
• Each session
• 30 min of teacher-led instruction
• 10 min of student use of software, Math Flash
  (designed to improve automatic retrieval of math
  facts)

68
Teacher-Led Instruction

• Concrete-representational-abstract model, which
  relies on concrete objects to promote conceptual
  understanding (e.g., base-10 blocks for place
  value instruction)
• 17 scripted topics addressing number concepts,
  numeration, computation, story problems (e.g.,
  not geometry, measurement, charts/figures, money)

69
17 Scripted Topics

• identifying and writing numbers to 99
• identifying more, less, and equal with objects
• sequencing numbers
• using , and symbols
• skip counting by 10s, 5s, and 2s
• understanding place value (introduction)
• identifying operations
• place value (0-50)
• writing number sentences (story problems)
• place value (0-99)
• addition facts (sums to 18)
• subtraction facts (minuends to 18)
• review of addition and subtraction facts
• place value review
• 2-digit addition (no regrouping)
• 2-digit subtraction (no regrouping)
• missing addends

70
17 Scripted Topics

• All groups completed topics through 2-digit
  subtraction, but due to varying mastery rates,
  only 5 groups completed missing addends.
  
• Each group completed 48 sessions.
• Due to absences, the number of completed sessions
  for individual students ranged from 35 to 48
  (mean 43.8).
  

71
Topic Mastery/Review

• Mastery of the topic was assessed each day.
• If every student in the group achieved mastery
  prior to the last day of the topic, the group
  moved to the next topic (a few topics required
  completion of all 3 days).
• For mastery assessment, students completed
  worksheets independently, with percentage of
  correct answers determining mastery (for most
  topics, 90 accuracy).
• After the last day on a topic, the group
  progressed to the next topic regardless of
  mastery status.
  
• On the first day of each topic, the students
  completed a cumulative review worksheet covering
  previous topics.
  
• Review of topics 1-4 was conducted after winter
  break.
  

72
Math Flash

• Math fact flashes on and disappears from computer
  screen.
  
• Student types fact from short-term memory.
• If correct, computer applauds, says the fact, and
  awards a point (5 points a trinket for the
  toy box at the bottom of the screen).
  
• If incorrect, computer removes incorrect fact,
  replaces it with correct fact, and says the
  fact.
  
• At end of each session, feedback is provided
  about number of correct and highest math fact
  mastered.

73
Math Flash

• Design reflects assumption that active and
  repeated pairing of problem stem with correct
  answer in short-term memory establishes the
  association in long-term memory.
• Facts are organized in families of increasing
  difficulty.
  
• Once response to a math fact is consistently
  correct, it is moved to a mastered set.
  
• Cumulative review on mastered facts is provided
  (if student responds incorrectly, it is moved out
  of the mastered set).
  

74
(No Transcript)
75
(No Transcript)
76
(No Transcript)
77
RTI Dimension 3 How At-Risk Students are
Designated

• Curriculum-Based Measurement

78
A Primer Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)

• Teachers assess students academic performance,
  using brief measures.
  
• Each alternate form of the CBM test assesses
  performance on a measure of what is expected by
  end of year.
  
• The CBM score is viewed as an indicator of
  overall performance.
  
• Major RTI purposes
• To designate risk (measured on 1 occasion near
  beginning of the year)
  
• To describe rate of response to instruction
  (measured weekly on alternate forms, with a slope
  of improvement calculated)

79
What We Look For in CBM

• INCREASING SCORES
• Student is responding to the instructional
  program.
  
• FLAT SCORES
• Student is not responding to the instruction
  program.

80
Sarahs Progress on Words Read Correctly
Sarah Smith
Reading 2
Words Read Correctly
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
81
Jessicas Progress on Words Read Correctly
Jessica Jones
Reading 2
Words Read Correctly
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
82
CBM Indicators of Reading Competence

• Kindergarten Letter-Sound Fluency
• Grade 1 Word-Identification Fluency
• Grades 2-3 Passage Reading Fluency
• Grades 4-6 Maze Fluency

83
KindergartenLetter-Sound Fluency

• Teacher Say the sound that goes with each
  letter.
  
• Time 1 minute

• p U z u y
• i t R e w
• O a s d f
• v g j S h
• k m n b V
• Y E i c x

84
Grade 1Word-Identification Fluency

• Teacher Read these words.
• Time 1 minute.

• two
• for
• come
• because
• last
• from
• ...

85
Grades 2-3 Passage Reading Fluency

• Number of words read aloud correctly in 1 minute
  on end-of-year passages
  

86
CBM passage for Correct Words Per Minute
87
CBM Passage Reading Fluency

• Not interested in making kids read faster
• Interested in kids becoming better readers
• The CBM score is an overall indicator of reading
  competence
  
• Students who score high on CBM
• Are better decoders
• Are better at sight vocabulary
• Are better comprehenders
• Correlates highly with high-stakes tests

88
Grades 4-6 Maze Fluency

• Number of words replaced correctly in 2.5 minutes
  on end-of-year passages from which every 7th word
  has been deleted and replaced with 3 choices
  

89
Computer Maze
90
CBM Indicators of Math Competence

• At each grade level, the items on the test
  systematically sample the skills expected for
  mastery at the end of the year.

91
(No Transcript)
92
(No Transcript)
93
(No Transcript)
94
(No Transcript)
95
(No Transcript)
96
(No Transcript)
97
(No Transcript)
98
(No Transcript)
99
(No Transcript)
100
(No Transcript)
101
(No Transcript)
102
(No Transcript)
103
(No Transcript)
104
(No Transcript)
105
RTI Dimension 3 Designating Risk with CBM
Screening

• All students are tested once in the fall.
• Students scoring below a cut-score are designated
  at risk.
  
• For these at-risk students, response to GE is
  monitored using CBM.

106
Designating Reading Risk with Fall CBM Screening

• K LSF
• 1 WIF
• 2 PRF
• 3 PRF
• 4 PRF
• 5 MF
• 6 MF

107
Designating Math Risk with Fall CBM Screening

• COMPUTATION CONCEPT/APPS
• K
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

108
For At Risk, We Monitor Response to GE

• Administer weekly CBM to all at-risk students for
  6-8 weeks.
  
• At end of 6-8 weeks, identify children whose
  slope (rate of improvement) is inadequate.
  
• These students enter Tier 2.

109
Inadequate Reading Slope to Tier 1 GE (Weekly
Improvement)

• K LSF
• 1 WIF
• 2 PRF
• 3 PRF
• 4 PRF
• 5-6 MF

110
Inadequate Math Slope to Tier 2 GE (Weekly
Improvement)

• COMPUTATION CONCEPT/APPS
• K
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5-6

111
Decision 4 Defining Reading Nonresponse To
Tier 2

• K LSF 1 30
• 1 WIF 1.8 30
• 2 PRF 1 60
• 3 PRF .75 70
• 4 PRF .30 80
• 5-6 MF .25 15

112
Decision 4 Defining Math Nonresponse

• COMPUTATION CONCEPT/APPS
• K .30/12 .35/12
• 1 .35/10 .40/10
• 2 .30/10 .40/10
• 3 .30/20 .70/20
• 4 .70/20 .70/20
• 5 .70/15 .70/7
• 6 .70/25 .70/7

113
Decision 5 Abbreviated Evaluation to
Distinguish LD, BD, and MR

• Brief IQ Measure (e.g., 2-subtest WASI)
• Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (e.g., Social
  Skills Rating Scale, Quay) and classroom
  observation of problem behavior
  

114
Case StudiesFirst-Grade Reading
115
Grade 1Word-Identification Fluency

• Teacher Read these words.
• Time 1 minute.

• two
• for
• come
• because
• last
• from
• ...

116
RTI Overview

• Fall CBM screen cut-point to designate risk
• Monitor at-risk students weekly for 8 weeks to
  determine GE response (GE is Open Court
  Reading).
  
• Students whose CBM slope (rate of improvement)
  across the 8 weeks of GE is low (increase) enter preventive tutoring.
  
• Preventive tutoring 3 times/week for 12 weeks
  45 min per session in groups of 3 taught by
  trained and supervised paraprofessionals
  
• Students whose slope (rate of improvement) across
  the 12 weeks of preventive tutoring is low word/week increase) receive abbreviated SPED
  Evaluation.

117
Case A
118
Case B
119
Case C
120
Frequently Asked Questions

• Will this process delay identification?
• Does each child have to go through RTI or can a
  child have a traditional assessment?
  
• What will be required for professional
  development?
  
• Who is responsible for the various activities
  required to implement RTI as a method of LD
  identification?
  

121
Frequently Asked Questions (continued)

• How long will the SPED evaluation be and what
  professional is likely to give this?
  
• What proportion of students is likely to be
  identified as at risk (for Tier 1 monitoring) and
  for the Tier 2 diagnostic trial?
  
• Are schools currently implementing RTI as a
  method of LD identification and, if so, how can I
  learn more about their methods?
  

122
Other Questions
123
For Information about the OSEP LD Initiative

• 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

124
For Information about Progress Monitoring
Materials

• Reading probes
• flora.murray_at_vanderbilt.edu
• Math probes and/or software
• Monitoring Basic Skills Progress
• Pro-Ed 512-451-3246
• Web math system
• www.mhdigitallearning.com
• AIMSweb software, measures, admin scoring
  guides
  
• www.aimsweb.com or http//www.edformation.com

125
For Information about Progress Monitoring,
Training Research

• National Center for Student Progress Monitoring
• www.studentprogress.org
• studentprogress_at_air.org
• National Research Center on Learning
  Disabilities
  
• www.nrcld.org