Formulating Secondary Level Reading Intervention

1
Formulating Secondary Level Reading Intervention
Debra Kamps Charles Greenwood Kansas Center for
Early Intervention in Reading and Behavior
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December
4-5, 2003 Kansas City, Missouri The National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a
collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas,
sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on
responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The
symposium was made possible by the support of the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project
Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the
position of the U.S. Department of
Education. When citing materials presented
during the symposium, please use the following
Kamps, D., Greenwood, C. (2003, December).
Formulating secondary level reading intervention.
Paper presented at the National Research Center
on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Interve
ntion Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
2
Formulating Secondary Level Reading Intervention

• What evidence-based practices shaped the
  planning/delivery of intervention?
• How large is the population of students at risk
  qualifying for secondary interventions?
• What training and support is needed to implement
  interventions?
• What is the initial impact for instruction and
  students after a 3-5 month period?

3
A Three-tiered Model for School-wide Screening
Early Reading Intervention

• Primary Level Intervention All students receive
  instruction within the general education
  classroom
• Secondary Level Intervention Students not
  meeting benchmark goals using the DIBELS
  screening (Good, Kaminski et al.) receive
  differential instruction (small groups-frequency
  duration)
• Tertiary Level Intervention For students
  non-responsive to secondary level

4
Evidence Based Reading Intervention

• Small group (3-6 students) explicit phonemic
  awareness and phonics-driven curricula
• Reading Mastery
• Proactive Reading
• Read Well
• Programmed Reading

5
School Information Social Demographic Risks
6
How large is the at risk group for reading
failure in experimental schools?

• School 1 61 nonsense Open Court
• School 2 32 nonsense Reading Mastery
• School 3 74 nonsense Literature-Based
• School 5 46 nonsense Open Court

7
How large is the at risk group for reading
failure in control schools?

• School 8 65 nonsense Balanced Literacy
• School 9 82 nonsense Balanced Literacy
• School 10 62 nonsense Guided Reading
• School 11 46 nonsense Open Court

8
What training and support is needed?A
School-wide Professional Development Model

• Partnership agreements, common mission
• Collaboration goal setting, ongoing monitoring,
  classroom and school-wide
• In-service training
• - 5 day summer institute
• 3-4 follow-up sessions on site
• Ongoing consultation weekly - biweekly
• Abbott, Walton, Tapia, Greenwood, 1999

9
What systems level practices support secondary
intervention?

• - Core group bands together to get the job done
  building teams
• - Special and general education join forces
• - Early screening and targeting at risk students
  
• - Small group instruction put in the schedule
• - Creative resources (many reading teachers)
• - Key element of active student responding
• - Curriculum content changes or is altered

10
What variables help shape the 3-tiered model to
meet outcome goals?

• Professional development technical assistance
• Functional Instructional Team (Leadership)
• Mastery of screening and progress monitoring
  (quality control)
• Data-based decision making
• Understanding of the relationship between
  instructional processes and student outcomes
  (teacher behavior and contextual influences)
• Increased use of phonics driven materials

11
What is the initial impact on instruction and
student behavior?

• Students in experimental schools received early
  intervention -- small group instruction
• Benefits of the intervention
• Students had more opportunities to respond and
  read aloud and read silently
• Teachers in experimental schools praised students
  more frequently
• Higher means for experimental group students on
  nonsense and oral reading
• More at risk students reached benchmark scores in
  spring

12
Measuring the Impact of Secondary Intervention

• Observation study using MOOSES (Tapp, Wehby et
  al.)
• 96 students (4 experimental 4 control schools
  10-12 students each)
• Data for 1st graders ½ the sample

13
Academic Compliance (Opportunities)
14
Reading Aloud
Experimental
Control
15
Praises and Reprimands
16
What is the initial efficacy of secondary
intervention for all 1st graders?
17
What is the initial efficacy of secondary
intervention for at risk 1st graders?
18
What percent of students meet benchmark in 3-5
months of intervention?
19
What is the level of individual progress?

• What are characteristics of students who are not
  progressing in secondary intervention?
• What changes are needed with the secondary
  intervention?
• When do we move to tertiary level intervention?

20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
What are the challenges related to early
intervention in reading?

• How can we overcome resistance to kindergarten
  and first grade intervention?
• - How can we change teachers perceptions i.e.,
  moving through the curriculum to mastery of
  content?
• Are we realistic in our timelines for major
  changes necessary for reform more assessment,
  schedules of intervention, curriculum changes?

23
What are issues related to implementation of the
3-tiered model? the unknowns in prevention
research

• What are administrative procedural variables
  related to school-wide implementation?
• How can we measure outcomes for multi-leveled
  interventions (reading behavior)?
• How can schools manage the logistics of
  multi-leveled secondary/tertiary interventions?
• What are costs for implementation training?