June 2009 Reading Cohort

Response to Intervention – Making Interventions Systematic

and Effective

Matthew Burns, Ph.D.Co-Acting Director, Minnesota Center for Reading Research

June 2009 Reading Cohort

RTI

The systematic use of assessment data to most efficiently allocate resources in order to enhance learning for all students.

Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006

• Accountability and proficiency

• Concerns about special education

• Research into human learning

How did we get here?

Accountability

• Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

• RTI was born in special education, but it was conceived in NCLB

RTI and NCLB

• 300.309 – Diagnosing LD• (i) The child fails to achieve a rate of

learning to make sufficient progress to meet State-approved results in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when assessed with a response to scientific, research-based intervention process;

Concerns about special education

Prevalence of Disabilities

Disability 1991 2001 % Change

LD 2,247,004 2,887,217 28.5MR 553,262 612,978 10.8EBD 400,211 473,663 18.4Deaf-Blind 1,427 1,320 -7.5OHI 58,749 291,850 396.8Autism 5,415 78,749 1,354.3

DREPETOMANIAFirst reported in 1851 by Dr. Samuel Cartwright in the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal

Interventions for Children with LD

Reading comprehension 1.13 Direct instruction .84 Psycholinguistic training .39 Modality instruction .15 Diet .12 Perceptual training .08

Kavale & Forness, 2000

Special Education Meta-Analysis

• d = -.12

• What is special education???

, at no cost to the

parents or guardians, to meet the

of a child with a disability.

Individualized instruction

unique

needs

Research into human learning

Table Demographic informationgroup Sex Pre Post* IQ ADD? Medication

1/D M 13 55 103 Yes Adderal2/D M 02 59 95 Yes Ritalin3/D M 02 38 110 No Ritalin4/D F 03 55 105 Yes Ritalin5/D F 02 50 110 Yes Ritalin6/D M 18 60 101 No —7/D M 01 38 98 Yes Ritalin8/D M 01 45 102 No —9/NI M 38 39 99 No —10/NI F 50 48 107 No —11/NI M 85 83 122 No —12/NI M 82 85 101 No —13/NI M 60 60 113 No —14/NI M 52 50 95 No —15/NI M 49 53 99 Yes Ritalin16/NI M 75 74 121 No —* Follow-up testing was performed using alternate forms.

Simos et al., 2001

Group Results

• Experimental group increased 44.75 points (SD = 7.22)

• Correlation between growth and IQ

• r = -.29

Before Intervention

After Intervention

What is the answer????

Pine River El: Pine River – BackusJ.W. Smith: BemidjiSebeka El.: SebekaHarrison El.: BrainerdLincoln El.: BrainerdLongfellow Choice: RochesterMcGregor El.: McGregorLaura MacArthur El.: DuluthNettleton Magnet School: DuluthDayton’s Bluff El.: St. PaulFarnsworth Magnet School: St. PaulMuseum Magnet/Rondo School: St. PaulRoosevelt Magnet School: St. Paul

Keys to SuccessSt. Paul Pioneer Press June 4th

2006• Reading Above All Else

– Emphasize reading and writing especially K-2

• Beyond the Classroom– After school programs and social services

• Continuous Assessment/Small-Group Instruction– Formal and informal assessments to provide an appropriate

level of challenge

• Effective Staff– Strong leadership and cohesive staff with co-planning

• Structured, Disciplined Environment

R (or R or R) – t – I (or I)

• Response or responsiveness or resistance

• T = to

• Instruction or intervention– Standard protocol or problem solving

Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions (Burns, Jimerson, & Deno, 2007)

Tier I: Universal screening and progress monitoring with quality core curriculum: All students,

Tier II: Standardized interventions with small groups in general education: 15% to 20% of students at any time

Tier III: Individualized interventions with in-depth problem analysis in general education : 5% of students at any time

INTERVENTIONS

What makes an intervention effective??

• Correctly targeted• Explicit instruction• Appropriate challenge• Opportunities to respond• Immediate feedback

– With contingent reinforcers

Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Boice (2008). Best practices in implementing individual interventions. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology (5th ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

RTI and Problem-Solving

Mea

sure

men

t Pre

cisi

on Measurem

ent Frequency

Problem-Analysis

TIER I

TIER I I

TIER III

Problem Solving

• Tier I – Identify discrepancy between expectation and performance for class or individual

• Tier II – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify category of problem. Assign small group solution.

• Tier III – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify causal variable. Implement individual intervention.

Tier I

student names 15-Sep

A 11

B 16

C 12

D 29

E 23

F 34

G 14

H 13

I 13

J 30

K 31

L 13

M 10

N 37

O 31

P 9

Q 33

R 20

S 40

T 19

Median 19.5

student names 15-Sep

A 11

B 16

C 12

D 29

E 23

F 34

G 14

H 13

I 13

J 30

K 31

L 13

M 10

N 37

O 31

P 9

Q 33

R 20

S 40

T 19

Median 19.5

Reading Instruction in Elementary School

• Two hours each day

• Explicit instruction

• Free-choice reading

• Word study

• Writing

Classwide Intervention

http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals

student names 15-Sep 29-Sep

A 11 12

B 16 33

C 12 28

D 29 45

E 23 46

F 34 52

G 14 27

H 13 13

I 13 26

J 30 59

K 31 59

L 13 29

M 10 12

N 37 50

O 31 56

P 9 13

Q 33 54

R 20 46

S 40 62

T 19 47

Median 19.5 45.5

student names 15-Sep 22-Sep Winter Spring

A 11 12 12 27

B 16 33 51 71

C 12 28 41 62

D 29 45 71 76

E 23 46 60 74

F 34 52 76 86

G 14 27 40 55

H 13 13 16 18

I 13 26 29 71

J 30 59 88 105

K 31 59 64 81

L 13 29 45 61

M 10 12 14 38

N 37 50 70 75

O 31 56 81 71

P 9 13 17 13

Q 33 54 74 90

R 20 46 72 76

S 40 62 86 95

T 19 47 52 82

Median 19.5 45.5 56 72.5

Tier II Interventions

Reading Interventions for Tier II• PALS

• HOSTS

• Read Naturally

• Rewards

• Reading Rockets

• Etc., etc., etc.

PROFICIENT READING

Tier II Interventions

• PALS

• HOSTS

• Read Naturally

• Rewards

• Reading Rockets

• Etc., etc., etc.

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency

Vocabulary and Comprehension

National Reading Panel

• Is phonemic awareness instruction effective in helping children learn to read?

• Reviewed 52 studies of PA instruction. • Three general outcomes were explored

– PA tasks such as phoneme manipulation, – Reading tasks such as word reading, pseudoword reading,

reading comprehension, oral text reading, reading speed, time to reach a criterion of learning, and miscues, and

– Spelling

National Reading Panel Results

• PA instruction demonstrated better efficacy over alternative instruction models or no instruction

• Improved PA measures (strong), reading (d = .53) and spelling skills

• Teaching one or two PA skills was preferable to teaching three or more

• PA instruction benefited reading comprehension (Ehri et al.).

Means and Ranges of Effect Sizes by Reading Outcome Measure

N Mean ES SD Minimum Maximum

Pseudowords

24 .84 .80 -.19 3.60

Words in Isolation

48 .92 .89 -.05 4.33

Contextual Reading

24 .37 .38 -.37 1.18

Assess 4 NRP Areas

• Phonemic Awareness– Phoneme segmentation fluency

• Phonics– Nonsense word fluency

• Fluency– Oral reading fluency

• Vocabulary/Comprehension

Tier II• Effective – at least moderate ES• Costs – Low as possible, cost/ES, cost effective (comes with a lot),

dedicated teacher time • Delivery

– Group/individual (two to six considering efficiency) – Total students (20%)– Who - teacher supervision with some peer and or adult tutoring– Pull out – in addition to, some pull out component, 3 to 5 X/week,

approximately 30 minutes (kinder – 20min tops). No less than 8 weeks.• Grades of kids – earlier better, certainly K-2.• Measure – fluency measure of reading at least monthly• Materials

– Ease – much easier if compiled, but not prerequisite– Availability – standardized (manual)

Logistics

Teacher A

3rd Grade

25 Kids

Teacher B

3rd Grade

25 Kids

5 Kids 5 Kids

10 Kids 3rd Grade – 60 Kids Total

LogisticsTeacher A

3rd Grade - 40 Kids

5 Kids 5 Kids

10 Kids 3rd Grade – 60 Kids Total

Teacher B

5 Kids

Teacher J

5 Kids

Teacher L

5 Kids

Teacher D

5 Kids

Teacher F

5 Kids

Teacher H

5 Kids

Parapro A

5 Kids

Reading Specialist

5 Kids

Parapro B

5 Kids

Title 1 Teacher

5 Kids

Parapro C

5 Kids

Itinerate

5 Kids

LogisticsLower Elementary

Grade K 2 Classrooms – 50 kids

Reading 8:30 to 9:00 & 10:30 to 11:00

Grade 1 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 9:00 to 11:00


Grade 3 2 Classrooms – 50 kids

Reading 9:00 to 10:00 & 1:00 to 2:00

LogisticsLower Elementary

Grade K 2 Classrooms – 50 kids

Reading 8:30 to 9:00 & 10:30 to 11:00



Grade 3 2 Classrooms – 50 kids

Reading 9:00 to 10:00 & 1:00 to 2:00

10:30

9:30

11:00

1:30

Title 1 and

Reading Specialist

Tier III

Why do kids fail???

• They don’t want to do it

• They have not spent enough time on it

• They have not had enough help with it

• It is too hardDaly et al., 1997

Long radians were forming when Matthew arrived. He tried to phindate the amount of time it would take to get to the convorster. Vort it would be too long, plast he would miss the game. He vraxated for a moment until the raidans became even longer. He decided that he would ordrul in the raidan opet see vort it would start moving more expeditiously. No sooner had he started fleedjuul, when it began opet mostulalag quite hard. Matthew became disgusted, zipped up his ornaforger, and walked back to this car. He drove home ov the mostul. By the time he put the car in the garage, the mostul was droim, and the faedos was out. Matthew was doubly disgusted now. Sullenly, he went inside to watch the game. He turned on the television set but nothing happened. Matthew said to himself, “What a lousy frol.”

Hargis, 1995

Task Completion On-Task Behavior

Task Comprehension

Baseline

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10


Task Comprehension

Baseline Frustration

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10


Task Comprehension

Baseline Frustration Instructional

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10


Task Comprehension

Baseline Frustration Instructional Independent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Instructional Match

• How closely a student skill level matches the difficulty of the instructional material (Daly, Martens, Kilmer, & Massie, 1996).

• Improves student learning (Burns, 2002; Burns, 2007; Daly et al., 1997; Shapiro, 1992).

• Important functional variable for student learning within response-to-intervention (Gresham, 2001).

Instructional Level

• Betts (1946)

• “A comfort zone created when the student has sufficient prior knowledge and skill to successfully interact with the task and still learn new information” (Gravois & Gickling, 2002, p. 888). – Optimal level of challenge

• Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Reading Tasks

• Independent Level – 98% - 100% known material

• Instructional Level– 93% - 97% known material

• Frustration Level– Less than 93% known

Gickling & Thompson, 1985

Change the kid or change the material

FL – LI

Amy

Sessions

IL – HI

IL – LI

FL – HI

FL – LI

High Interest

Sessions

Frustration Level

Instructional Level

Frustration Level

Preteaching Unknown Words

Preparing for instruction – NOT teaching reading!!!!

Incremental Rehearsal

• Developed by Dr. James Tucker (1989)

• Folding in technique

• Rehearses one new item at a time

• Uses instructional level and high repetition

Mean Number of Word Retained

Correlation between retentionand receptive vocabulary

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 30 days

TA .32 .27 .32 .23 .08

DS .22 .25 .17 .16 .20

IR -.16 -.13 .06 .04 -.07

These results are “astounding” (Daly & McCurdy, 2002; p. 457).

Kids identified as LDMeans, Standard Deviations, and Test Statistics for CBM Reading and Slope Scores

Treatment Group Control Group

M SD M SD Statistic

Median Baseline 41.57 23.44 41.72 26.64 t = .07

Progress Rate 1.81 .94 .42 .94 F= 15.75*

Note - F is ANCOVA with median baseline score as covariateCohen’s d = 1.47 standard deviation units* p < .05

Passages at the Instructional LevelTreatment Control

Frust. Instr. Indep. Frust. Instr. Indep.

Interval N % N % N % N % N % N % Z

Baseline 24 83 05 17 00 00 24 83 05 17 00 00 0.00

1 09 31 20 69 00 00 19 66 09 41 01 03 1.25

2 08 28 20 69 01 3 20 69 08 28 01 03 3.60*

3 10 35 14 48 05 17 19 66 07 24 03 10 2.19*

4 04 14 19 66 06 21 19 66 10 35 00 00 3.67*

5 03 10 19 66 07 24 19 66 09 31 01 03 4.12*

*p < .05

• Category count score was correlated with the progress slope for all 58 students

• r = .80, p < .001

• Assessed relationship between reading material presented at the instructional level and reading growth.

Preteaching

Instructional Hierarchy: Stages of Learning

Acquisition Proficiency Generalization Adaption

Learning Hierarchy

Instructional Hierarchy

Slow and inaccurate

ModelingExplicit instructionImmediate corrective feedback

Accurate but slow

Novel practice opportunitiesIndependent practiceTimingsImmediate feedback

Can apply to novel setting

Discrimination trainingDifferentiation training

Can use information to solve problems

Problem solvingSimulations

Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.) The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23-40). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Learning Hierarchy

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics Fluency

Acquisition Explicit instruction in blending and segmenting (Blackman et al., 2001)

Incremental Rehearsal with letter sounds (Tucker, 1989)

Explicit instruction in letter sounds (Carnine et al., 2004)

Incremental Rehearsal for words (Burns, 2007)

Listening passage preview (Rose & Sherry, 1984)

Supported Cloze Reading (Rasinksi, 2003)

Phrase drill (O’Shea, Munson, & O’Shea, 1984

Proficiency Language & Listening (Adams et al., 1998)

Word boxes & word sorts (Joseph, 2000)

Repeated reading (Moyer, 1982)Read Naturally

Generalization Discrimination and differentiation training

Adaption Problem-solving activities and simulations

http://future-school-psychology.org

http://future-school-psychology.org/

When the idol of the tribe is worshiped

Francis Bacon

English philosopher

1561–1626

Do you remember . . .

• Madeline Hunter’s Program for Effective Teaching?• Outcomes-Based Education?• Values Clarification?• New Math?• New Science?• Glasser Circles

Today’s flagship is tomorrow’s abandoned shipwreck (Ellis, 2001; p. 253).

Existing Models

• Heartland Area Agency (Iowa)• Instructional Support Teams

(Pennsylvania)• Intervention-Based Assessment (Ohio)• Problem-Solving Model (Minneapolis)• STEEP (LSU – Arizona)• St. Croix River Education District (SCRED-

Minnesota)

Meta-AnalysisBurns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2006

• 25 total effect sizes– Mean ES was 1.49 – Median ES was 1.09

• Comparison of models– UEE for existing RTI models was 1.48– UEE for RTI models implemented by university

faculty for research was .92

• Variables– UEE was 1.02 for student – UEE was 1.62 for systemic outcomes.

More specifically• More children demonstrated proficient skill levels

on state accountability tests (Heartland, 2004; Sornson et al., 2005)

• Fewer children were retained in a grade (Kovaleski et al., 1995).

• Improved reading skills among children identified as at-risk (Marston et al., 2003; Tilly 2003),

Will RtI be too much work?

Well, it could

• But shouldn’t!

• Shift in responsibility

• Sharing responsibility

Does Leadership Matter?

Does Leadership Matter?

• YES!

Change in education is like:

committing suicide by standing in front of a glacier

[email protected]

Documents

June 2009 Reading Cohort