Screening Process - Digging Deeper Instructional Sort

Our Focus

The Wisconsin RtI Center/Wisconsin PBIS Network (CFDA #84.027) acknowledges the support of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction in the development of this document and for the continued support of this federally-funded grant program. There are no copyright restrictions on this document; however, please credit the Wisconsin DPI and support of federal funds when copying all or part of this material.

Reviewing Your Selected and Intensive Levels of Support

Screening Assessments - Not Always Enough

Screening assessments often do not go deep enough in answering the questions:

• Why is the student below the expected level?• How far beyond the expected level is the

student?• We need to “DIG DEEPER!”

School Level Groups Individuals

Impact of universal level of support on students

(aggregated and disaggregated)

2. School-Level Digging Deeper Review:• What are our universal level instructional strengths? • What are our universal level instructional concerns? • Do we have any underserved groups? School-level team gather additional information and review at a deeper level

1. School-Level Screening Review:• Do we have a healthy system?

School-level team looks at universal screening results

1. Grade-Level Screening Review: Groups and Individual Students

Department-/Grade-level team looks at screening results

Groups/individuals potentially in need of additional support

2. Grade-Level Digging Deeper Review:• What are the student’s instructional strengths? • What are the student’s instructional concerns?School-level team gather additional information and review at a deeper level

Concept of Print

Phonological Awareness

Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension

CCSS - Going From Broad to Precise

Universal Reading Screening for ALL StudentsAre Students “on Track?”

At Benchmark: Continue High Quality Universal Instruction

Below or Above Benchmark:Dig Deeper

3rd Grade and Higher Begin Right to Left

Kindergarten -2nd Grade Begin Left to Right

CCSS Foundational Skills

Fluency> Bridge to Comprehension

Comprehension Screener Instructional Sort Example

Comprehension Screener

Students Above or Below Benchmark

Dig DeeperStudents Above

BenchmarkAdditional Data

Needed to Articulate Matched Instruction

Dig Deeper Students Below

BenchmarkAdminister

Fluency/Accuracy Assessment

Students At Benchmark

Continue Universal Core High Quality Instruction

Gather Additional Information

The Instructional Sort Helps Us:

1• Know if there is an area that needs universal whole group attention.• Determine if a large percentage of students have a similar need/s.

2

• Guide differentiation within the universal level for whole group, small group, and individual students.

• Determine when the instructional need is more intense.

3• Provide matched intervention grouping.

Data

• Is the student above or below the screening benchmark?• If so, dig deeper

Review

• What is the reading concern? • Did you validate the problem using additional data?• Do you have precision information to articulate matched additional

supports?• Instructional Sort: Administer oral fluency assessment/s with students who

are below the benchmark. Sort student names in the quadrant that aligns with the student’s baseline/median results.

• Administer assessments with no grade level ceiling for students above the benchmark and determine matched instruction.

Process

• Refer to the Instructional Sort and analyze data at the building, group, and student levels.

• Determine ambitious goals so student/s will meet or exceed end of the year benchmarks.

• Define additional instruction and intensity level.

Dig Deeper - Systemic and Systematic Screening Process

Why is Fluency So Important?“…fluency is an essential element that bridges the gap between word recognition and comprehension.” Vaughn and Linan-Thompson

What does this translate to…

• Students’ struggles with comprehension skills may be a result of deficits in any of the foundation skills and/or deficits in comprehension strategies.

• So we need to have a systemic and systematic process to analyze why students are not proficient and make an instructional match within a culturally responsive multi-level system of support.

Next Step: Administer Oral Fluency Assessment for Students Who Performed Below the Benchmark on the Comprehension Screener

Student Words Correct per Minute

Accuracy

Tim 60 wcpm 80%

Rickie 85 wcpm 97%

Janelle 82 wcpm 85%

Mike 62 wcpm 98%

Chris 163 wcpm 98%

Lainie 67 wcpm 100%

3rd Grade Class- Fall

Fall Benchmark ORF=> 70 Fall Accuracy =>95%

Inaccurate and Slow RateGroup 3-Instructional Focus*Phonological Awareness*Phonics*Word Recognition*Multi-syllabication Tim

Instructional Sort

Next Step: Sort Your Data and Identify Student Instructional Need/s and Dig Even Deeper

Remember: Teams should analyze data at school, groups, and student level

Howell, cited by Harken and Fay

Group 1: Accurate and FluentRickieChris

Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim

Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle

Instructional Sort

Why is Rickie performing below the benchmark on the comprehension screener? Find root cause.1.) Can rule out fluency as a barrier. 2.) Focus on digging deeper in the instructional areas of comprehension/vocabulary.

Group 1- RickieSample Instructional Plan:

• Instruction on monitoring for meaning

• Instruction on determining main ideas

• Instruction on fix-up strategies• Instruction on *tier 2 academic

vocabulary and vocabulary learning strategies

*Beck, McKowan and Kucan(2002)Howell, cited by Harken and Fay

Group 1: Accurate and Fluent

Chris

Rickie

Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim

Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle

Instructional Sort

Why is Lainie performing below the benchmark? Find root cause.1. Based on the data, we can hypothesize that Lainie is a word-for word reader. Her lack of automaticity is a having an impact on her comprehension.

Group 2- LainieSample Instructional Plan:• Instruction on automaticity at Lainie’s

appropriate level: data indicates Lainie is at the sentence level

• Do not ignore making meaning of text• Repeated and assisted reading >move to

passage level as data indicates• Instruction on grouping words to make

meaning, adjust pacing, and attention to punctuation

• Use both narrative and informational texts

• Instruct using a comprehension focus.Howell, cited by Harken and Fay

Why is Tim performing below the screening benchmark? Find root cause.

1. We can hypothesize Tim is not comprehending text because he is not able to decode words with automaticity. What are the prerequisite skills that are preventing Tim from reading fluently and accurately ?

2. May need additional information/assessments to identify specific needs such as: Running Records with Miscue(Error) Analysis - Gather miscue samples at student instructional level and look for common themes

Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim

Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle

Instructional Sort

Digging Deeper: Group 3 - Tim

Word Recognition

Phonological

Basic Decoding

Multi-syllabication

Howell, cited by Harken and Fay

Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim

Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle

Instructional Sort

Digging Even Deeper - Match Instruction to Student Need

• Instruction on missing decoding skills.

• Instruction on word recognition.

• Work on applying skills to connected text at instructional level.

• Work on fluent reading at independent level.

Sample Instructional Plan:

Group 3-Tim

Howell, cited by Harken and Fay

Group 4 - Inaccurate but High Rate - JanelleFind Root Cause - Could be due to Multiple Reasons

• May need instructional emphasis on monitoring for meaning

• May need to teach student to adjust rate of reading to type of text and purpose for reading

• May be inserting or deleting words (particularly function words such as: a, the), dropping endings, etc.

• May need to cue student when she makes an error to create awareness of the inaccuracy: assisted self-monitoring

Group 1: Accurate and FluentChris

Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim

Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle

Instructional Sort

Organizing Your Data to Match Student Need Group 4- Janelle

Sample Instructional Plan:• Cue student when student

makes an error to create awareness of the inaccurate error: assisted self-monitoring

• Teach student to apply self- monitoring strategies

• Set goal: Challenge student to read a portion of the text with 2 or fewer errors

• Teach student to adjust rate of reading to type of text and purpose for reading

Howell, cited by Harken and Fay

Need to Consider Both

Quantitative Changes Smaller group size More time Longer duration Greater frequency

Qualitative Changes Specific instructional foci More practice

opportunities Type of adult feedback Arrangement of setting to

reduce distractions

Be Mindful of the Stages in the Skill Development Model of Learning

Newly Taught Skill or

Strategy

Learn it With

Accuracy

Practice for

Fluency/Automatic

ity

Keep Practicing

for Maintena

nceNow Can

Make Generaliza

tions

Adapt/ Apply to

New Situations

Adapted from : Haring and Eaton Instructional Hierarchy-(1978) David Howe (2006)

A Systemic and Systematic Digging Deeper Instructional Sort Process Works Across CCSS Standards

* For another example, see Phonological Instructional Sort PPT

Concept of Print

*Phonological Awareness

Letter Recognition

Letter/Sounds

Phonics