Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Addressing the Needs of Students With Persistent Reading Difficulties Through Intensive Intervention Douglas Fuchs, Devin Kearns, and Laura Magnuson Vanderbilt.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Addressing the Needs of Students With Persistent Reading Difficulties Through Intensive Intervention Douglas Fuchs, Devin Kearns, and Laura Magnuson Vanderbilt."— Presentation transcript:

1 Addressing the Needs of Students With Persistent Reading Difficulties Through Intensive Intervention Douglas Fuchs, Devin Kearns, and Laura Magnuson Vanderbilt University, Boston University, and American Institutes for Research April 11, 2014 This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q110005. Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this document is intended or should be inferred.

2 1.The intensive intervention framework (5 min.) 2.Overview of Data-Based Individualization (DBI) in reading (10 min.) 3.Critical elements of DBI in reading (25 min.) 4.Important considerations for making DBI work (5 min.) 5.Group discussion (15 min.) Session Overview 2

3 The Intensive Intervention Framework 3

4 Intensive intervention addresses severe and persistent learning or behavior difficulties. Intensive intervention should be:  Driven by data  Characterized by increased intensity (e.g., smaller group, expanded time) and individualization of academic instruction and/or behavioral supports What Is Intensive intervention? 4

5 1.Secondary intervention program, delivered with greater intensity 2.Progress monitoring 3.Informal diagnostic assessment 4.Adaptation 5.Continued progress monitoring, with adaptations occurring whenever needed to ensure adequate progress Five DBI Steps 5

6 A Bird’s Eye View of DBI 6

7 Overview of DBI in Reading: Why Do We Do DBI? 7

8 Why? Many Students With Disabilities Are Struggling in School 8 U.S. elementary-age children with learning disabilities (LD) below 20th percentile on comprehension 64% High school students with LD years below grade level in reading 3.4 years Fraction of high school students with LD who drop out ¼ Percentage of students with LD with paid employment, two years postsecondary 46%

9 “Virtually all children and youth with disabilities, including those with very serious learning problems, are helped sufficiently by the core curriculum with co-teaching, modifications to the core instructional program, or other such supports.” Why? Unfounded and Naïve Beliefs About Teaching Kids with LD 9 Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2014, p. 14 Unfounded and naïve belief

10 Why? Primary and Secondary Prevention Often Are Not Enough 10 Primary prevention Low-salt diet Stress reduction Secondary prevention Intensive intervention Inexpensive diuretics Beta-blockers ACE inhibitors Other novel, patient-specific treatments The Medical Analogy: High Blood Pressure Treatment

11 A Case Study: Kelsey 11 In fourth grade Reads at a second-grade level Participated in a secondary intervention using a research-validated program Group of six30 minutes, 4 times a week, for 7 weeks Explicit instructionLed by knowledgeable paraprofessional

12 Kelsey’s Secondary Intervention Progress 12 Progress monitored on a measure of passage reading fluency Her aim/goal line (where we want her weekly scores to be) Her progress (her actual scores)

13  Kelsey is exactly the type of child who needs intensive intervention. Kelsey received good instruction. Kelsey needs a more intensive instructional program. Kelsey Is Not Responding to Secondary Prevention 13 Many children in intensive intervention participated in good programs. Their problems are not anyone’s “fault.” Some children just need more time structure practice clarityteacher attention different methods of explanationcontent

14 14 After Secondary Prevention: What Do We Do for Kelsey Now?

15 Data-Based Individualization Improving Skills for Students With Intensive Needs 15

16 1.Secondary prevention with greater intensity 2.Progress monitoring 3.Diagnostic assessment 4.Adaptation of the intervention 5.Iterations 5A. Progress monitoring 5B. Analysis 5C. Adaptation Steps of DBI in Reading 16 Danielson & Rosenquist, 2014; Lemons, Kearns, & Davidson, 2014 1 2 3 4 5

17 Secondary Prevention With Greater Intensity 17

18  Secondary prevention program Not an approach or a loosely structured set of activities Research-validated program (tested by researchers) Clear sequence of lessons Explicit instruction (I do, we do, you do) approach (Archer & Hughes, 2011) Fidelity of implementation  Greater intensity (quantitative changes) Greater frequency, length of sessions, or duration Smaller group size Less heterogeneity in the group (students more similar in level) Secondary Prevention With Greater Intensity 18

19 Kelsey’s Secondary Prevention Program 19 Explicit Systematic Research-Based Research-Based (Fuchs, Kearns et al., 2012) Focused on Foundational Skills Sight words Sound-symbol correspondence DecodingSpelling Reading level-appropriate texts

20 Kelsey’s Progress After Secondary Prevention 20 Oral reading fluency (accuracy; %) Oral reading fluency (rate) MAZE Slight improvement in oral reading fluency rate, and accuracy

21 Intensifying Secondary Prevention: Quantitative Changes 21 4 days 5 daysTime  4 students3 studentsGroup 

22 Progress Monitoring 22

23  Reliable and valid measure (evaluated by researchers) Use “Academic Progress Monitoring Tools Chart” available at  Easy-to-administer measure Takes little teacher and student time Easy to score  Measure can be given weekly Enough parallel forms Designed for regular administration Choose a Progress Monitoring (PM) Measure 23

24  Determine the correct level Student’s instructional level Not student’s grade level  Determine student’s aim and plot it Collect Initial Data and Create an Aimline 24 Kelsey is doing second-grade oral reading fluency Using second-grade benchmark (85) or Using second-grade expected rate of improvement (to 72)

25  Collect data weekly  After seven weeks (8 data points), evaluate progress  Is student tracking the aimline? Yes—stay on target Above—increase the goal or stay on target Below—diagnose and adapt instruction Collect Data Through Initial DBI 25

26 Diagnostic Assessment 26

27 Informal Diagnostic Assessment 27 Error analysis of PM data Classroom assessments and work samples Standardized assessments (if possible)

28 1.Review the diagnostic assessments 2.Come up with a theory about what might be causing the student’s academic difficulty 3.Start considering adaptations Using the Assessment Results 28 bunny vu… IDK knife twin Spellings include all sounds Replaces nonwords with real words Good sight word knowledge PM errors are mainly for polysyllabic words spin … IDK count? Kelsey tends to guess and needs strategies to decode polysyllabic words.

29 Adaptation 29

30  20 minutes with teacher in small group, rather than 15 minutes  5 minutes of one-to-one time with teacher  15 minutes of partner practice, rather than whole-group reading activities in general education Adaptation for Kelsey: Quantitative Changes 30

31 Adaptation for Kelsey: Qualitative Changes Skip ahead in the scope and sequence to the polysyllabic lessons Supplement with polysyllabic strategies …

32 Polysyllabic Strategy Options 32 Peeling off Overt strategy Lovett, Lacarenza, & Borden, 2000 Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2002 “I peel off (affix) at the beginning (or end) of the word. The root is ____. The word is ____.” (p. 468) “First, I will try / first pronunciation /, then I will try / second pronunciation /, and see which gives me a real word.” (p. 469) Vowel alert Covert strategy

33 Polysyllabic Strategy Options DISSECT Lenz & Hughes, 1990  D iscover the context  I solate the word’s prefix  S eparate the word’s suffix  S ay the word’s stem or base word  E xamine the word’s stem  C heck with another person  T ry to find the word in the dictionary BEST O’Connor et al., 2002; O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty, & Bell, 2005; O’Connor & Bell, 2004  B reak the word apart  E xamine each part  S ay each part  T ry the whole thing in context Mnemonic strategies

34 Polysyllabic Strategy Options 34 Wilson, 2002Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998 Syllable marking Tracking with syllables

35  How to decide: Think about the principles for intensive intervention – Which strategies have small steps? – Which strategies have precise language (3Cs language: clear, concise, consistent)? – Which strategies lend themselves to modeling real reading behavior?  Choices Peeling off Vowel alert Overt and covert strategies Polysyllabic Strategy Chosen 35

36 Results of Adaptation 36

37 Iterations 37

38 Check Progress Weekly: Are the Adaptations Still Working? 38

39  What should we do now?  Diagnose: What is the source of the problem?  Adapt: How can we change the program again to produce greater growth? After Four Points Below the Line, Diagnose and Adapt Again 39

40 Important Considerations for Making DBI Work Tips From Our Work in Schools 40

41 Make Sure You Choose a Valid and Reliable PM System 41 Running records Program-specific mastery measures X X

42 The Instructional Platform Is a PROGRAM 42 X An adequate resource but not an instructional platform: Not systematic and explicit

43 The Instructional Platform Is a PROGRAM 43 X An adequate website with actual lesson plans, but it is not a program that is tightly and carefully designed

44 The Adaptations Make Sense 44 Balance training Kearns & Fuchs (2013) Brain workouts Working memory treatment Neurofeedback training X To date, few scientific studies suggest these “cognitive” approaches work: Stick to academics

45  Every other week is not enough during DBI.  Weekly monitoring is needed to show small changes. Monitor Progress Enough 45

46  Do not forget to loop them in early in the process.  Make sure the entire staff knows about DBI and basically what will happen.  Include other service providers, such as speech pathologists, who may have insight and ideas. Make Sure All Key Individuals Come to DBI Meetings 46

47  Tools Charts Academic Intervention: Progress Monitoring: NCII Resources 47

48  DBI Training Series series series  Webinars Register now for our April 29 th webinar: “So What do I do Now? Strategies for Intensifying Intervention when Standard Approaches Don’t Work” NCII Resources 48

49 Group Discussion 49

50 Archer, A. L., Gleason, M.,,& Vachon, V. (2002). REWARDS (Reading Excellence: Word Attack & Rate Development Strategies). Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford. Danielson, L., & Rosenquist, C. (2014). Introduction to the TEC special issue on data-based individualization. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46, 6–12. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important?. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46, 14. Lemons, C. J., Kearns, D. M., & Davidson, K. A. (2014). Data-based individualization in reading: Intensifying interventions for students with significant reading disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46, 20–29. Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 149–158, 163. Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (l998). The Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing program for reading, spelling, and speech, Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc. Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., & Borden, S. L. (2000). Putting struggling readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate phonological and strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 458–476. O’Connor, R. E., Bell, K. M., Harty, K. R., Larkin, L. K., Sackor, S., & Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 474–485. O’Connor, R. E., & Bell, K. M. (2004). Teaching students with reading disability to read words. In A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 479–496). New York, NY: Guilford Press. O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and child outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455. Wilson, B. (2002). The Wilson Reading System. Millbury, MA: Wilson Language Training. References 50

51 This module was produced under the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q110005. Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or polices of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred. Disclaimer 51

52 National Center on Intensive Intervention 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC 20007-3835 866-577-5787 Email: 52

Download ppt "Addressing the Needs of Students With Persistent Reading Difficulties Through Intensive Intervention Douglas Fuchs, Devin Kearns, and Laura Magnuson Vanderbilt."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google