Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Screening Process - Digging Deeper Instructional Sort Our Focus The Wisconsin RtI Center/Wisconsin PBIS Network (CFDA #84.027) acknowledges the support.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Screening Process - Digging Deeper Instructional Sort Our Focus The Wisconsin RtI Center/Wisconsin PBIS Network (CFDA #84.027) acknowledges the support."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 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 GroupsIndividuals

3 Impact of universal level of support on students (aggregated and disaggregated) 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

4 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

5 Concept of Print Phonological Awareness PhonicsFluencyVocabularyComprehension CCSS - Going From Broad to Precise Universal Reading Screening for ALL Students Are Students “on Track?” At Benchmark: Continue High Quality Universal Instruction Below or Above Benchmark: Dig Deeper 3 rd Grade and Higher Begin Right to Left Kindergarten -2nd Grade Begin Left to Right CCSS Foundational Skills Fluency> Bridge to Comprehension

6 Comprehension Screener Instructional Sort Example Comprehension Screener Students Above or Below Benchmark Dig Deeper Students Above Benchmark Additional Data Needed to Articulate Matched Instruction Dig Deeper Students Below Benchmark Administer Fluency/Accuracy Assessment Students At Benchmark Continue Universal Core High Quality Instruction Gather Additional Information

7 The Instructional Sort Helps Us: Data for 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.

8 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

9 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.

10 Next Step: Administer Oral Fluency Assessment for Students Who Performed Below the Benchmark on the Comprehension Screener StudentWords Correct per Minute Accuracy Tim60 wcpm80% Rickie85 wcpm97% Janelle82 wcpm85% Mike62 wcpm98% Chris163 wcpm98% Lainie67 wcpm100%

11 Accurate and Fluent Group 1-Instructional Focus * Comprehension *Vocabulary Rickie, Chris Accurate but Slow Rate Group 2-Instructional Focus *Fluency Lainie, Mike Inaccurate and Slow Rate Group 3-Instructional Focus * Phonological Awareness *Phonics *Word Recognition *Multi-syllabication Tim Inaccurate but High Rate Group 4-Instructional Focus * Multiple possible reasons: lacks self-monitoring, accuracy, does not adjust pacing, ignores punctuation marks Janelle 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

12 Group 1: Accurate and Fluent Rickie Chris Group 2: Accurate but Slow Rate Lainie Mike Group 3: Inaccurate and Slow Rate Tim Group 4: Inaccurate but High Rate Janelle 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- Rickie Sample 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

13 Group 1: Accurate and Fluent Chris Rickie Group 2: Accurate but Slow Rate Lainie Mike Group 3: Inaccurate and Slow Rate Tim Group 4: Inaccurate but High Rate Janelle 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- Lainie Sample 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

14 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 1: Accurate and Fluent Chris Rickie Group 2: Accurate but Slow Rate Lainie Mike Group 3: Inaccurate and Slow Rate Tim Group 4: Inaccurate but High Rate Janelle Instructional Sort Digging Deeper: Group 3 - Tim Word Recognition Phonological Basic Decoding Multi- syllabication Howell, cited by Harken and Fay

15 Group 1: Accurate and Fluent Chris Group 2: Accurate but Slow Rate Lainie Mike Group 3: Inaccurate and Slow Rate Tim Group 4: Inaccurate but High Rate Janelle 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

16 Group 4 - Inaccurate but High Rate - Janelle Find 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

17 Group 1: Accurate and Fluent Chris Group 2: Accurate but Slow Rate Lainie Mike Group 3: Inaccurate and Slow Rate Tim Group 4: Inaccurate but High Rate Janelle 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

18 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

19 Be Mindful of the Stages in the Skill Development Model of Learning Newly Taught Skill or Strategy Learn it With Accuracy Practice for Fluency/ Automaticity Keep Practicing for Maintenance Now Can Make Generalizations Adapt/ Apply to New Situations Adapted from : Haring and Eaton Instructional Hierarchy-(1978) David Howe (2006)

20 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


Download ppt "Screening Process - Digging Deeper Instructional Sort Our Focus The Wisconsin RtI Center/Wisconsin PBIS Network (CFDA #84.027) acknowledges the support."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google