Get documents about "Response to Intervention
Shared by: pengxuebo
-
Stats
- views:
- 4
- posted:
- 8/8/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 85
Document Sample
Response to Intervention
Part II: What is RtI?
Amanda VanDerHeyden
Sharon Kurns
What is RtI?
RtI is the practice of providing high-quality
instruction/intervention matched to student
needs and using learning rate over time and
level of performance to make important
educational decisions.
National Association of State
Directors of Special Education
Policy Guide
Foundational Beliefs
All children can learn
Educators are responsible to meet
students’ needs
Parents have vast knowledge about their
children and should be partners
Foundational Beliefs
Proactive instruction should be provided
within the general education curriculum
whenever appropriate, so children are
assisted before concerns arise.
Teachers and parents deserve the
resources necessary to meet the
educational needs of children
Foundational Beliefs
The best educational strategy is the one
that works
The effectiveness of any educational
strategy must be evaluated frequently
Assistance is designed to improve learning
Foundational Beliefs
Accurate information about student
progress should be communicated
regularly
Solutions and strategies can best be
identified and implemented when
educators, parents, and others work
collaboratively
Foundational Beliefs
Our educational system must provide
opportunities for all students to achieve
their visions for future employment, adult
living, and lifelong learning.
Myths
RtI is intended to put students into special
education
RtI is intended to keep students out of
special education
RtI will “open the floodgates” to special
education
Myths
RtI is what we have always done
RtI is a simple and easy process that
requires no new skills
RtI delays services to students who need
help
RtI: What it
is….
Represents a way of:
Using data to examine the system in relation to
most important results
Structuring thinking so that we don’t miss
anything
Identifying strategies with a high probability of
improving student performance and knowing if
they work
Keeping our attention focused on the most
important things
Common sense into practice (cf. Fullan)
RtI: What it is not.
A panacea
A curriculum, an intervention, one
theoretical orientation
One size fits all
Hoops to jump through
Easier than what came before
Paradigm Shift
Shifting Our View of the Problem
From the problem is within the
child
To the problem is due to a
breakdown in the teaching and
learning interaction
Paradigm Shift
Thinking Differently about General and
Special Education
Shifting away from categorical
thinking to solving the problems of
individual students.
Shifting from a placement orientation
to a teaching orientation
Paradigm Shift
Thinking Differently about General and
Special Education
Shift from wait to fail to prevention
Special education as a place to special
education as a service
Paradigm Shift
Thinking differently about assessment and
evaluation
Shifting emphasis from measurement to
evaluation
Shifting the focus from unalterable to
alterable variables
Paradigm Shift
Thinking differently about assessment and
evaluation
Shifting to targeted evaluations
Shifting from high to low-inference
measures
Shifting from summative to formative
evaluation (to guide decision making
Paradigm Shift
Thinking differently about decision making
Shifting to decisions based on a dual
definition of need and entitlement
Shifting from deciding about pathology
to deciding about what needs to be done
for the student
Paradigm Shift
Shifting Sequence
From decide entitlement first and then
deciding instructional priorities
To first deciding what instruction the
student needs and then deciding if that
requires special education
RtI…Convergence of Ideas?
Problem Solving?
School-Wide or Three
Tiered Models?
Standard Treatment?
If you want it to be about all kids!
Problem Solving/Individual
Systematic process for addressing concerns
of students through a systematic process
of:
Defining Problems
Analyzing Problems
Designing Interventions
Monitoring Interventions
Evaluating Effects
When Most People Hear Problem Solving….They Think of the
Individual Student
School-Wide or Tiered Models
Systematic collection and analysis of data
are used to deploy multiple tiers of
interventions. A process of continuous
improvement is utilized to implement
effective core, supplemental, and intensive
instruction.
Standard Treatment
Students who are not progressing at
acceptable rates are provided with a
“standard treatment.” These protocols
typically are more structured and intensive
than general education instruction.
Some Basics Concepts in an RtI
Approach
Functional Assessment
Convergent Data
Decisions Based on Data
Analysis of Alterable Variables
Instruction Matched to Student Need
Ongoing assessment of effectiveness
Basics of RtI:
Functional Assessment
Specific, direct,
linked to
instruction RIOT
Review
Interview
Observe
Test
Basics of RtI:
Convergent Data
Test Review
Decision
Interview
Observation
Basics of RtI:
Decisions Based on Data
Screening
Defining Problems
Analyzing Problems
Progress Monitoring
Interventions
Treatment Integrity
Program Evaluation
Entitlement
Outcomes
Exit
Basics of RtI:
Assessment of Alterable Variables
We
Curricular Variables
Control Instructional Variables
These!
Environmental Variables
Student/Learner Variables
Basics of RtI:
Instruction Matched to Student
Needs
Linking
the Two
is the
Key!
School-Wide Applications of RTI
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
TIER 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions TIER 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions
Individual Students •I Individual Students
•A Assessment-based •A Assessment-based
•H High Intensity •I Intense, durable procedures
•O Of longer duration
TIER 2 Targeted Group Interventions TIER 2 Targeted Group Interventions
•S Some students (at-risk) •S Some students (at-risk)
•H High efficiency •H High efficiency
Rapid response
Rapid response
TIER 1 Core Instructional/
Universal Interventions TIER 1 Universal Interventions
•AAll students •A All settings, all students
•P Preventive, proactive
Preventive, proactive
School-Wide Model
Data on all students analyzed
Data on comprehensive program
analyzed
Where are our gaps?
Is the core program meeting needs of
majority of students?
Are needs of strategic and intensive
learners being met?
School-Wide Model
Why are there gaps?
Develop plans
Improvements to core instructional
program
Group interventions for strategic
learners
Individual interventions for intensive
learners
Using School-Wide Data
School-wide data are used to identify
those students needing more
assessment or intervention
When individual referrals are made,
school-wide data are used to
determine ongoing level of intervention
(small group or individual)
Instructional Decision Making: A
School-Wide RTI Approach
I
Three Key Features
1. Effective instructional program
2. Frequent assessment of student
performance
3. Use of data to make instructional
decisions
1. Effective Instructional
Program
All students require INSTRUCTION that
is:
guaranteed,
viable,
rigorous,
relevant.
Some may require additional support and
instruction based on their needs.
1. Effective Instructional Program
Core Instruction
The combination of
instructional practices,
materials, and
strategies that Core Instruction
comprises the
instruction provided to
all students.
1. Effective Instructional Program
Supplemental
Occurs for students exceeding
or not meeting core-learning
expectations.
Supplemental
Instruction
1. Effective Instructional Program
It is the combination of
research-based instructional
practices and a positive learning
environment, designed to
match identified student needs.
Provided to smaller groups of Supplemental
students with similar needs. Instruction
1. Effective Instructional Program
Intensive Instruction
Occurs for students significantly
exceeding or not meeting core
learning expectations
Is systematic and explicit and
provides more time intensity,
practice and immediacy of
feedback or
Intensive
Instruction
1. Effective Instructional Program
For highly proficient students-
more advanced curriculum
Provided to individuals or small
groups of students with similar
needs
Intensive
Instruction
2. Frequent Assessment of Student
Performance
Accurate, reliable,
assessment data is essential
to make good instructional
decisions
2. Frequent Assessment of
Student Performance
Three types of assessments
needed to guide instruction
Screening
Diagnostic
Formative Assessment
2. Frequent Assessment of Student
Performance
Screening Assessments
Collecting data for the purpose of
identifying low and high performing
students at-risk for not having their needs
met
Answers the questions:
Is our core curriculum working?
Which students are in need of additional
assessment?
Screening
2. Frequent Assessment of Student
Performance
Diagnostic Assessment
Gathering information from multiple
sources to determine why students are
not benefiting from instruction due to
advanced or deficit learning needs.
2. Frequent Assessment of
Student Performance
Diagnostic Assessment
Answers the questions:
Why is the need occurring?
What does the student need to
learn?
2. Frequent Assessment of
Student Performance
Formative Assessment
Frequent, ongoing collection of
information including both formal and
informal data to guide instruction
2. Frequent Assessment of
Student Performance
Formative Assessment
Formative assessment for supplemental
and intensive is often more rigorous
“progress monitoring”
Answers the questions:
Are the students making progress
compared to self, peers, and standard?
Is an instructional change needed?
Is it Working?
Monitoring Student Progress
Student Improvement is Job #1 Goal Area Reading
Ruso
Name Jacob District School Year 94 Teacher
Goal By January, given passages from the third grade curriculum Jacob will read 70 words correct in one minute.
10 Words Correct per Minute
Service Providers
Parent Participation Parent will provide extra oral reading time at home. They would like graph sent home biweekly.
Baseline 1 2 3
100
90
80
70 Goal
60
50
40
30
20
10
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
3. Use of Data to Make
Instructional Decisions
Assessing Needs
Continuous Planning
Evaluating Improvement
Implementing
Continuous Improvement Cycle
Shifting to RTI: Four Critical Steps
1. Everyone in the system (or nearly
everyone) must understand why we’re
changing service delivery. Knowing “the
what” alone is not enough!
2. Resource deployment structure must be
changed fundamentally
3. The scientific method (problem solving
process) must be imported into applied
practice
4. Scientifically validated practices must be
used to the extent available
Critical Step #1
Everyone Must Understand Why We’re Changing
“Why” we’re moving to RTI is as much a
logical argument as it is a research-based
argument
We must
Use logical arguments and research-based
arguments
Base arguments on people in schools
experience
Teachers experience the challenges every
day
Use their data as part of the rationale
Ask the hard questions (e.g., is this really as
good as it gets? Can we do better?)
Critical Step #1
Everyone Must Understand Why We’re
Changing
Critical point: RTI is as much about
THINKING DIFFERENTLY, as it is about
DOING DIFFERENTLY
Critical Step #2
Fundamentally reengineer resource
deployment system
Resource deployment system must be
continuous, not discrete
Resources must be made available in
direct proportion to student need
An instructionally relevant basis for
resource deployment must be used
Critical Step #3
We must import the scientific method
(problem solving process) into practice
For individuals
For small groups
For the system
It allows our system to be self correcting
It forces us to be data based
It allows current practice to serve as a
baseline for subsequent practices
It creates the structure for importation of
research-based strategies into practice
Critical Step #4
Big Idea #4: Use Research-Validated
Practices to the Extent Available
RTI is about evolution, not revolution
We know more than we did years ago
It is our responsibility to use this
information as we select instructional
strategies for our kids
Models Emphasize
Universal Screening
Frequent Progress Monitoring
Data-Based Decision-Making
Filter Process to allow for More
Effective Allocation of Resources
Universal Screening- Math
Math Probe:
Group administered.
Materials: Worksheet consisting of a
series of problems sampling the target
skill(s) (e.g., sums to 5, double digit
multiplication with regrouping).
Timing: 2 minutes
Information obtained: digits correct in
two minutes.
Math Probe Example
• Total Digits: 38
•Errors: 5
•Digits Correct: 33
Universal Screening- Writing
Writing Probe:
Group administered.
Materials: story starter (e.g., If I had a
million dollars…) printed at the top of a
blank page.
Timing: 1 minute to think, 3 minutes to
write.
Scoring: words written or correct word
sequences in three minutes.
Writing Example
Universal Screening- Reading
Reading Probe:
Individually administered
Materials: A content-controlled reading
passage.
Procedure: The student reads aloud as the
teacher listens and records errors.
Timing: 1 minute
Information obtained: words read correctly in
one minute.
CBM Reading: Scored Sample
TRW=63
Errors=6
CRW=58
Class-wide Screening
Feedback to Teachers
Mary
Chiquita
Class-wide Intervention 120
Baseline Intervention Randy
Sandy
Brandy
Digits Correct in Two Minutes
100 Colvin
m Jolisha
a Daleesha
80 s
Kiera
t
e Bradley
60
r Jared
y Alfred
40 Sienna
Jarian
instructional range
20 Trey
Robert
0 Andrea
1 2 3 4 5 Ashley
Jaren
Sessions
Mary
Chiquita
Class-wide Intervention 120
Baseline Intervention Randy
Sandy
Brandy
Digits Correct in Two Minutes
100 Colvin
m Jolisha
a Daleesha
80 s
Kiera
t
e Bradley
60
r Jared
y Alfred
40 Sienna
Jarian
instructional range
20 Trey
Robert
0 Andrea
1 2 3 4 5 Ashley
Jaren
Sessions
No Class Problem Detected
No Class-wide–wide Problem Detected
Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment
3-7 minutes per
“Can’t Do/Won’t Do” child
Individually-administered
Materials
Academic material that student
performed poorly during class
assessment.
Treasure chest: plastic box filled
with tangible items.
Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment
Decision Rule Following Can’t Do/Won’t
Do Assessment
Decision Rule Follow Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment
Decision Rule Following Can’t Do/Won’t
Do Assessment
Decision Rule Follow Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment
Individual Intervention
Response to Intervention
Before
Intervention During Intervention
#Correct
Avg. for his Class
Each Dot is one Day
of Intervention
Intervention in Reading Intervention Sessions
Response to Intervention
Before
Intervention During Intervention
#Correct
Avg. for his Class
What is the ultimate goal?
Correct performance in the classroom
Learning
Stimulus Generalized
Performance
Control
Successful Reading Intervention
In-Class Christopher's Reading Intervention
Baseline Intervention
words read correctly per minute
100
90
80
70
60
50 words read correctly/min
40
30
20 blends correct/min
10
0
Thursday
Baseline
Monday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Friday
Unsuccessful Math Intervention
Trenice's Math Intervention
BL Intervention
40
Digits Correct Two Minutes
35 intervention: sums to 7
30
25
20
15
10 intervention: sums to 5
generalization: sums to 12
5
0
1 2 4 6 9 11 13
Sessions
Participants
CBM CBM ITBS ITBS
Instructional
Gender Race Reading Math Reading Math
Placement
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Male Female Minority
Caucasian Non-Caucasion Regular Special
39.5 21.5
st
1 Grade 36 62 84 14 92 6 N/A N/A
wcpm dc/2 min
175 177.7
78.5 22.3
nd
2 Grade 41 43 70 14 78 6 standard standard
wcpm dc/2 min
score score
Classwide CBA Teacher Referral -
CIBS R screening State Mandated
Screening for reading and Reading Test
math
Skill/performance
deficit assessment
Brief
Instructional
Manipulation
Criterion Measures: CBA with Intervention, ITBS, and WJ-R
Similar Across Criterion Measures
CBA + RTI Criterion ITBS WJ-R
Sensitivity .76 1 .58
Specificity .89 .99 .77
Positive Predictive Power
STEEP
.59 .67 .44
Negative Predictive Power
.95 1 .86
Sensitivity
.46 .33 .42
Specificity .69 .94 .85
Teacher Referral Positive Predictive Power
.19 .17 .45
Negative Predictive Power
.89 .97 .83
VanDerHeyden, et al., 2003
Filter Process of Identification
Identified
CBM (Classwide Assessment) 55 (15%)
CBM + Reward (Performance/skill Deficit Assessment) 40 (11%)
CBM + Reward + Instruction 22 (6%)
(STEEP +)
Teacher Referral 32 (19%)
CIBS-R 64 (18%)
DRA 17 (9%)
RTI Criterion Assessment 17 (5%)
WJ-R 12
ITBS deficit 3 (4%)
VanDerHeyden, et al., 2003
District-wide Implementation Data
Vail Unified School District
www.vail.k12.az.us
Three years, system-wide implementation of
STEEP grades 1-8
System Outcomes
Referrals reduced greater than half
% who qualify from 50% stable baseline over
three years to nearly 100%
SLD down from 6% of children in district in
2001-2002 (with baseline upward trend) to
3.5% in 2003-2004 school year
Corresponding gains on high-stakes tests
(VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2005)
Intervention successful for about 95 to 98%
of children screened
VanDerHeyden et al., in submission
For More Information
amanda@education.ucsb.edu
joewitt@joewitt.org
Thank you to the US Department of
Education for providing all film clips
shown in this presentation
