View
19
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
RtI as a Model for Reading Improvement: A Focus on Students Learning English. Rollanda O’Connor University of California at Riverside. A “Fact” that began a model:. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
RtI as a Model for Reading Improvement: A Focus on Students Learning English
Rollanda O’ConnorUniversity of California at Riverside
2
A “Fact” that began a model:
Phonemic awareness is more strongly associated with reading achievement at the end of first grade than IQ, vocabulary, or SES of the family.Share, Jorm, et al (1984; 1986)Juel (1988)O’Connor & Jenkins (1999)
The Conundrum
Becoming “phonemically aware” is most useful prior to Grade 2
Most students with LD in reading (RD) aren’t identified until after Grade 2
Does phonemic awareness predict RD? Yes But PA “catches” 20-40% of a kindergarten
population
5
Notions of Catch and Release
A nimble instructional model that includes instruction AND learning
Catch & Release (Jenkins & O’Connor, 2002)
Consider early intervention interfaced with measurement of progress
Keep intervention flexible to release children mistakenly caught in the RD net
6
RTI = A General Education Plan
Practitioners deliver good instruction Screen students for reading difficulty Identify students who perform poorly Problem solve:
What is the problem? What do we do about it?
What we do about it = Tier 2 Are students responding to the intervention?
7
RTI: A Layered Model
Professional Development to improve teaching Measurement of children (“Gating”) Feedback to teachers on children’s progress Additional intervention for children who need it Flexible movement across groups and
conditionsO’Connor (2000)
8
Which Outcomes are Important?
Silent reading comprehension by Gr 3 Reading fluently by Gr 2 Decoding words by the end of Gr 1 Understanding the alphabetic principle by the
end of K
9
Linking Assessment to Instruction Alphabetic principle:
Segmenting sounds in short wordsMatching sounds to alphabet letters
Reading wordsBlending letter soundsLetter combinationsSight words
Fluency and comprehensionOral reading rate and prosody, and ???? [need better
measures of vocabulary and comprehension]
10
K-1 Studies in RTI
Small groups unrelated to general class instruction: Vellutino et al., 1996; Torgesen et al., 1999; McMaster,
Fuchs et al., 2005
Small groups interfaced with general class instructionK-1 Studies with Teachers as Tier 1:
O’Connor, 2000; 2005 Blachman et al., 2004 Simmons, Coyne, Kame’enui, 2004
11
K-2 Studies in RTI
Kamps & Greenwood, 2004 Vaughn et al., 2004 Tilly, 2003 (Iowa evaluation) O’Connor et al. (2011)
12
K-3 Studies in RTI
O’Connor et al., 2005 Simmons et al., 2009 O’Connor et al., current research
13
Areas of Agreement Across Studies
Classroom instruction must be adequate Use measures for catch & release Intervention available regardless of student
“category”
A Few Statistics:
30% of 4th grade native English speakers score < Basic
71% of 4th grade ELL score < Basic (NAEP, 2007)
24% of all students in CA are ELL 20-50% of students in Riverside County schools are
ELL
Including English Language Learners in RtI The problem with identifying risk for RD
(Klingner et al., 2006):
Is it reading risk?Is it language risk?
Does it matter?Is our RtI system nimble?
What about Students Who Are ELL?
ELL learn during small group reading instruction in English: Lesaux & Siegel (2003) Linan-Thompson et al. (2006) Lovett et al. (2008) Solari & Gerber (2008) O’Connor et al. (2010)
However--ELL responsiveness was not analyzed in early studies of RtI
Our Current Studies of RtI for ELL
Compare response to intervention between ELL and native English speakers in Grades K-3 on:Overall RtI effects on reading and language
developmentKindergarten vs. Grade 1 startIdentification for Tier 2 and for special education
Moving from Research to Practice
Include the entire K-3 samplePrior researchers identified students in K-1 onlyDid not consider late-emerging RD (Catts et al., 2010;
2012)
Late-emerging RD are more prevalent among ELL (Kieffer, 2010)
19
Measures for All Children: Gating
September, January, May: K: Segmenting, letter names, letter sounds Gr 1: Word identification, reading rate in
January, comprehension in May Gr 2-3: Word identification, rate, &
comprehension
Catch and Release for Tier 2
K 1 2 3
Fall Winter Fall Winter Fall Winter Fall Winter
1st Snd <6
Letters <8 <15 <45
Segment <8 <25 <30
NWF <25 <50
WIF <8 <15
Rdg Rate (wcpm) <7 <35 <60 <75 <85
Comprehension (SS) <85 <85 <85
Targets for Tier 2 Intervention Kindergarten
Alphabetic principle Conversation & sentence expansion
First Grade Phonics and decoding words Conversation & restatements
Second grade Affixes and reading fluently Conversation & justifications
Why do you think that…?
Third grade Multisyllable words and morphemes Justifications and evidence in text
Show me where….
Interventions in Kindergarten
Segmenting Blending Letter Sounds The alphabetic principle [and meanings of words]
Stretched Blending
Teaching Letter Sounds
Avoid alphabetical order (Carnine et al., 1998) Use cumulative introduction Teach short vowels in kindergarten Start teaching letter sounds as soon as possible Integrate letter sounds with phonological awareness
activities (Ball & Blachman, 1991; O’Connor et al., 1995)
Ex: Segment to Spell (O’Connor et al., 2005)
a m s t i f
Interventions in First Grade
Segment to Spell (to ensure the alphabetic principle) Phonics High frequency words [and meanings of words]
Patterns in the 100 Most Common Words
th: that, than, this or: for, or, more ch: much, [which] wh: when, which, what ee: see, three al: all, call, also ou: out, around er: her, after ar: are, part
Interventions in Second Grade
Common letter patterns & affixes Fluency Conversation & justifications
Why do you think that…?
Most Common Affixes
Inflected endings: -ed, -ing, -s, -es Prefixes
Un-, re-, in-, dis- account for 58% of words with prefixes (White et al., 1989)
Suffixes-ly, -er/or, -sion/tion, -ible/able, -al, -y, -ness, -less
Why Bother Building Reading Rate?
One piece of the comprehension puzzle Minimum fluency requirements (O’Connor et al., 2007,
2009, 2010)
Silent reading is NOT effective in improving fluency (NRP, 2000)
Building rate requires frequent, long-term practice Improving rate improves comprehension
2 Methods of Partner Reading
Modeled reading (PALS)
Each student reads in 5 minute intervalsStrongest partner reads first Allows a model for the poorer reader
Sentence-by-sentence (CWPT)
Partners take turns reading sentence by sentence Reread with other student starting firstEncourages attention and error correction
Interventions in Third Grade
Morphemes BEST Rules for combining morphemes Comprehension strategies [and meanings of words]
Morphemes
The meaningful parts of wordsImproves decodingImproves with spellingReinforces word meanings
Teaching Morphemes…
(The meaningful parts of words) “not”
Un, dis, in, im (disloyal, unaware, invisible, imperfect) “excess”
Out, over, super (outlive, overflow, superhuman) “number”
Uni, mono, bi, semi (uniform, monofilament, bicolor, semiarid) “in the direction of”
Ward (skyward, northward) “full of”
Ful (merciful, beautiful)
English/Spanish Cognates from Morphemes Google for lists Praise student use of cognates
Adult/adultoAtmosphere/atmosferaChimpanzee/chimpancéEnter/entrarIntelligence/inteligencia
Inter-- means between
What does inter-- mean? So what does interstate mean? What’s a word for a highway between states? What would interperson mean? So what are interpersonal skills?
BEST for Multisyllable Words
Break apart Examine the stem Say the parts Try the whole thing
BEST Examples
Understandingly International Uncomfortable
39
Changes in 3rd Grade Reading
After Before0
50
100
150
200
Results of Early Intervention
Ora
l R
ead
ing
Flu
en
cy
Specific Questions for ELL v. EO
Targeted vs. Packaged Tier 2 Instruction Kindergarten vs. 1st Grade start Response to intervention across 3 years
41
Differentiating Instruction, Gr 2-3
Differentiation between skills + fluency, and only fluency
Children with slow rate but high skills were not identified for SpEd by the end of Gr 3Rate is less important for predicting RD for ELLConsider skills with and without speeded tasks
English Only and ELL Outcomes Over Timeby Kindergarten Risk Status and K vs. 1st Grade Intervention
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
1st grade FallNWF
1st grade SpringORF
2nd grade FallORF
2nd grade SpringORF
Co
rrec
t u
nit
s p
er
min
ute
ELL Kindergarten AtRisk and Treated asK's
EO Kindergarten AtRisk and Treated asK's
ELL Kindergarten AtRisk and TreatedInitially in First Grade
EO Kindergarten AtRisk and TreatedInitially in First Grade
The cost of waiting…
Kindergarten vs. First Grade Initial Treatment… the cost of waiting
Gr 2 RtI vs. Historical Control
Same 5 schools Same teachers Same reading curriculum
Grade 2 Outcomes (ELL + EO at risk)
Gr 2 ORF Fall
Gr 2 ORF Spr
WRMT GORT-4
RtI 31.99 63.19 101.42 87.4
Control 24.59 53.54 93.59 70.1
ELL vs. EO Outcomes in Grade 2
ELL at Risk ELL No Risk
K Start Gr 1 Start Control
Rdg Rate 63.8 60.5 49.6 100.7
WRMT 101.4 98.1 93.7 109.1
Compre. 99.0 97.4 92.7 104.9
GORT-4 88.5 86.4 68.6
Year 3 Outcomes: Timing of Special Ed. Identification by Initial Treatment
Grade
K Start 1st Grade Start
Total
First 1 0 1Second 1 3 4Third 4 4 8Fourth 0 3 3
Total 6 10 16
Conclusions
Students strong in K-1 were identified in later grades [with a higher % of ELL identified late]
Including ELL in RtI reduced risk Including ELL improved comprehension
Recommended