Individual Problem Solving for Students W ith Intensive Needs

Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day.

Oregon Response to Intervention

Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day.

Individual Problem Solving for Students With Intensive

NeedsJon Potter

Sarah WeaverSpring Conference

May 22, 2014

1


www.oregonrti.org

Acknowledgements

• Florida Problem Solving & Response to Intervention Project

• Heartland Area Education Agency 11

2

Research-Based Core Curriculum

w/ Strong Instruction

Tier 2/3 Suppleme

ntal Interventi

on

ASSESSMENT

Formal DiagnosticAs needed

Progress Monitoring

Weekly-Monthly

Universal Screening

3 times/year

DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING

Individual Problem

Solving Team

Schoolwide Screening reviewed

3 times/year

INSTRUCTION

Tier 2/3 Suppleme

ntal Interventi

on

Intervention Review Team

6-8 weeks

Tier 3 Individualiz

ed Interventio

n

Individual Problem

Solving Team6-8 weeks

SPED referral?


www.oregonrti.org

Problem-Solving Non-example


www.oregonrti.org

The Water…

5

IC

EFocus on “the water”-• Instruction• Curriculum• Environment


www.oregonrti.org

ICEL

6

I – Instruction C – CurriculumE – EnvironmentL – Learner


www.oregonrti.org

Who are students that require individual problem solving?

Students with identified disabilities

Students who may have a disability

Students with significant deficits

7

8

If there was a problem…

… yo, I’ll solve it!


www.oregonrti.org

Why proactive problem solving?

“Problem solving assessment typically takes a more direct approach to the measurement of need than has been the case in historical special education practice” Reschley, Tilly, & Grimes (1999)

“Intervention studies that address the bottom 10-25% of the student population may reduce the number of at-risk students to rates that approximate 2-6%” Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes (2007)

9

10

The Problem Solving Process

Improved Student

Achievement

2. Problem Analysis

1. Problem Identificati

on

3. Plan Developme

nt

4. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

What is the problem?

Why is the problem

occurring?

What are we going to do about the problem?

How is it working?

11

Problem Solving Form

12

Improved Student

Achievement


on

What is the problem?

Step 1: Problem Identification

13


A problem is defined as a discrepancy, using data/evidence, between:

Current performance

Expected performance Problem Definition

14


• Calculating magnitude of discrepancy

Absolute discrepancy:

Discrepancy Ratio:

Expected performance

Current performance–

÷Larger Number Smaller Number

72 wcpm (Winter 2nd Grade)

32 wcpm

=

=-40 wcpm

–

72 wcpm (Winter 2nn Grade)

32 wcpm÷2.25 times

discrepant


www.oregonrti.org

Discrepancy between Current Performance & Expected Performance

15


www.oregonrti.org


Problem Definitions should be:

1. Objective – observable and measurable

2. Clear – passes “the stranger test”3. Complete – includes examples (and

non-examples when necessary) and baseline data

16


www.oregonrti.org

Problem Definition: Example

Harry (2nd grader) is currently reading a median of 44 words correct per minute (wcpm) with 83% accuracy when given 2nd grade level text. He also answers an average of 3/10 comp questions correct on weekly in-class tests. 2nd grade students in his school are reading an average of 85 wcpm with 97% accuracy on 2nd grade text and answering 9/10 comp questions correct.

17


www.oregonrti.org

Problem Definition: Non-Example

Harry struggles with being a fluent reader and is not meeting the 2nd grade reading benchmark. He makes a lot of mistakes and is currently reading at a 1st grade level. He also has difficulties answering comprehension questions at grade level and does poorly on his weekly reading tests.

18


www.oregonrti.org


• Replacement Skill or Target Behavior

–What would it look like if this student were successful?–What would we prefer the student

do, instead of the problem behavior?

19


www.oregonrti.org

Problem Definition & Target Skill

20

21

The Problem Solving Process

Improved Student

Achievement

2. Problem Analysis


on

Why is the problem

occurring?

22

Step 2: Problem Analysis

The WHY should always drive the WHAT

Plan Developme

nt

Problem Identificati

onProblem Analysis

23

Student LearningInstruction: Curriculum:

Environment: Learner:

How you teach

What you teach

Where you teach

Who you teach


www.oregonrti.org24

We can control the how, what, and where.

We don’t have much control over the who.

25

When it comes to problem analysis, just remember…

ICE, ICE babyI – Instruction C – CurriculumE – Environment

then

L – Learner

What impacts student achievement?

John Hattie, Visible Learning, 2009

Effective teaching variables

Effect size

Other variablesEffect size

Formative Evaluation

+0.90

Socioeconomic Status+0.57

Comprehensive interventions for students with LD

+0.77

Parental Involvement+0.51

Teacher Clarity+0.75

Computer based instruction*

+0.37

Feedback +0.73

School Finances+0.23

Teacher-Student Relationships

+0.72

Aptitude by Treatment Interactions*

+0.19

Repeated Reading Programs

+0.66

Family Structure+0.17

Direct Instruction+0.59

Retention-0.16

Which ones make sense? Which ones are surprising?

Hypothesis DevelopmentInstruction: Curriculum:


? ?

? ?


www.oregonrti.org

ICEL

28

29

Have a plan for collecting information


www.oregonrti.org

Instruction, Curriculum, Environment

• What should appropriate instruction, curriculum, and environment look like?

• Video: Early Reading Intervention– 3 students receiving direct instruction on

phonemic awareness & phonics– Observe and note effective teaching

practices with regard to instruction, curriculum, and environment

30


www.oregonrti.org

Instruction, Curriculum, Environment

31


www.oregonrti.org

Talk Time

• What effective teaching practices did you see related to instruction, curriculum, & environment?

• What questions/concerns/suggestions might you have for this teacher?

32


www.oregonrti.org

RIOT

RI O T

33

- Review - Interview - Observe - Test



RIOTRIO

T

RIOTRIOT

36Oregon Response to Intervention

www.oregonrti.org

Instruction: Examples

Explicitness

Pacing

Corrective Feedback

Who knows…?I do, we do,

y’all do, you do

1-2 OTR’s/min 8-12 OTR’s/min

<50% errors corrected

95-100% errors corrected

Targets for Intervention


www.oregonrti.org

When it comes to interventions…

“It is clear that the program is less important than how it is delivered, with the most impressive gains associated with more intensity and an explicit, systematic delivery”

Fletcher & colleagues, 2007

37


www.oregonrti.org

Curriculum: Examples

Skills Taught

Level of Difficulty

Fidelity to the core

Not matched to need Matched to need


www.oregonrti.org

Vocab

ula

ry

Reading Comprehension

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics(Alphabetic Principle)

Oral ReadingAccuracy &

Fluency

40

Reading Skills Build on Each Other

Com

pre

hen

sio

n


www.oregonrti.org

Words missed per page when accuracy is…

95% 98% 99%

The Secret Life of Bees 7th Grade

18.5 7.4 3.6

My Brother Sam is Dead 5-6th grade

15 6 3

The Magic School Bus 2nd – 3rd grade

6 2.4 1.2

Phonics and accuracy are important

Richard Allington


www.oregonrti.org42

Curriculum: Examples

Skills Taught

Level of Difficulty

Fidelity to the core

Frustrational (<80%)

Instructional (>80-90%)

Weak (<80%) Strong (>80%)


Not matched to need Matched to need


www.oregonrti.org

Environment: Examples

Behavior Expectations/Management

Teacher-studentinteractions

Physical setup

Not definedExplicitly taught

& reinforced

Low rate of reinforcement

Mostly positive (4:1)

Chaotic & distracting

Organized & distraction-free



www.oregonrti.org

Academic Learning Time: Typical School

1170 School Year (6.5 hours x 180 days) - 65 Absenteeism (1 day/month x 10 months)= 1105 Attendance Time (Time in School)- 270 Non-instructional time (1.5 hrs./day for recess, lunch, etc)

= 835 Allocated Time (Time scheduled for teaching)- 209 (25% of allocated time for admin, transition, discipline - 15

min/hour)

= 626 Instructional time (time actually teaching)- 157 Time off task (Engaged 75% of time)= 469 Engaged Time (On task)- 94 Unsuccessful Engaged Time (Success Rate

80%)= 375 Academic Learning Time

45 Education Resources Inc., 2005

Efficiency Rating = 32%

Hours


www.oregonrti.org

Academic Learning Time: Effective School

1170 School Year (6.5 hours x 180 days) - 65 Absenteeism (1 day/month x 10 months)= 1105 Attendance Time (Time in School)- 270 Non-instructional time (1.5 hrs./day for recess, lunch, etc)

= 835 Allocated Time (Time scheduled for teaching)- 125 (15% of allocated time for admin, transition, discipline - 9

min/hour)

= 710 Instructional time (actually teaching-710 vs. 626)

- 71 Time off task (Engaged 90% of time)= 639 Engaged Time (639 vs. 469 On task)- 64 Unsuccessful Engaged Time (Success Rate

90%)= 575 Academic Learning Time

46

Efficiency Rating = 49%

Hours

Education Resources Inc., 2005

47

The Difference: Typical vs. Effective Schools

Variable Typical School

Effective School

Time gained

How the time is gained

Allocated Non-instructional Time

25%(15 min/hr)

15%(9 min/hr)

+84 more hours

Teaching expectations, teaching transitions, managing appropriate and inappropriate behavior efficiently

Engagement Rate

75% 90% +86 more hours

Better management of groups, pacing

Success Rate

80% 90% +30 more hours

Appropriate placement, effective teaching

Academic Learning time

375 hours

575 hours

= 200 more hours (53% more) OR95 more school days (4-5 months!)


www.oregonrti.org

Learner: Examples

Language Skills

Academic Achievement

Student behavior

No EnglishAdvanced

English speaker

Well below benchmarks At benchmarks

Off-task, disruptive, disengaged

Focused & attentive


www.oregonrti.org

Before considering additional testing

• Start with existing data:– Screening data– Progress monitoring data– State testing data (OAKS)– Curriculum data

• Is additional data needed?–What additional questions do you have?–Which diagnostic assessments can

answer those questions?50



RIOTRIO

T

RIOTRIOT


www.oregonrti.org

Hypothesis Development

• What can we do that will reduce the problem (decrease the gap between what is expected and what is occurring)?

52

Expected performance

Current performance


www.oregonrti.org

Problem Hypothesis

• Why is the problem occurring?• Example: – Harry’s reading fluency and comprehension

problems occur because he lacks strategies for decoding silent-e words and vowel digraphs (oa, ea, ae, ou, etc). His current instruction does not provide enough explicit modeling of these skills. He also currently has a low level of engagement and is highly distracted in both his classroom and intervention room.

53


www.oregonrti.org

Prediction Statement

• What will make the problem better?• Example:– Harry will improve if he receives explicit

instruction in his identified missing skills. He also needs instruction that utilizes high pacing and effective active engagement strategies to keep him highly engaged in instruction, and an environment that is quiet, without distraction from other students.

54


www.oregonrti.org

Problem Hypothesis & Prediction

55

56

The Importance of Problem Analysis

57

Step 3: Plan Development

Improved Student

Achievement

2. Problem Analysis


on

3. Plan Developme

nt

What are we going to do about the problem?

Goal

Intervention Plan

Progress Monitoring Plan

Fidelity Monitoring Plan

Fidelity checklist


www.oregonrti.org

Importance of Feedback

• Wickstrom et al studied 33 intervention cases.

• Teachers agreed to do an intervention and were then observed in class.

• 33/33 on a self report measure indicated that they had used the intervention as specified by the team.

• 0/33 Teachers had fidelity above 10%.

Slide taken from a presentation by Joseph Witt


www.oregonrti.org

Creating an Individualized Intervention

64


www.oregonrti.org

Step 4: Plan Implementation & Evaluation

Improved Student

Achievement

2. Problem Analysis


on

3. Plan Developme

nt

4. Plan Implementation & Evaluation

How is it working?

AttendanceFidelity Data

Progress monitoring data… as compared to peer/expected growth

67

10

20

30

40

Dec.S cores

Feb.S cores

Jan.S cores

MarchS cores

AprilS cores

MayS cores

J uneS cores

60

50

GoalAmy

Chase

Mary

Isaiah

Cohort Data

68

10

20

30

40

Dec.S cores

Feb.S cores

Jan.S cores

MarchS cores

AprilS cores

MayS cores

J uneS cores

60

50

Goal

Amy

Mary

Isaiah

Cohort Data

Chase

Magnitude of DiscrepancyNext Steps:

Based on Data & District Policies & Procedures

Problem Solving Self-Assessment


www.oregonrti.org

Contact Info

Jon Potter – Oregon RTI staff

[email protected]

Sarah Weaver – Templeton Elementary School

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Documents

Individual Problem Solving for Students W ith Intensive Needs