Addressing the Needs of Students With Persistent Reading Difficulties Through Intensive Intervention
Douglas Fuchs, Devin Kearns, and Laura MagnusonVanderbilt University, Boston University, and American Institutes for ResearchApril 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.
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
The Intensive Intervention Framework
3
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
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
A Bird’s Eye View of DBI
6
Overview of DBI in Reading: Why Do We Do DBI?
7
8
Why? Many Students With Disabilities Are Struggling in School
U.S. elementary-age children with learning disabilities (LD) below 20th percentile on
comprehension64%
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%
“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
9Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2014, p. 14
Unfounded and naïve belief
Why? Primary and Secondary Prevention Often Are Not Enough
10
Primary
prevention
Low-salt diet Stress reduction
Secondary
prevention
Intensive
interventio
n
Inexpensive diuretics
Beta-blockersACE inhibitorsOther novel, patient-specific treatments
The Medical Analogy: High Blood Pressure Treatment
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 six 30 minutes, 4 times a week, for 7 weeksExplicit instruction Led by knowledgeable paraprofessional
Kelsey’s Secondary Intervention Progress
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Nu
mb
er o
f w
ord
s r
ead c
orre
ctly in
1 m
inu
te
Date
Baseline
Goal Line
Initial Instruction
Instructional Change
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)
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 clarity teacher attention different methods of explanation content
14
Secondary intervention delivered with fidelity
Does student need a smaller
group?
Does student need more time in intervention?
Does student have problem with attention/
motivation?
Secondary Intervention with… Smaller group 1:1 intervention
Qualitative Changes to Intervention based on assessment data, including, but not limited to…
Change interventionist Adjust language/vocabulary use Explicit instruction and error correction Modified response format
Secondary Intervention with…
Additional sessions More sessions per week More minutes per
session
Secondary Intervention with…
Strategies to promote attention/ engagement
and/or
and/or
Non-Responders
Non-Responders
After Secondary Prevention: What Do We Do for Kelsey Now?
Data-Based IndividualizationImproving Skills for Students With Intensive Needs
15
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
x2
3
+4
5
Secondary Prevention With Greater Intensity
17
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
Kelsey’s Secondary Prevention Program
19
Explicit Systematic
Research-Based (Fuchs, Kearns et al., 2012)
Focused on Foundational SkillsSight wordsSound-symbol correspondenceDecodingSpellingReading level-appropriate texts
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
Intensifying Secondary Prevention: Quantitative Changes
21
4 days 5 daysTime
4 students 3 studentsGroup
Progress Monitoring
22
Reliable and valid measure (evaluated by researchers)• Use “Academic Progress Monitoring
Tools Chart” available at intensiveintervention.org
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
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)
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
Diagnostic Assessment
26
Informal Diagnostic Assessment
27
Error analysis of PM data
Classroom assessments and work samples
Standardized assessments (if possible)
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 wordsspin … IDK count?
Kelsey tends to guess and needs
strategies to decode polysyllabic words.
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
Adaptation for Kelsey:Qualitative Changes
Skip ahead in the scope and sequence to the polysyllabic lessons
Supplement with polysyllabic strategies …
Polysyllabic Strategy Options
32 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
Polysyllabic Strategy OptionsDISSECT Lenz & Hughes, 1990
Discover the context Isolate the word’s prefix Separate the word’s suffix Say the word’s stem or base word Examine the word’s stem Check with another person Try to find the word in the dictionary
BESTO’Connor et al., 2002; O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty, & Bell, 2005; O’Connor & Bell, 2004
Break the word apart Examine each part Say each part Try the whole thing in context
Mnemonic strategies
Polysyllabic Strategy Options
34
Wilson, 2002 Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998
Syllable marking Tracking with syllables
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
Results of Adaptation
36
Iterations
37
Check Progress Weekly: Are the Adaptations Still Working?
38
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 WorkTips From Our Work in Schools
Make Sure You Choose a Valid and Reliable PM System
41
Running records Program-specific mastery measuresX X
The Instructional Platform Is a PROGRAM
42
XAn adequate resource but not an instructional platform: Not systematic and explicit
The Instructional Platform Is a PROGRAM
43
XAn adequate website with actual lesson plans, but it is not a program that is tightly and carefully designed
The Adaptations Make Sense
44
Balance training
Kearns & Fuchs (2013)
Brain workouts
Working memory treatment
Neurofeedback trainingX To date, few scientific studies suggest these “cognitive” approaches work: Stick to academics
Every other week is not enough during DBI. Weekly monitoring is needed to show small changes.
Monitor Progress Enough
45
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
Tools Charts• Academic Intervention: http://
www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools
• Progress Monitoring: http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/progress-monitoring
NCII Resources
47
DBI Training Series http://www.intensiveintervention.org/content/dbi-training-series
Webinars http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resources/webinars• Register now for our April 29th webinar: “So What do I do Now?
Strategies for Intensifying Intervention when Standard Approaches Don’t Work”
NCII Resources
48
49
Group Discussion
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
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
National Center on Intensive Intervention1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NWWashington, DC 20007-3835
866-577-5787
www.intensiveintervention.org
Email: [email protected]
52