Coordinating
Instructional Supports:
Maximizing Learning and
Instructional Resources
College of Education, University of Oregon
Center on Teaching & Learning
Beth Harn ([email protected])
Objectives

Summarizing recent research findings
related to multi-tiered reading instruction
 Minimizing
the predictiveness of demographic
variables
 The power of aligning instructional supports
 The impact of intervention time in accelerating
early reading development
 Intensifying instruction in meaningful ways for
students needing intensive supports in second
grade
The Role of Instruction for At Risk Readers
Classroom instruction is the “single best weapon against
reading failure” (NRC, 1998, p. 343)

Instruction is comprised of two components:
 What

is taught
Content of knowledge to be learned
 Early reading: phonological awareness, alphabetic
principle, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency
with connected text (NRP, 2000; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998)
 How
the content is designed and delivered (Engelmann &
Carnine, 1991; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998)
How the content is organized, structured, and
sequenced
 Time and grouping structures devoted to learning
 The explicitness of the instructional language in
communicating specific skills and strategies to support,
integrate and expand student learning

3
Prerequisites of Multi-Tiered Approaches
to Implement RTI





Promoting a systems approach focused on
prevention
Integrating, coordinating, and differentiating
academic and behavioral supports
Using screening and progress monitoring
measures
Making data-based decisions with a dual focus
on both the group and individual student levels
Employing evidence-based teaching practices
(Chard, et al. 2008; Kame’enui, Good, & Harn, 2005; Sugai & Horner, 2005)
4
Examining & Creating Learning Efficiencies
at the Systems Level

Goal of Project CIRCUITS was to assist
schools in building capacity and
sustainability of a three-tier prevention
model (schoolwide reading) by:
Using schoolwide assessment data in early literacy
skills to identify students at risk for reading
difficulties, make instructional decisions, and
monitor progress
 Implementing research-based interventions at the
secondary and tertiary levels to accelerate learning
 Providing professional development to school staff
to implement interventions effectively

5
Predicting Reading Success in a
Multilevel Schoolwide Reading
Model: A Retrospective Analysis
Chard, D. J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, B. A., Wanzek, J.,
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Kame'enui, E. K.
(2008). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 174-188.
A collaboration study with
University of Texas at Austin
6
Predicting Later Reading Outcomes

Examining variables related to predicting 3rd Grade performance on
the SAT-10 within the context of supportive, tiered instructional
support systems
 Unalterable Variables/Demographics: Gender, English Language
Learner, Ethnicity, Special Education status
 Findings: Females performed lower; African American
performed lower than Caucasians; no effect of ELL, Sped
Status
 Student Variables:
 Behavior: Social Skills, Problem Behaviors, Academic
Competence
 Findings: Students with more Problem Behaviors
performed lower; Students with higher ratings of Academic
Competence performed better; no effect for general Social
Skills
 Initial Literacy Skills (Scores in First Grade): LNF, PSF, NWF,
WRMT; Growth/slope on ORF across grades 1-3; Spring of
First Grade ORF
 Findings: Fall/Spring PSF; WRMT, Spring 1st Grade ORF;
Growth/slope ORF (best predictor)
7
Predicting Later Reading Outcomes
 Overall model including all predictors accounted for:
 71% of variance on SAT10
 77% of Spring 1st ORF
 11% of Growth on ORF

Growth on ORF is the best predictor of
performance on SAT-10; however, with the
variables included in this analysis we account for
little for how growth occurs.
 Something not measured is significantly
influencing reading growth, what might this be?
Other demographic variables not measured
Other early student skill variables not
measured
The nature of the instructional experiences
that occurred across the 3 years and
experiences in kindergarten (how to capture
or quantify?)
8
Understanding and Maximizing Instructional
Experiences
The Importance of Coordinating & Orchestrating Instructional
Supports
 Aligning Instruction

Within grade, across contexts



Across grade


Supporting advanced reading and accelerating struggling readings
across grades
Instructional Time



General education and Title
Supporting transitions across programs/materials
Maximizing the minutes
Intensifying early to reap long-term rewards
Effective Personnel

Importance of regular, target professional development


“Coaching” approach to fine tune support
Delivering programs, using materials, behavior management
9
Features to Vary in Intervention Implementation



Varying the Intensity in Implementation
from Easy to Hard
Instructional Delivery: explicit, systematic teacher wording; error
correction; prioritized content; scaffolded support; and prioritized
content (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001;Harn, Kameenui, & Simmons, 2005)
 Programs/materials vary significantly in breadth (range of skills)
and depth (explicitness of delivery)
Group Size: Increases opportunities to respond, receive feedback,
and enables targeting to student needs
 While 1-1 is seen by some as ideal, it isn’t necessarily more
effective than groups of 3-5 (Elbaum, Vaughn, Tinajero, & Watson-Moody, 2000)
 Resource allocation, scheduling, personnel challenges
Time: A common approach is to provide additional time; however, it
isn’t necessarily just more time, but how the time is spent
 Teaching the same skills, re-teaching—firming learning
 Extending skills—accelerating learning
 Simmons, et al. (2008) found that the most at risk kindergarteners
made significantly more growth when provided 30 rather then 15
minutes of explicit, systematic intervention
10
Aligning Instructional
Supports: Content, time,
emphasis, and delivery
Summary of System-Level Features

Year 01 (2002-2003): Examined the features, components, and
characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions in
grades K-1 in 9 elementary schools. Data collected included:
 Observations of reading instruction across primary, secondary, and
tertiary settings (Winter & Spring)
 Student achievement in K & 1 (DIBELS, WRMT-R)
 Programmatic/curricular, planning and support, group size, time
allocated, etc.

Summary: Even within both districts implementing a systems
approach to reading, there were differences
 Across Districts: Time spent on different instructional objectives
(e.g., vocabulary), many different reading interventions within and
across tiers
 Within Districts: Great variability in instructional focus and
approach within and across tiers(e.g., general and special
education and Title)
 Time, number of instructional objectives, frequency of
12
opportunity to respond; Number and type of interventions
Examining Instructional Alignment to
Promote Generalization

First Grade: Examined the efficiencies of aligning
instructional supports across settings (general education
and supplemental) compared to prior year (historical control)
 Secondary
Supports: 30-minute small group intervention
What was taught – word reading, phonics, and fluency
development
 How it was taught – small group (<6); used core reading
materials yet skills were strategically chosen (re-teach)
and taught using more explicit instructional delivery and
opportunities to respond

 Tertiary
Supports: 60 minute small group intervention
What was taught – phonological awareness, word
reading, phonics, and fluency development
 How it was taught – small group (<5), program was
designed to follow similar skills used in core program
yet with more explicit instructional delivery,
opportunities to practice and review

13
Effects of Aligning Instructional Supports on
Established Systems
Word ID
Word AT
14
Effects of Aligning Instructional Supports
on Established Systems
Pass Comp
Total Reading
15

Variability in School-Level
Outcomes for At-Risk
Students

School A
School B
When examining the
alignment of instructional
supports in first grade, two
schools who did the “same
things” (time, programs,
groupings) got very different
results both:
across years
(compared to
themselves)
 across sites (compared
to each other)

 Why
might this
happen?
16
Intensifying Instruction: Does
Additional Instructional Time
Make a Difference for the Most
At-Risk First Graders? Harn, B. A.,
Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 115-125.
Joint Analyses with University
of Texas at Austin
17
The Effect of Intensifying Instructional Time


1st grade students most at-risk for reading difficulties (i.e.,
PSF<11 or NWF<10)
Context: Both Universities were working in schools
implementing multi-tiered models of instructional supports

University of Oregon: Implemented tier 3 supports within a
prevention framework in first grade (60 minutes of intervention)
 University of Texas at Austin: Implemented tier 2 supports
within a prevention framework in first grade (30 minutes of
intervention)
Descriptives in the Fall Results by Location.
Location
PSF
(Mean/SD)
NWF
(Mean/SD)
Oregon (N=21)
18 / 15.17
4 / 3.69
Texas (N=33)
11 / 11.68
4 / 4.69
Combined (N=54)
14 / 13.76
4 / 4.23
Key. PSF= Phoneme Segmentation Fluency; NWF= Nonsense Word Fluency
18
Nature of Intervention Efforts
Features of first grade intervention by location.
Delivery
Features
Texas
Oregon
Time
30 minutes; 5 days/wk
60 minutes; 5 days/wk
Group Size
4-5
Project
personnel/Master’s
Student
Developed in
response to learner
Monthly Observations
with Weekly Coaching
4-5
Educational
Assistants/Schoolbased personnel
Interventionist
Delivery
Fidelity
Scripted lessons
Monthly Observations
with Monthly Coaching
19
Results Across Locations
 Students across both locations/intensity levels displayed
significant progress on all measures across first grade
OR
Mean/SD
Fall
OR
Mean/SD
Spring
TX
Mean/SD
Spring
Word Attack 97.08/11.87 87.64/9.59
111.08/9.19 *
101.79/11.26
Word Iden.
89.40/10.61 86.58/11.06
105.8/10.8 *
97.85/12.10
Pass. Comp 90.95/10.68 84.91/9.48
97.24/10.11
90.73/10.60
Measure
TX
Mean/SD
Fall
SWE
84.81/7.58
81.12/7.52
91.81/10.90 *
81.76/11.28
PDE
95.43/8.78
88.61/6.80
97.86/9.63 *
88.58/9.95
NWF
5.33/4.32
4.45/4.69
61.96/19.95 *
45.94/15.90
ORF (Win-Spr)
5.00/3.19
5.00/3.92
23.57/13.67*
14.61/8.03
* = Significant difference across location
20
Results of Intensity Efforts


Significant mean differences
on Spring ORF by
location/intensity
Fewer significantly low
readers at the end-of-year on
ORF

Intensifying early may reap
long-term rewards.


Will follow-up on students to see
how effect was maintained
Implications on resource
allocation

Personnel, time, materials
21
Intensifying
Instructional Supports
in Meaningful Ways
Examining Students Within Systems

2nd Grade: Interventions

Secondary: 45-minute small group (5-8) intervention
 What was taught – word reading, phonics, vocabulary and
fluency development
 Design Feature Examined -- the nature of text
type/control/redundancy within a fluency building intervention
 Results: no effect for text type in fluency development on a
comprehension, word reading and connected text fluency
 Tertiary: Two, 45 minute sessions of small group intervention
 What was taught – word reading, phonics and fluency
development
 Design Feature Examined -- implementation of fluency
intervention; level of implementation support
 Results: wide variability in student response to interventions,
yet fluency instruction was important in improving outcomes
23
Examining Students Within Systems-- 2nd
Grade Intensive Students (Tier 3)



Students reading less than 20 ORF at the beginning of second
grade
 Project Implemented Intervention Students
 17 students across 5 schools
 School Implemented Intervention Students
 18 students across 4 schools
Design of Instructional Program Selected to Accelerate Learning
 Research-based, explicit, systematic: Reading Mastery/Fast
Cycle, and added Read Naturally in February to increase time
reading connected text
Delivery of Intervention Efforts
 Two 45-minute periods of instruction each day (Nov. 1- May 20)
 Small group instruction (i.e., 1-4)
 Placement based on instructional needs
 Groups modified as data and instructional needs warranted
24
Year-Long PM on ORF by Sub-Group
T e rtia ry P ro g re s s M o n ito rin g o n O R F b y S u b -G ro u p
P h a s e S h ift w ith R N fo r
G ro u p B
P h a s e S h ift w ith R N fo r
65
G ro u p A
S ta rt o f In te rv e n tio n
60
55
Sep-Feb 14 Slopes
(word per/wk)
A = 1.10
B = .94
C = 1.08
50
45
40
CW PM
35
Feb 28-Apr 28 Slopes
(word per/wk)
A= 2.58
B= 2.22
C= 1.92
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fa
ll
B
en
ch
N
ov
1
N
ov
8
N
ov
15
N
ov
22
N
ov
29
D
ec
6
D
ec
13
D
ec
20
D
ec
27
Ja
n
3
n
Ja
W
10
t
in
er
B
en
ch
n
Ja
24
F
eb
1-
4
b
Fe
7
Fe
b
14
18
b
Fe
F
21
eb
28
M
ar
2
M
7ar
M
8
ar
17
M
18
ar
31
A
pr
1
A
7pr
A
8
pr
14
15
A
pr
21
22
A
pr
28
29
M
ay
5M
6
ay
11
13
D a te
G ro u p A (n = 1 0 )
G ro u p B (n = 6 )
C o m p a ris o n (n = 1 0 )
25
CWPM
Variability in Response to Instruction
Students Who Made the Most Progress in
Response to Intensive Interventions
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
h
nc
e
ll B
Fa
DIBELS
Benchm ark = 90
Start of Intervention
v
No
5
v
No
15
v
No
26
c
De
6
c
De
17
c
De
27
h
27
nc
n
e
a
B
J
er
t
in
W
n
Ja
7
b
Fe
7
b
Fe
18
b
Fe
28
M
2
ar
3
1
3
6
3
2
-1
2-1
-1
-2
pr
1
4
1
1
y
A
1
1
1
2
a
M
ar
31
ay
pr
pr
r
M
A
A
M
a
M
Date
Bert
Carson
Isaac
26
Variability in Response to Instruction
Students Who Made the Least Progress in
Response to Intensive Interventions
80
75
Start of Intervention
CWPM
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
h
nc
e
ll B
Fa
v
No
5
v
No
15
v
No
26
c
De
6
c
De
17
c
De
27
h
27
nc
n
e
a
J
rB
te
n
i
W
n
Ja
7
b
Fe
7
b
Fe
18
b
Fe
28
M
2
ar
3
3
2
13
16
r1
2-1
-2
141
1
y
Ap
1
1
1
2
a
M
ar
31
ay
pr
pr
r
M
A
A
M
a
M
Date
Tim
Steve
Allen
27
Evaluating Response to Intervention &
Determining Need for Modifications
How is the group responding?
How
the
group Mrs.
Time is
for
a change
inJ's Morning 2nd Grade Group ORF Progress
responding
the
instructionaltofocus..
change?
Are all the same? Added Fluency Component
Phonics & Reading Intervention
Time for individual
Trendline: Slope=4 Word/wk
modifications….
90
80
70
Trendline: Slope= .5 Word/wk
50
40
30
20
Trendline: Slope=1.38 Word/wk
Trendline: Slope= -1.2
10
Word/wk
Kelly
Terri
John
Jose
A
9
pr
28
-2
7
-2
2
A
pr
25
-2
9
A
pr
21
-1
5
18
-1
A
pr
14
A
pr
11
-1
3
-8
7
pr
A
A
pr
A
Date
pr
4
pr
A
31
M
ar
-5
1
0
-3
8
28
-1
M
ar
17
M
ar
14
-1
6
-8
7
ar
M
M
ar
ar
3
ar
M
M
Fe
b
28
b
Fe
-4
2
8
17
-1
-1
5
4
14
b
b
Fe
1
3-
-2
Fe
8
b
Fe
27
-2
5
Ja
n
24
-2
1
-2
Ja
n
20
n
Ja
n
17
-1
8
0
Ja
C o rrect W P M
60
Coordinating a Schoolwide Instructional Support
Plan: 3-Tier Instructional Support Plan
H o w A re W e D o in g ?
Level of
In s tru c tio n a l
S u p p o rt
W ho?
(W h a t S k ill-le ve l o f
S tu d e n ts )
W h ic h S tu d e n ts :
W h a t M o re ?
W ith W h a t?
(W h ic h M a te ria ls & A c tiv itie s )
N a m e o f P ro g ra m / M a te ria ls :
(S u p p le m e n ta l o r A d d itio n a l S u p p o rt
M a te ria ls a n d A c tiv itie s )
N a m e o f P ro g ra m / M a te ria ls :
(D e te rm in in g In s tru c tio n a l
E ffe c tive n e s s w ith P ro g re s s
M o n ito rin g )
W ho to C o lle c t:
W ho to D e liv e r:
W he n :
T ie r 1 /
P rim a ry :
A s m e a s u re d b y:
A c tivitie s :
H o w O fte n :
W he n :
_ _ _ _ w /in typ ic a l in s tru c tio n a l tim e
_ _ _ _ in a d d itio n to typ ic a l tim e
S p e c ify T im e (m in u te s , d a ys o f w e e k ):
G ro u p S ize :
G ro u p S ize :
C rite ria :
D e te rm in in g F id e lity o f
Im p lem e n ta tio n (W h o , W ith W h a t,
H o w o fte n ? ):
N a m e o f P ro g ra m / M a te ria ls :
W h ic h S tu d e n ts :
N a m e o f P ro g ra m / M a te ria ls :
W ho to C o lle c t:
W ho to D e liv e r:
W he n :
T ie r 2 /
S e c o n d a ry :
A s m e a s u re d b y:
W he n :
_ _ _ _ w /in typ ic a l in s tru c tio n a l tim e
_ _ _ _ in a d d itio n to typ ic a l tim e
A c tivitie s :
H o w O fte n :
C rite ria :
S p e c ify T im e (m in u te s , d a ys o f w e e k ):
G ro u p S ize :
G ro u p S ize :
D e te rm in in g F id e lity o f
Im p lem e n ta tio n (W h o , W ith W h a t,
H o w o fte n ? ):
N a m e o f P ro g ra m / M a te ria ls :
W h ic h S tu d e n ts :
N a m e o f P ro g ra m / M a te ria ls :
W ho to C o lle c t:
W ho to D e liv e r:
W he n :
T ie r 3 /
T e rtia ry :
A s m e a s u re d b y:
W he n :
_ _ _ _ w /in typ ic a l in s tru c tio n a l tim e
_ _ _ _ in a d d itio n to typ ic a l tim e
A c tivitie s :
H o w O fte n :
C rite ria :
S p e c ify T im e (m in u te s , d a ys o f w e e k ):
G ro u p S ize :
G ro u p S ize :
D e te rm in in g F id e lity o f
Im p lem e n ta tio n (W h o , W ith W h a t,
H o w o fte n ? ):
Attending to Intervention Details



Nature of Instructional Materials
 Research-based, explicit, systematic
Matching Instructional Objectives to Student Needs
 Homogenous Grouping
 Grouped according to skill level
 Intensified Grouping Arrangements
 Intensified and Prioritized Time for Instruction
Implementation: Responding to Student Performance
 Coordination in scheduling of intervention (content,
time, personnel, materials)
 Professional development

Formal fidelity and on-going coaching
 Progress
monitoring and instructional modifications
when data warrant
The importance of our efforts

“The most expensive burden we place on society is
those students we have failed to teach to read well.
The silent army of low readers who move through our
schools, siphoning off the lion’s share of
administrative resources, emerge into society as
adults lacking the single prerequisite for managing
their lives and acquiring additional training. They are
chronically unemployed, underemployed, or
unemployable. They form the single largest
identifiable group of those whom we incarcerate, and
to whom we provide assistance, housing, medical
care, and other social services. They perpetuate and
enlarge the problem by creating another generation
of poor readers.” (Fielding, Kerr, & Rosier, 1998).
states are using the percent of non-readers in 3rd
grade in determining the number and size of prisons
 Some
Conclusions
Students at risk for reading difficulties “do not
discover” what teachers leave unsaid about the
complexities of word learning
(Gaskin, Ehri, Cress, Ohara, & Donnelly, 1997, p. 325)”
Struggling readers need instruction that is
“more intensive, more relentless, more
precisely delivered, more highly structured,
and direct and more carefully monitored for
procedural fidelity and effects” (Kavale, 1988, p. 335)
32
References







Chard, D. & Harn, B. (2008). Project CIRCUITS: Center for Improving Reading Competence
Using Intensive Treatments Schoolwide. In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill, & M. Clements
(Eds.) Schoolwide Prevention Models: Lessons Learned in Elementary Schools (pp. 70-83).
New York: Guilford Publications.
Chard, D. J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, B. A., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., &
Kame'enui, E. K. (2008). Predicting reading success in a multilevel schoolwide reading model:
A retrospective analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 174-188.
Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying instruction: Does
additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk first graders? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 115-125.
Harn, B. A., Stoolmiller, M., & Chard, D. J. (2008). Measuring the dimensions of alphabetic
principle on the reading development of first graders: The role of automaticity and unitization.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 143-157.
Harn, B. A., Kame'enui, E.K., & Simmons, D.C. (2007). Essential features of interventions for
kindergarten students most in need of accelerated learning: The nature and role of the third tier
in a primary prevention model. In D. Haager, S. Vaughn, & J. Klingner (Eds.) Evidenced-based
Reading Practices for Response to Intervention (pp. 161-184). Baltimore, MD: Brookes
Publishing.
Simmons, D. S., Coyne, M., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, B. A., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2008).
Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten
through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 158-173.
Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., Harn, B., Coyne, M. D., Stoolmiller, M., Edwards, L. Smith,
S. Thomas-Beck, C., & Kaufman, N. (2007). Attributes of effective and economic kindergarten
reading intervention: An examination of instructional time and design specificity. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 40(4), 331-347.
Descargar

Slide 1