How To Do Classwide
Intervention within RTI
Amanda VanDerHeyden
Education Research and Consulting, Inc.
Objectives Today
• Overview of RTI, RTI decision making, and
expected outcomes
• Specific How-To for Classwide Math Intervention
• Implementing intervention for sustenance and
system change
Digits Correct in Two Minutes
Intervention
Baseline
120
100
m
a
s
t
e
r
y
80
60
40
instructional range
20
0
1
2
3
Sessions
4
5
Mary
Chiquita
Randy
Sandy
Brandy
Colvin
Jolisha
Daleesha
Kiera
Bradley
Jared
Alfred
Sienna
Jarian
Trey
Robert
Andrea
Ashley
Jaren
Disparities in Achievement
• Substantially lower level of performance in
Reading at first and second grades for
African-American students relative to their
Caucasian peers (approximately 20
wc/min)
• Slower growth rate (approximately half) at
both grade levels
• Differences not observed in Math
In Low-Achieving Classrooms
(more than 50% of class scored in the
frustrational range on probes)
STEEP
Sensitivity
.75
Teacher
Referral
.55
Specificity
.88
.68
Positive
Predictive Power
Negative
Predictive Power
.69
.35
.91
.82
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005
In Average to High-Achieving Classrooms (less
than 20% of class scored in frustrational range on
probes)
STEEP
Sensitivity
.67
Teacher
Referral
0
Specificity
1.0
.67
Positive
1.0
Predictive Power
Negative
.97
Predictive Power
0
.95
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005
% Accurate ID by Race
Minority
Caucasian
STEEP
90
86
Teacher
Referral
78
61
Use of RTI with STEEP approximated base rate by race and gender
AA students showed a disproportionate RTI (.50 versus .07)
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005
Research Finding
• VanDerHeyden, Broussard, et al. (2004).
– Prior to single instructional session,
children receiving special ed services
were significantly lower performing on
math probes. Following single
instructional session, no significant
difference was observed.
Mixed Mult/Div/Fractions Probe
Classroom F
Sore Thumb Test
Response to Classwide
Intervention
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
4/17/03
4/16/03
4/15/03
Student A
4/14/03
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Teacher A Division 0-9
Individual Math Intervention
Can’t Do Problem
Successful Math Intervention
DC2M
Intervention Progress
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Baseline
Intervention
Novel, grade-level probe
1
2
3
4
5
Week
Why do Classwide Intervention
• Efficiency
• Accuracy
• Efficacy
STEEP Model
Screening to Enhance Educational Progress
Tier 1: Screening
• Screening
– Math Screening
• 2 minutes. Scored for Digits Correct
– Writing Screening
• 3 Minutes. Scored for Words Written Correctly
– Reading Screening
• 1 Minute. Scored for Words Read Correctly
Class-wide Screening
QuickTime™ and a
Cinepak decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Feedback to Teachers
Tier 2: Class-wide Intervention
Digits Correct in Two Minutes
Intervention
Baseline
120
100
m
a
s
t
e
r
y
80
60
40
instructional range
20
0
1
2
3
Sessions
4
5
Mary
Chiquita
Randy
Sandy
Brandy
Colvin
Jolisha
Daleesha
Kiera
Bradley
Jared
Alfred
Sienna
Jarian
Trey
Robert
Andrea
Ashley
Jaren
No Class-wide Problem Detected
Tier 2: Can’t Do/Won’t Do
Assessment
• “Can’t Do/Won’t Do”
• Individually-administered
• Materials
3-7 minutes per
child
– Academic material that student performed poorly
during class assessment.
– Treasure chest: plastic box filled with tangible items.
Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment
QuickTime™ and a
Cinepak decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Decision Rule Following Can’t
Do/Won’t Do Assessment
Tier 3: Individual Intervention
QuickTime™ and a
Cinepak decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
#Correct
Response to Intervention
Before
Intervention
During Intervention
Avg. for his Class
Each Dot is one
Day of Intervention
Intervention Sessions
Intervention in Reading
#Correct
Response to Intervention
Before
Intervention
During Intervention
Avg. for his Class
0
Breaux Aisha S
Chapdelain Lily M
Robb Sydney M
Mangione Nikole M
White Bailey V
Ramey Sara B
Littsen Lucas R
Foxhoven Shane A
Gonzales Audryana
Foley Thomas J
Hermes Jay M
Thueson Lila D
Svob Seth H
Salsbury Mariah A
Wills Donna D
Blakeley Brandee E
Kellogg Anthony S
Negrete Sara M
Ashton Julia E
Dailey Brandon L
Showers Phillip J
Counes James G
Hilkemeyer Austin R
Howe Ashley B
Strider Katie N
Santa cruz Daniel R
Gallego Angela M
Lewandowski
Sisk Cody A
Forsyth Ian E
Blake Nicholas K
Hatch Vanessa L
Machain Anthony F
Peterson Tyler L
White Alexa L
Nutbrown Jordan C
Bluemke Megan J
Casamasa Gregory L
Roche Alyssa R
Elias Elizabeth L
Beeston Kristine D
Lopez Theresa A
Pierce Shannon M
Lanier Matthew W
Nanna Caitlin N
Smith Shelby N
Iturralde Jacqueline R
Mcharg Jordan E
Brechbiel Shari L
Cota Alexia K
Jackson Damion M
Lamadrid Leonardo
Oliver Riley W
Layton Marissa M
Mueller Lane E
Turner Alana K
Rowlan Paige E
Dumes Scott M
Riordan Timothy D
Hicks Coltin C
Kenton Chelsee M
Cornwell Kimberly M
Crater Shelbie M
Rytting Ryan C
French Joshua M
Davila Ariel N
Thompson Tasha N
Ryckman Shelby L
Ayers Megan L
Dunham Clayton J
Mausert James R
Morales Eric A
Bain Bryce G
Gryczkowski samluk
Cuff Matthew J
Hackman Lindsey S
Whitlock John C
Benson Brad J
Stanfield Benjamin C
Martinez Nathaniel P
Carrizosa Robert A
Webb Brianna J
Evans Joseph B
Laye Lestot D
Bazzanella Stephen L
Crowl Robert S
Thompson Krysta E
Tipton Emily N
Meyer Sean M
Couture Anne S
Gibbons Cody D
Fuhrman Autum C
Nolen Jayd L
Drake Justin T
Neale Shaine R
Purcell John E
Rugotska Colton J
Bong Samantha L
Johnson Amanda L
Rodriguez Ryan T
Bergstrom Matthew A
Pannell Marina S
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Vehicle for System Change:
System-wide Math Problem
4th Grade Math
Multiplication 0-9
120
100
80
60
Instructional range
40
20
Frustrational range
Each bar is a student’s performance
0
Neale
Frost Joshua
Franklin
Ryckman
Turner Alana
Ayers
Smith
Montano
Kenton
Banken
Mausert
White Alexa
Brechbiel
Hatch
Meyer Sean
Santa cruz
Oliver Riley
Cornwell
Wills Donna
Bluemke
Williams
Cuff Matthew
Nanna
Hilkemeyer
Robb
Gryczkowski
Gonzales
Mangione
Foxhoven
Layton
Negrete
Tipton Emily
Gavino
Lamb Nicole
Chapdelain
Roche
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Re-screening Indicates No
Systemic Problem
Fourth Grade
Fourth Grade Multiplication 0-9
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Rest of Grade at Standard
Classroom A
B
C
D
E
F
Spring 2003– Classroom F
F
Teacher moved to lower grade in
Fall 2003
Digits Correct Two Minutes
0
11/18/2003
11/14/2003
11/7/2003
10/31/2003
10/24/2003
Class-wide Intervention
Teacher F Mult 0-12
120
100
80
60
40
20
Weeks
Increased Difficulty- Intervention
Continues
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
1/23/2004
1/15/2004
1/8/2004
12/18/2003
12/5/2003
0
11/21/2003
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Teacher F Div 0-12
Weeks
Mixed Mult/Div/Fractions Probe
Classroom F
May
April
March
February
aimline
January
Dec
Nov
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Oct
Sept
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Growth Obtained
Rush
actual growth
Effect on High-Stakes Scores
Percent of Students Passing HighStakes Mathematics
3rd Grade Math Performance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
School 1
School 2
School 3
School 4
School 5
VanDerHeyden, in prep
Effect on High-Stakes Scores
Percent of Students Passing HighStakes Mathematics
5th Grade Math Performance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
School 1
School 2
School 3
School 4
School 5
VanDerHeyden, in prep
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, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007
Cost Reduction
160,000
Cost in Dollars
140,000
120,000
100,000
Baseline
STEEP
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Assessment
Placement
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007
Findings
• Number of Evaluations dramatically
reduced– 70% at highest referral school
• Diverse settings, psychologists of diverse
backgrounds and no prior experience with
CBM or functional academic assessment
• Percentage qualify increased at 4 of 5
schools
• Disproportionate representation of males
positively affected
• Number of children placed dramatically
reduced
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007
Team Decision-Making Agreement
RTI + and
Evaluated
RTI- and Did
Not Evaluate
2003-2004
(3 schools)
100%
41%
2004-2005
(5 schools)
100%
87%
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007
Team Decision-Making
Baseline
STEEP + and Team
STEEP- and Team
Decided to Evaluate
Decided to Evaluate
2003-2004 Cases, Schools 1-3 55%
89%1
50%2
2004-2005 Cases, Schools 1-5 52%
88%3
29%4
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007
Fall to Spring Reading Growth
WC/Min Growth Per Week
16
14
12
10
Minority
Caucasian
Expected
8
6
4
2
0
1
10
Weeks
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005
Percent of Minority and Caucasian
Students in Risk Category
What Proportion of Ethnicity Represented
Before and After Intervention in Risk
Category?
100
90
80
70
60
Minority
Caucasian
50
40
30
20
10
0
Before
Intervention
After Intervention
Expected
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005
Identification Accuracy
• High-achieving classrooms (<20%)
– Procedures paired with RTI criterion were
more accurate than other commonly used
screening devices
• Low-achieving classrooms (>50%)
– Procedures paired with RTI criterion were
more accurate than other commonly used
screening devices
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005
“Weighing a cow doesn’t
make it fatter.”
Break
Using Screening Data to
Identify Class-wide and
System-wide Instructional
Problems
Consider
•
•
•
•
The Task
Integrity of Administration
Reliability of Scoring
Use software to organize the data
Mult 0-9
th
4
Grade Fall Screening
Mult/Div/Fractions 4th Grade Winter
0
Spohn Philip E
Miller Michael P
Slattery Victoria K
Spradling Kyle T
Romero Marissa A
Calgher Chancellor C
Hoelscher Tyler M
Carnes Joshua R
Mortimer David S
Portugal Tyler A
Pope Alexandra D
Hendrix Brian M
Cosgray Kyle A
Brage Tyler L
Berkej Rodney E
Done Courtney R
Borja Elisabeth F
Mcfarlane Shelby N
Riggs Jordan T
Stewart Matthew J
Nadal Rachel N
Shumway Daniel R
Hamilton Maurice O
Prentiss Jamal L
Rodgers Patrick G
Kirkman Ashton R
Crissien Sharlyne L
Weissman Kateland R
Rogers Jalen D
Hernandez Jamie L
Harris Zachary R
Deason Zachary W
Reichel Joshua C
Palma Lauren N
Reyna Raymond R
Mcnulty Elizabeth A
Morrison Shayla P
Singh Sirtaj B
Adams Jared B
Lee Jason C
Eidson Dino jr L
Baker Alyssa K
Kowren Tyler T
Irish Samantha M
Field Kathleen N
Rowell Taralyn A
Gomez Andrea A
Spooner Breana A
Swanson Michael S
Ganan Justine L
Bender Matthew A
Gibson Timothy C
Bannister Emily A
Yearego Tara R
Garcia Bret C
Poage Brett S
Sooy Adam M
Kennedy Aaron R
Bakarich Mary E
Decker Nicholas S
Reed James D
Timmons Caitlyn S
Hendricks Marcie L
Fettkether Brandon G
Shaver price Aretha D
Martinez Joshua T
Cox Jason M
King Ashley D
Rosenow Taylor M
Cahill Megan N
Gonzales Daniel M
Nichols Savannah L
Donnelly Sean P
Galvan Jasmine D
Slay Ashley K
Cusack William L
Zaragoza Zachary G
Thayer Stefanie W
Duran Sara L
Bellows Kristen M
Romero Luis A
Smith Shawn C
Sweeney Allyson
Robinson Sebastian J
Reed Heather lynn J
Shaver Katlyn J
Tyler Alexis K
Enfield Holly A
Adams Dustin M
Balthazor Drew C
Weber Aiza S
Barter Kali R
Encarnacion Catalina
Mayfield Keylon J
Barker Britney C
Bland Samuel B
Robson Caitlin M
Sevario Alexis C
Fadell Curtis V
Cross William B
Williams Samantha N
Mello John T
Jones Michelle J
Garcia Tomas A
Gossen Ashleigh N
Holly Adam R
Cajas Edwin F
Billesbach Alex
Sharpe Michael R
Doty Maia nicole M
Fitzpatrick Jordan M
Kilcoyne Patrick C
Lozano Andrea F
Hannigan Sean P
Beilman Brianna M
Taggart Miranda P
Silva Andrea N
Ramirez Phillip J
Decker Joshua A
Fobell Alec W
Montgomery Funtasha D
Parente Derek M
Christensen Curtis W
Bu Connor L
Lance Austin W
Johnson Kaylie M
Sikkema Micah D
Svob Christopher J
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Grade-wide Data
Third Grade Math (Mult 0-9)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Harp Rmand R
Cartwright Matthew D
Booth Christopher O
Healy Nathan A
Schmidt Ryan A
Sanchez Mario A
Pilgrim Tommy A
Bu Johan M
Hodges Jennifer L
Kennedy Corey T
Mayou Galen S
Guertin Ashley K
Eidson Xina R
Cahill Matthew B
Gardner Randi M
Nadal Sarah J
Thrall Scott A
Ruiz Sabastian
Prentiss Jasmine S
Gilbert Brandon A
Fitzsimmons Jacob K
Wright Taylor P
Korinko Jacob T
Lizarraga Luis L
Grow Shaylyn K
Reichel Andrew J
Stepanek Tyler A
Parsons Allison M
Boykin Avery M
Shaver Nathan M
Jones Shane C
Taylor Shawn D
Harley Natasha M
Blood Dominique A
Leitel Kelsey L
Joy Kaitlyn L
Johnson Heath
Rosenow Jessica L
Casey Emma
Place Terrence K
Calkins Kiana L
Martinez Christopher R
Donahue Sara B
Gaiter Andrew D
Kirkman Caleb A
Bailey Taylor E
Machen Richard K
Sullivan Lucas P
Silva Justin G
Mcintosh Joshua T
Fiore Anaiz A
Ward Alexis K
Figueroa Julian A
Korinko Jared D
Vazis Tristin M
Alvarez Stephanie J
Mier Maricia N
Dolniak Andra C
Gilbert Evan J
Christensen Matthew T
Engel Jami F
Smith Andrew J
Brook Megan L
Parsons Jonathan D
Robson Travis D
Trice Chandrie A
Hicks Olivia G
Davis Jason X
Sommer Sheila R
Fennema Abigail J
Lee Alicia A
Williams Robert A
Bergansky Benjamin T
Clendaniel Brenna M
Montiel Alfonzo
Rouviere Danielle R
Burpee Krystal M
Adams Aaron B
Bentley Ryan A
Wilson Joshua R
Smith Christina N
Sifuentes Kimberly
Taylor Brandon L
Doty Ashley D
Gray Blake J
Goff Scott T
Delong Courtney B
Salviano Miranda A
Kemsley Stephanie E
Negron Dantwan R
Rosser Jordan
Bryson Justin W
Robeson Aaron M
Bellows Hali L
Abreu Daniel J
Reyes James G
Ellis Kameron Z
Edwards Nailani T
Shumway Patrick J
Mcclelland Sarah R
Ehlert Daniel J
Albanese Thomas S
Valenzuela Antonio D
Wilcox Marie M
Tarazon Fabian A
Almanza Marina R
Pinedo Doug M
Mello Derek S
Hart Michael L
Stewart Chelsea A
Sterling Chase S
Mcdonald Alanna L
Owen Cameron S
Letcher Mackenzie
Patrone Sarah N
Hannigan Erin C
Brown Kristen
Niesen Rebecca A
Rebeck Zachary C
Beilman James A
Morrison Alyssa R
Decker Tabitha L
Gonzalez soto Jose A
Perkinswoeck Johnathan C
Cortes matise Cynthia E
Jackson Courtney S
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Fifth Grade Math (Div 0-9)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Place Terrence K
Korinko Jacob T
Bailey Taylor E
Reichel Andrew J
Trice Chandrie A
Gardner Randi M
Booth Christopher O
Sterling Chase S
Prentiss Jasmine S
Engel Jami F
Healy Nathan A
Nadal Sarah J
Jones Shane C
Schmidt Ryan A
Hodges Jennifer L
Bergansky Benjamin T
Korinko Jared D
Hicks Olivia G
Gray Blake J
Eidson Xina R
Cartwright Matthew D
Clendaniel Brenna M
Guertin Ashley K
Harp Rmand R
Brook Megan L
Fiore Anaiz A
Pilgrim Tommy A
Leitel Kelsey L
Grow Shaylyn K
Dolniak Andra C
Rosenow Jessica L
Gilbert Brandon A
Harley Natasha M
Mayou Galen S
Delong Courtney B
Joy Kaitlyn L
Stepanek Tyler A
Rouviere Danielle R
Kennedy Corey T
Gilbert Evan J
Patrone Sarah N
Sommer Sheila R
Thrall Scott A
Sanchez Mario A
Bellows Hali L
Lizarraga Luis L
Kemsley Stephanie E
Boykin Avery M
Hart Michael L
Rosser Jordan
Calkins Kiana L
Bu Johan M
Johnson Heath
Almanza Marina R
Ellis Kameron Z
Salviano Miranda A
Wilcox Marie M
Ward Alexis K
Montiel Alfonzo
Shumway Patrick J
Wilson Joshua R
Taylor Shawn D
Owen Cameron S
Lee Alicia A
Kirkman Caleb A
Machen Richard K
Sifuentes Kimberly
Gaiter Andrew D
Shaver Nathan M
Parsons Allison M
Adams Aaron B
Mello Derek S
Perkinswoeck Johnathan C
Tarazon Fabian A
Fennema Abigail J
Mier Maricia N
Williams Robert A
Fitzsimmons Jacob K
Niesen Rebecca A
Sullivan Lucas P
Wright Taylor P
Vazis Tristin M
Negron Dantwan R
Donahue Sara B
Pinedo Doug M
Silva Justin G
Rebeck Zachary C
Casey Emma
Reyes James G
Beilman James A
Parsons Jonathan D
Hannigan Erin C
Figueroa Julian A
Albanese Thomas S
Smith Christina N
Mcdonald Alanna L
Burpee Krystal M
Mcclelland Sarah R
Letcher Mackenzie
Bryson Justin W
Cahill Matthew B
Blood Dominique A
Edwards Nailani T
Doty Ashley D
Smith Andrew J
Ramirez Nicholas J
Alvarez Stephanie J
Ehlert Daniel J
Robeson Aaron M
Decker Tabitha L
Valenzuela Antonio D
Gonzalez soto Jose A
Goff Scott T
Mcintosh Joshua T
Bentley Ryan A
Ruiz Sabastian
Martinez Christopher R
Brown Kristen
Morrison Alyssa R
Stewart Chelsea A
Taylor Brandon L
Christensen Matthew T
Jackson Courtney S
Davis Jason X
Robson Travis D
Cortes matise Cynthia E
WCPM
Fifth Grade Reading
250
200
150
100
50
3rd Grade Mult 0-9 Spring
Guided Practice
Fourth Grade
• Reading Level:
• Math Skill 1:
• Math Skill 2:
Questions
• Is there a classwide problem?
• Is there a gradewide problem?
• What’s the most efficient way to deliver
intervention?
What Data do you Want for
Principal?
Questions
• Is there a classwide problem?
• Is there a gradewide problem?
• What’s the most efficient way to deliver
intervention?
Independent Practice
First Grade Reading
• What do you want to know?
– Is there a class-wide problem?
– Is there a grade-wide or systemic problem?
– What’s the most efficient way to deliver
intervention? (whole class, small group,
individual)
• What is the next step for Class 1, 2, 3, 4?
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Grade-wide Data
Class 4
Screening tells you
• How is the core instruction working?
• What problems might exist that could be
addressed?
• Most bang-for-the-buck activity
• Next most high-yield activity is classwide
intervention at Tier 2.
Screening Guidelines
• Efforts at Tier 1 pay off with fewer children
needing individual intervention
• 3 times per year, single probe
• Use small team of trained coaches
• Prepare all needed materials in a packet for
each teacher
• Score and return within 1 week on graph
• Use data to generate aimlines, can be used to
set benchmarks
Pass the
AIMS
1
Weeks
12
Any
Curriculum
Area
Academic Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Of longer duration
1-5%
80-90%
5-10%
Students
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
1-5%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Behavioral Systems
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Dave Tilly, 2005
Class-wide Intervention
• Use pair-peered practice (classwide peer
tutoring, PALS)
• Model, Guided Practice, Independent
timed practice with delayed error
correction, reward contingency
Unsupported means….
• Team recommends intervention.
– All materials have to be created from scratch
– Teachers sent to organize class and train
– No one may be an expert to help the teacher
– No or not enough frequent objective data to
collect or interpret
With teacher support
• Consider time, resources, materials
• Remove skill barriers with
– classroom training for students
– classroom coaching for teachers
• Remove implementation barriers after use new steps
– follow-up supportive meetings to problem solve.
– frequent acknowledgment of a teacher’s efforts
Address Common Reasons for Resistance
Time consuming
Can’t Do
Poor
management
prevents
prevents
No teacher
change
prevents
Complex not
yet fluent
Lack of materials
Won’t do
No reinforcement for
teacher behaviors
No child change
Too much work
Select a Few Good Interventions to
Keep it Simple
Classwide
Individual
Math
Flash card
Practice
Cover copy
compare
Cue Cards
Highlighted errors
Reading
Listening Preview
Repeated
Readings
Error Correction
Key Words
Prepare for Training Day
• Locate probes (e.g., worksheet factory, intervention
central, basic skill builders)
• Identify Graphing Program (excel)
• Locate or develop scripts (gosbr.net;
interventioncentral.org)
• Develop quick access to materials for teachers
• Determine integrity monitoring plan
• Identify common time for intervention
• Set start date
 Set a daily routine.
• Time, location of materials,
process for weekly assessment.
 Set a date and time for 30-min training
 Set a date for a later 15-minute first practice
time with teacher
Materials needed
• Computer and software to organize data
• Student data imported. Clerical person to enter data onsite for tier 1 screen only.
• Color printer to print graphs + extra color cartridges
• Probe materials, digital count-down timers
• Intervention protocols, intervention materials (e.g.,
flashcard sets, reading materials)
• Access to copier and some assistance with copying
• Reinforcers for treasure chest (no more than $500 per
school)
• Usually the higher-level reader, reads (models) first.
• Rotating high –level readers helps maintain motivation
How-To Classwide Math
Teacher:
Grade:
Date:
Classwide Intervention: Teaching Math Facts (Use with Flashcards)
This intervention is designed to build math fact fluency and increase accuracy and can be used for
addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division facts.
Teacher Coach Card (conduct these steps every day):
Instruct students to find their math partner and get out flashcards quickly and quietly.
GUIDED PEER PRACTICE
Set timer for 3 minutes and tell students, “Begin practicing.”
When timer rings, tell students, “Stop. Switch flashcards.”
Set timer for 3 minutes and tell students, “Begin practicing.”
When timer rings, tell students, “Stop practicing.”
TIMED INDEPENDENT PRACTICE
Pass out worksheets face-down on students’ desks. Tell students, “Write your name on the back of
your paper. Don’t turn them over until I tell you to.”
Set timer for 2 minutes. Say, “On your mark, get set.” Begin the timer, and say, “Go.”
When the timer rings, tell students, “Hold your papers up in the air so that I can see that you are no
longer working.”
Tell students, “Trade papers with your math partner for scoring. When I call out the answers,
mark the answers ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.”
ERROR CORRECTION
Call out the correct answers. Review answers that several students miss.
Tell students, “Give papers back to their owners now. If you missed problems, write the correct
answer under the problem where your partner wrote it.”
Tell students, “Write your score on your progress chart and pass your papers to the front so I can
pick them up.”
REWARD/MOTIVATION
Shuffle the papers. Randomly draw a paper from the stack. If the score on this randomly selected
paper is higher than the randomly selected score from the day before (or the class median if you have calculated
it), then deliver a classwide reward (e.g., 5 minutes free time).
Teachers: Every Friday, record each student’s score on the Daily Intervention datasheet in the
“intervention” column.
Teacher:
Grade:
Date:
Classwide Math Intervention: Moving Beyond Basic Facts (Use with Practice Sets)
Distribute the correct worksheet to students and tell students to get into their working pairs.
Instruct students to write their names and the date on math sheet.
GUIDED PEER PRACTICE
Students should complete the first row (or as many as possible in 3 minutes) of the worksheet with help
from their math buddy.
Tell students to switch roles. Now, the other student should complete the second row of problems (or as
many as possible in 3 minutes) with help from their math buddy.
*** The goal is for students to work as quickly as possible completing as many problems as possible in the
short amount of time with 100% accuracy. If one student is stronger than another, then you will have to monitor
to make sure that the stronger student does not simply supply the answer but explains how to get the answer
when that student is acting as the “coach” or “tutor.”
INDEPENDENT TIMED PRACTICE
Set timer for 2 minutes.
Work problems below the practice line for 2 minutes.
When timer rings, tell students to stop working.
ERROR CORRECTION
Have students trade papers and score.
Provide a mini-lesson/review when the same kind of error is made by many students.
Have students count the number of digits correct at the top of the page.
Write the correct answer for the problems you missed.
REWARD/MOTIVATION
Shuffle the papers. Randomly draw a paper from the stack. If the score on this randomly selected
paper is higher than the randomly selected score from the day before (or the class median if you have calculated
it), then deliver a classwide reward (e.g., 5 minutes free time).
Teachers: Each Friday, record student’s scores on the Daily Intervention Datasheet in the “Intervention
Column.”
Intervention Plan- 15 Min per Day
• Protocol-based classwide peer tutoring,
randomized integrity checks by direct
observation
• Model, Guide Practice, Independent Timed
Practice with delayed error correction
• Group performance contingency
• Teachers encouraged to
– Scan papers for high error rates
– Do 5-min re-teach for those with high-error rates
– Provide applied practice using mastery-level
computational skill
Measurement Plan
• Weekly probe of Intervention skill
• Weekly probe of Retention of previously
mastered computational skills
• Monthly probe using GOM approach to
monitor progress toward year-end
computational goals
• To this you might add an application
measure
Sample Sequence
3RD GRADE
1. addition and subtraction facts 0-20
2. fact families addition and subtraction 0-20
3. 3 digit addition without and with regrouping
4. 3 digit subtraction without and with regrouping
5. 2 and 3 digit addition and subtraction
6.
7.
8.
9.
with and without regrouping
multiplication facts 0-9
division facts 0-9
fact families multiplication and division 0-9
add/subtract fractions with like denominators
flash cards
practice set – same as skill
practice set – same as skill
practice set – same as skill
practice set – same as skill
flash cards
flash cards
practice set – same as skill
practice set – same as skill
(3rds, 4ths, 8ths, 10ths, no regrouping)
10. single digit multiplied by double/triple digit
practice set – same as skill
without regrouping
11. single digit multiplied by double/triple digit
practice set – same as skill
with regrouping
12. single digit divided into double/triple digit
without remainders
13. add and subtract decimals to the hundredths
practice set – same as skill
practice set – same as skill
Intervention Plan
• Class Median reaches mastery range for
skill, next skill is introduced
• Following promising results at one site in
2002-2003, lead to implementation districtwide grades 1-8 for all children by 20042005.
Instructional Hierarchy
Finally, problem-solving/ application
practice should occur here with a
mastery level skill– Core InstructionNot Manipulated but could be
Generalization
Fluency
Acquisition
But fluency building should
happen here with an
instructional level skill–
Intervention Focus was here
To gain the steepest growth,
introduction of new skills
should happen here– Core
Instruction- Not manipulated
Class-wide Math Intervention
• ..\..\Math Assessment 04_05\Skill
Sequence 04-05.doc
• ..\..\Math Assessment 04_05\Data\FINAL
04--05\Cottonwood 5-27.xls
Rationale
Provided teacher/student a script that tells….
what the student has to do and when
what the teacher should do to support student
how the student will know how he/she is doing
Treatment considerations for integrity issues
 All steps are clearly needed
Includes lots of student response opportunities
Disrupts class as little as possible
Requires little teacher time ( < 15 min/day)
Considers resources to decrease teacher effort
Used simple language
All the materials are available
Trainer
1.Observe the teacher using the steps
on the intervention script
2. Check off steps used.
3. Prompt the teacher to do any missed step .
4. Problem Solve any noted “blockers”
5. Continue until accurately implemented without
prompts
Why verbal and modeling training alone do not work:
No instructions when
problems arise
In adequate
classroom
management
prevents
Low
implementation
Non-specific
steps
prevents
Lack of practice
with feedback
Low frequencies
Inadequate
materials
Lack of reinforcement
For teacher behaviors
Not enough child
assistance for bx
change
Math Partners Progress Chart
•Count every digit that is not circled. This is your score!
•Write your score on your math sheet.
•Find today’s date on this page and write your score on the line.
• Put a Star on the graph to mark today’s score.
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Example
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Weekly Progress Monitoring
• Administer classwide math worksheet
– Target skill once per week
– Criterion skills periodically to monitor growth
• Use incentives to maximize performance
• Apply decision rules
Progress Review
• Review folders to ensure that intervention
was used correctly for at least 4 days that
week
• If this is not the case, conduct another inclass training day.
• Graph weekly progress monitoring
assessment data
Decision making
• Review data to make decisions:
DATA OUTCOME 1: Class median is below
mastery range and most students gaining
digits correct per week.
ACTION: Consider implementing intervention
for an additional week and then review
progress again.
Decision making
DATA OUTCOME 2: Class median is below
mastery range and most students are not
gaining digits correct per week:
ACTION: Check Integrity first and address with
training if needed. Consider implementing
intervention for an additional week with
incentives or easier task and then review
progress again.
Decision making
DATA OUTCOME 3: If the class median is
above mastery range then consider:
ACTION: Increasing task difficulty and continuing
classwide intervention.
ACTION: For students performing in the frustration
range, consider Tier 3 assessment and intervention.
Training Package
Tell
Rational
Step by step protocol
Show
Model
Do
Train students
Implement with guided practice
Implement independently with support
> 80% of interventions are not used
without support
Troubleshoot Intervention Support Yes No
Was the intervention developed to ensure that it
required minimal classroom time and resources and
fit within daily classroom routines?
Are materials readily available to the teacher?
Was a step-by-step “coach card” provided?
Was the teacher shown how to implement the
intervention by a “coach?”
Did the coach observe implementation of the
intervention to ensure that the teacher could use the
intervention correctly and had all needed materials?
Was weekly follow-up support provided to the
teacher after initial training?
Are integrity data graphed to show used correctly?
Is an administrator involved?
Results
Tier 1 Screening Indicates Classwide Problem
Digits Correct Two Minutes
0
11/18/2003
11/14/2003
11/7/2003
10/31/2003
10/24/2003
Tier 2: Class-wide Intervention
Teacher F Mult 0-12
120
100
80
60
40
20
Weeks
Increased Difficulty- Intervention
Continues
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
1/23/2004
1/15/2004
1/8/2004
12/18/2003
12/5/2003
0
11/21/2003
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Teacher F Div 0-12
Weeks
Contextually-Relevant Comparisons
and Use of Trend Data
Mary
120
Chiquita
Classwide Intervention
Baseline
Randy
Correct Initial Sounds per Minute
Sandy
100
Brandy
Colvin
Jolisha
80
Daleesha
Kiera
60
Bradley
Alfred
40
Sienna
Jarian
20
Trey
Robert
0
Andrea
1
2
3
Weeks
4
5
Ashley
Jaren
5th Grade Math Intervention
Mr. Ezell CW Math Fact Families
79
5/31/2006
Median
5/30/2006
61
66.5 65.5
5/25/2006
49.5
5/24/2006
100
80
60
40
20
0
5/23/2006
Digits Correct in 2
Minutes
Mastery = >80 dc2m
Session Date
Ambrose Intervention Progress
DC2M
mult 0-12
div 0-12
fact fam 0-12
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
4
6
8
9
Week
11
0
Breaux Aisha S
Chapdelain Lily M
Robb Sydney M
Mangione Nikole M
White Bailey V
Ramey Sara B
Littsen Lucas R
Foxhoven Shane A
Gonzales Audryana
Foley Thomas J
Hermes Jay M
Thueson Lila D
Svob Seth H
Salsbury Mariah A
Wills Donna D
Blakeley Brandee E
Kellogg Anthony S
Negrete Sara M
Ashton Julia E
Dailey Brandon L
Showers Phillip J
Counes James G
Hilkemeyer Austin R
Howe Ashley B
Strider Katie N
Santa cruz Daniel R
Gallego Angela M
Lewandowski
Sisk Cody A
Forsyth Ian E
Blake Nicholas K
Hatch Vanessa L
Machain Anthony F
Peterson Tyler L
White Alexa L
Nutbrown Jordan C
Bluemke Megan J
Casamasa Gregory L
Roche Alyssa R
Elias Elizabeth L
Beeston Kristine D
Lopez Theresa A
Pierce Shannon M
Lanier Matthew W
Nanna Caitlin N
Smith Shelby N
Iturralde Jacqueline R
Mcharg Jordan E
Brechbiel Shari L
Cota Alexia K
Jackson Damion M
Lamadrid Leonardo
Oliver Riley W
Layton Marissa M
Mueller Lane E
Turner Alana K
Rowlan Paige E
Dumes Scott M
Riordan Timothy D
Hicks Coltin C
Kenton Chelsee M
Cornwell Kimberly M
Crater Shelbie M
Rytting Ryan C
French Joshua M
Davila Ariel N
Thompson Tasha N
Ryckman Shelby L
Ayers Megan L
Dunham Clayton J
Mausert James R
Morales Eric A
Bain Bryce G
Gryczkowski samluk
Cuff Matthew J
Hackman Lindsey S
Whitlock John C
Benson Brad J
Stanfield Benjamin C
Martinez Nathaniel P
Carrizosa Robert A
Webb Brianna J
Evans Joseph B
Laye Lestot D
Bazzanella Stephen L
Crowl Robert S
Thompson Krysta E
Tipton Emily N
Meyer Sean M
Couture Anne S
Gibbons Cody D
Fuhrman Autum C
Nolen Jayd L
Drake Justin T
Neale Shaine R
Purcell John E
Rugotska Colton J
Bong Samantha L
Johnson Amanda L
Rodriguez Ryan T
Bergstrom Matthew A
Pannell Marina S
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Pre-post changes to performance
detected by CBM
4th Grade Math
Multiplication 0-9
120
100
80
60
Instructional range
40
20
Frustrational range
Each bar is a student’s performance
0
Neale
Frost Joshua
Franklin
Ryckman
Turner Alana
Ayers
Smith
Montano
Kenton
Banken
Mausert
White Alexa
Brechbiel
Hatch
Meyer Sean
Santa cruz
Oliver Riley
Cornwell
Wills Donna
Bluemke
Williams
Cuff Matthew
Nanna
Hilkemeyer
Robb
Gryczkowski
Gonzales
Mangione
Foxhoven
Layton
Negrete
Tipton Emily
Gavino
Lamb Nicole
Chapdelain
Roche
Digits Correct Two Minutes
Fourth Grade
Fourth Grade Multiplication 0-9
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Effect on SAT-9 Performance
SAT-9 Standard Scores and t-test Results for Pre- and Post-Implementation Years by Grade
2001-2002
Grade
n
Third
85
Fourth
2002-2003
M
t
SD
n
M
SD
562.06
143.80
129
602.54
35.20
3.07**
116
611.09
120.61
117
638.22
33.39
2.35*
Fifth
113
636.73
109.86
107
659.17
35.77
2.01*
Total
314
607.04
126.83
353
631.53
41.93
3.42**
* p < .05
** p < .01
Cohen’s d (effect size between years)
Third .45
Fourth .35
Fifth
.31
Total .29
Effect on CBM Scores
Mean Digits Correct/2 Minutes Scores for Monthly Mathematics Probes
January
February
March
Grade
M
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F
Third
27.9
9.9
37.9
13.4
35.3
13.0
38.8
12.3
13.45*
Fourth
39.7
17.6
50.1
22.0
53.4
25.3
58.9
27.0
35.02*
Fifth
47.6
22.9
50.8
22.7
52.0
24.8
59.3
25.1
25.52*
Total
41.1
20.5
48.0
21.5
49.2
24.0
55.1
25.1
64.29*
SD
* p < .001
Cohen’s d (effect size between January and April scores)
Third .97
Fourth .86
Fifth
.49
April
Computation Gains Generalized to
High Stakes Test
Improvements
(Gains within Multiple Baseline
shown as pre-post data)
Percent of Students Passing HighStakes Mathematics
3rd Grade Math Performance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
School 1
School 2
School 3
School 4
School 5
Gains within Multiple Baseline
(shown as pre-post data)
Percent of Students Passing HighStakes Mathematics
5th Grade Math Performance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
School 1
School 2
School 3
School 4
School 5
Additional Research Questions
• What level of performance predicted
strongest subsequent growth given
intervention?
• What level of performance predicted skill
would be retained about 3 months after it
was taught?
• Did mastery of foundation skills shorten
the number of trials required to master
more complex related skills?
What level of performance
predicted strongest subsequent
growth given intervention?
• Across 4 weeks of intervention (4 datapoints)
OLS used to estimate slope
• Children achieving slopes equal to or greater
than the 66th percentile were identified as strong
responders
• Starting fluency (prior to intervention) was
identified for the group of strong responders and
range was estimated as average starting fluency
+/- 1 standard deviation
• Tested new criterion on second set of scores
Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006
New Range
2nd-3rd
Digits Reliabilit Validity Frus Inst
Correc y
(rho)
t/Min (tau)
14-31 .35
.08
22% 70%
4th-5th 24-49 .63
2nd3rd
4th-
.50
Mast
8%
22% 67% 11%
1.77 2.01
1.55
1.16 1.44
1.25
General Findings
• Growth rates and trials to criterion varied
dramatically across skills
• Retention probe was strongest predictor of yearend SAT-9 performance
• Mastery level performance on early skills
predicted fewer trials to criterion on future
related complex skills
• Fluency scores higher than “mastery” predicted
retention of skill over time (about +20 dc/min)
VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2008;
VanDerHeyden & Burns, in submission
Identification Accuracy
CBA + RTI Criterion
STEEP
WJ-R
Sensitivity
.76
1
.58
Specificity
.89
.99
.77
Positive Predictive Power
.59
.67
.44
.95
1
.86
Sensitivity
.46
.33
.42
Specificity
.69
.94
.85
Positive Predictive Power
.19
.17
.45
.89
.97
.83
Negative Predictive Power
Teacher Referral
ITBS
Negative Predictive Power
VanDerHeyden, et al., 2003
Percent Identified at each Tier
Identified
CBM (Classwide Assessment)
55 (15%)
CBM + Reward (Performance/skill Deficit Assessment)
40 (11%)
CBM + Reward + Instruction
(STEEP +)
22 (6%)
Teacher Referral
32 (19%)
CIBS-R
64 (18%)
DRA
17 (9%)
RTI Criterion Assessment
17 (5%)
WJ-R
ITBS deficit
12
3 (4%)
VanDerHeyden, et al., 2003
Any
Curriculum
Area
Academic Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Of longer duration
1-5%
80-90%
5-10%
Students
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
1-5%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Behavioral Systems
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Dave Tilly, 2005
To work smart, we must ask
• What is the purpose of our assessment?
• How do we know it serves our purpose?
• Is this the cheapest way to do it?
Our Goal
• Collect the best information in the shortest
possible period of time
Tier 3
• Assessment Data
– Instructional level performance
– Error analysis (high errors, low errors, pattern)
– Effect of incentives, practice, easier task
– Verify intervention effect
• Same implementation support as Tier 2
• Instructional-level materials; Criterion-level
materials
Tier 3
• Implement for 5-15 consecutive sessions
with 100% integrity
• Link to referral decision
• Weekly graphs to teacher and weekly
generalization probes outside of
classroom, supply new materials
• Troubleshoot implementation weekly
Strategy in a Nutshell
• Identify the goal (DV’s)
– Behavior to increase (fluency,
comprehension)
– Behavior to decrease (errors)
• Match the strategy to the goal (Daly et
al., 1996)
• Monitor the DV’s and the IV’s
(intervention variables)
• Find instructional level (sampling back)
• Identify the “root” of the problem (e.g.,
division is difficult because subtraction is
not fluent or multiplication is not fluent;
poor decoding skills v. dolce words;
production v. accuracy in writing)
• This is the most important part of the
process
Define the Behaviors/skills
Pronounce
beginning
word sounds
Fluent Letter
Sound
Production
Accurate Letter
Sound Production
Association of
Letters with
phonemes
Fluent Letter Naming
Accurate Letter Naming
Other Sample Hierarchies
• Reading 5th Grade, 2nd Semester
–
–
–
–
Reading 5th grade, 1st semester
Reading 4th grade, 2nd semester
Reading 4th grade, 1st semester
Reading 3rd grade, 2nd semester
• Math 2nd Grade
– Subtraction 0-9
– Addition 0-18
– Addition 0-9
Identify Reinforcers and Logical
Consequences
– Use a treasure chest
– Use an activity survey or reinforcer
checklist
– Use incidental teaching strategy
– Use logical or natural consequences
Number of Letters Named per Minute
Measure Baseline Performance and
Set Goals
Baseline
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
aimline
goal
1
2
3
13
sessions
This is the Instructional Hierarchy
Generalization
Fluency
Acquisition
Finally, problem-solving/
application practice should
occur here with a mastery level
skill
But fluency building
should happen here with an
instructional level skill
To gain the steepest
growth, introduction of
new skills should happen
here
Digits Correct Per Two Minutes
Functional Assessment
70
60
50
40
BL
30
With Incentives
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
6
7
Sessions
What is an effective intervention?
Functional Assessment
Digits Correct Per Two Minutes
70
60
50
40
BL
30
With Incentives
Peer Tutoring
20
10
0
1
3
4
6
7
8
10
Sessions
Digits Correct Per Two Minutes
Functional Assessment
70
BL
Intervention
Performance Feedback
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
4
6
8
10
11
13
Sessions
Troubleshooting Intervention
Effects at Tier 3
Teachers must weigh the following
• What outcomes does not • What outcomes does
completing work
completing work
produce?
produce?
– Escape from assignment,
from classroom setting
– Peer attention
– Adult attention (even if it is
negative). Some students
are so motivated to obtain
adult attention that it does
not matter if the attention is
negative or positive.
– Positive feedback from
the teacher
– Positive attention from
peers, status
– Access to fun activities
or reinforcement
– Avoidance of punitive
consequences
Antecedent Variables
•
•
•
•
Task Difficulty, Sequencing of Skills
Time actively engaged in learning (AET)
Opportunities to respond
Other lesson variables (pacing,
exemplars)
• Behaviors interfering with instruction
(teacher and child)
Task Difficulty, Sequencing
• Sample back measuring fluency of
performance on basic skills
• The idea is to identify the weak point in the
chain
• Define the target skill for intervention and
the criterion skill (goal)
Academic Engaged Time
• Impacts opportunities to respond
• Robust predictor of achievement
• Average 2nd grader (Rosenshine) spent
less than 1 hour AET per day.
• Check transitions, classroom
management, time allocated for
independent practice, active
monitoring/scanning
Other Lesson Variables
• Presentation of materials and Sequencing
of Lesson
– Organized
– Clear, redundant examples
• Exemplars sufficient
– S+ and S-
• Checking for student understanding
• Pacing of lesson
Behaviors Interfering with
Instruction/Intervention
• Teacher behaviors
– Implementation accuracy and consistency
• Fuchs & Fuchs, 1987; Gresham, 1991; Happe, 1982;
Wickstrom, Jones, LaFleur, & Witt, 1998
– Teacher understanding/adequately trained
• Train to fluency criterion (Chandler, Lubeck, & Fowler, 1992)
– Teacher acceptability of intervention (prospective,
ongoing, link to changes)
– Adequate resources to conduct intervention
Behaviors Interfering with
Instruction
• Child behaviors
– Disruptive or inattentive behaviors
– Concurrent options available (access to
reinforcing outcomes by not completing
intervention)
– Consider can’t do/won’t do (although
programming for motivation is important
anyway)
Consequences
• Reinforcing consequences (for correct and
incorrect performance)
– Escaping task
– Extra attention (staying in at recess may be reinforcing)
• Feedback
– Frequency
– Immediacy
– Accuracy
• Correct error immediately, have student repeat response
correctly, match response to instructional situation & learner
(Heubusch & Lloyd, 1998)
Tier 3 Intervention
• >5% of children screened (total
population) IF solid Tier 1
• Possibly as low as 2% IF solid Tier 1 and
Tier 2
• About 1-2% failed RTI; 10% of most at-risk
VanDerHeyden et al., 2007
Tier 3 Findings
• Most interventions for reading
• Math is next
• Math is at least two-dimensional--computational and operational fluency plus
application or conceptual understanding
• Most interventions are not implemented well and
that’s why they fail
• Tier 3 interventions are likely to occur on below
grade level tasks AND require acquisition-type
instruction (discrimination training to establish
accurate responding)
Successful Math Intervention
DCP2M
Destiny Knott's Math Interv ention Progress
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
daily practice
inst. lev el gen.
criterion gen.
Session
Unsuccessful Math Intervention
Math Intervention
digits correct two minutes
BL
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Intervention
sums to 7
sums to 5
1
2 3 4 5 6 7
generalization
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
sessions
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
# weeks per skill
3 dig + with and without
RG
3 dig - with and without
RG
2 dig - with RG
2 dig - without RG
2 dig + with RG
2 dig + without RG
FF 0-20
+/- 0-20
59% Integ
- 0-20
- 0-15
- 0-12
- 0-9
+ 0-20
Integrity Matters
96% Integrity
Teacher 1 M = 78%
Teacher 2 M =100%
11/2/04
11/1/04
10/31/04
10/30/04
10/29/04
10/28/04
10/27/04
10/26/04
10/25/04
10/24/04
10/23/04
10/22/04
10/21/04
10/20/04
10/19/04
10/18/04
number words read correctly in
one minute
Integrity Matters
Jeletta's Reading Intervention
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Integrity Matters
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
morning
meeting
DOL
group
transition
(line up)
percent of compliance
rewarded
percent demands complied
with
Inte rve ntion Progre s s
Integrity
• Untreated integrity problems become student
learning deficits, schoolwide learning problems,
and false positive decision errors
• Integ problems affect dose and quality of the
treatment (an intervention implemented with
fidelity is a functionally different intervention than
one implemented inconsistently
• Integ positively correlated with student learning
gains, amount of intervention covered
• Even veteran sites require monitoring and
follow-up
Tips for Effective
Implementation
Our Recipe for Intervention
Success
PREPARATION
• Identify and Use standard protocols for
intervention
• Develop all needed materials
• Develop packets or put on a central web site
• Determine graphing program
Our Recipe for Intervention
Success
TRAIN
Explain
Watch the teacher do it with the actual child before
you leave
Call or meet teacher after first day to problem
solve
Our Recipe for Intervention
Success
DATA COLLECTION AND SUPPORT
• Each week, graph intervention performance and do
a generalization check with the child.
• Graphed feedback to teachers with generalization
checks for individual intervention once per week
• Response-dependent performance feedback to
sustain implementation accuracy
• Monthly CBM to track growth and enhance existing
Tier 1 Programs or advise new Tier 1
• Data to principal weekly. Summarize effects and
integrity of procedures.
Our Recipe for Intervention
Success
DATA DECISION -MAKING
• RTI successful if child performs criterion-level probe
(from screening) in the instructional range. RTI
unsuccessful if 15 consecutive intervention sessions and
criterion probe is not in the instructional range.
• Increase task difficulty for intervention if child scores at
mastery on task during intervention sessions
Guidelines for Implementers
• Use single trial scores for screening
• Following screening, grade-wide graphs to
principal
• Return data to teachers within 48 hours with
personal interpretation at grade-level team
meeting
• Include principal in critical meetings
• Involve teachers at all stages
Guidelines for Implementers
• Learn about curriculum and instruction.
• Integrate RTI with ongoing school and system reform
efforts
• Thoughtfully merge to subtract duplicate activities and to
enhance more comprehensive supplemental and core
instructional support activities that may be in place
• Use RTI data to evaluate the value of ALL instructional
programs or resource allocation decisions. Quantify
bang for the buck using student performance data.
Infrastructure for Implementation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Grade-level planning periods can be utilized
Special education “team” at school can be utilized
School Psych must be on-site 1 day/week
Developing master schedule for Tier 1, 2, and 3 intervention times is
useful
Integrate efforts with evaluation referral team efforts (consider major
reduction in meeting time and shift to intervention efforts!)
Use existing instructional periods to target student needs more
effectively
See NASDSE blueprint for implementation
Brown-Chidsey book coming from Guilford
For More Information
• [email protected]
• www.isteep.com
• Thank you to the US Dept of Education for
providing all film clips shown in this
presentation
Descargar

How To Do Classwide Intervention within RTI