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 • amandavande@gmail.com • 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