interpreting reading data for effective instructional grouping at the middle and high school kim...
TRANSCRIPT
Interpreting Reading Data for Effective Instructional Grouping at
the Middle and High School
Kim Hosford and Moira K. McKennaRTI Specialists/School Psychologists, SOESD
NWPBIS Conference, Corvallis, OregonMarch 8, 2010
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
1-5% 1-5%
5-10% 5-10%
80-90% 80-90%
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive
Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success
3
EBISSEBISSEffective Behavioral and Instructional Support Systems
1-5% 1-5%
5-10% 5-10%
80-90% 80-90%
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Small Group/Individual students •Assessment-based•High Intensity
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (some risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response
Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive
Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
Academic Systems Behavioral Systems
Academic & Behavior Support: Inter-related Domains
Illiteracy linked to increased rates of high school drop out
Outcomes◦ 80% employed in labor force with a bachelor’s degree ◦ 65% employed with high school degree ◦ 43% of high school drop outs who are 25 yrs and older
(1998)
Low levels of literacy and high levels of violence – interwoven issues
Academic & Behavior Support
• Integrated Systems of prevention and remediation (Walker & Shinn, 2002)
• Requires changing norms and expectations around aggressive behavior and how we relate to each other interpersonally
Academic & Behavior Support
Address known risk factors associated with future violence, and build upon known protective factors by targeting and intervening early, prior to patterns of antisocial behavior becoming established (Eddy, Reid,& Curry, 2002)
“Zero-Tolerance” policies doomed to failure◦ At best, maintains status-quo (Walker & Shinn, 2002)
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Definition and Evidence-Base
• CBM is a brief, standardized assessment that documents student achievement through a systematic sampling of skills that represent the annual curriculum (Fuchs, 2004; Shinn, 2002, 1998, 1989; Deno, 1986)
• Alternate passages are of equivalent difficulty, whereby each measure is represented by the same level of complexity, gaining an accurate measure of student growth
• Growth is measured by Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring
Types of CBM • General Outcome Measures (GOM)– application of skill to independent task – leveled passages that can be used for progress
monitoring• Skills-Based Measures (SBM)– leveled measures that assess proficiency on a specific
set of skills that students are expected to perform per grade-level standards
– Most commonly seen in mathematics/mixed math computation
• Mastery Measures (MM)– Focuses on student attainment of finite skills– not appropriate for progress monitoring
Utility of CBMs
• Screening Decisions– identify which students may need instructional
support• Progress Monitoring Decisions– decide when to modify instruction, teach new skills,
and/or revise goals• Diagnostic Decisions– to target specific skill(s) for support
• Outcome Decisions– to modify instruction, change intervention, or
reintegrate back into general education support
CBM as Convergent Data
• Technically reliable and valid GOMs and SBMs will be used for Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring of student performance
• MM will be used to determine if a student is able to present skills taught in a lesson or unit
• Student performance measures from these, and other relevant sources of information, will be used to determine student growth as aligned with standards
Jumping into Data CollectionEasiest– Obtain AIMSweb Maze or other Maze
comprehension screener– Distribute to all teachers who teach 1st period– Principal directs the assessment during the first 10
minutes of 1st period• Tell students to put materials away and get out a pencil• Tell teachers to pass out Maze face down• Tell students to turn to the first page and walk through
example• Read standardized prompt and complete Maze• Teachers collect papers
Maze Scoring OptionsOption 1
Each teacher scores the class they administeredOption 2
A group of teachers is paid to stay after school to scoreOption 3
EA’s scoreOption 4
Language Arts teachers score during prepOther Options
Anything that works for your building
After Maze is ScoredThe data needs to be entered into a data
management system– The most likely person for this task is someone
familiar with entering data– If you have AIMSweb, familiarity with this system
is helpful– If you are going to use an Excel spreadsheet,
familiarity with Excel is helpful– Data must be entered accurately or you could
incorrectly identify students
Sorting Maze Data
We recommend– All students earning a score of 15 or lower on
AIMSweb should be assessed with ORF– Current scores for Maze 25th percentile in
Fall/Winter/Spring from AIMSweb for grades 6-12 are as follows:
FALL WINTER SPRING6th 14 19 197th 15 17 20
Maze norms continuedFALL WINTER SPRING
8TH 16 15 199TH 15 14 1810TH 15 12 1711TH 15 13 1812TH 16 13 13
Given that fewer and fewer students in grades 10-12 are included in the data set, a score of 15 is relatively stable and should indicate those in need of further attention.
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)• In order to add greater clarity and confidence for
instructional grouping, ORF needs to be administered for students who perform below the 25th percentile
• Options for administering ORF to those identified– Obtain class lists and call students out of their
Language Arts period one-by-one– Organize a group trained to administer ORF, set them
up in a single location, and flood with students– The fewer individuals administering, the more likely
your results will be accurate
Data Review• DATA TEAM– Principal, School Psychologist, Language Arts, Special
Education, ELL, Reading Specialist or Coach• Sort Data– Calculate accuracy (# words read correctly ÷ total #
words read = % accuracy)– If accuracy at or above 97%, problem is most likely
fluency, consider programs like • Six Minute Solution – through gr. 9, 6 minutes of
instruction; primary, intermediate, secondary levels• Great Leaps – all grades; 10-15 minutes of instruction• Read Naturally – all grades; 3-30 minute sessions/wk• See fcrr.org for other programs to address fluency
Data Review… Continued • If accuracy between 95-97% look for error patterns,
if sight word substitutions or omissions, consider re-administering ORF with a pep talk; if student reads with acceptable accuracy, consider fluency intervention
• If primarily multisyllabic word problem, student has mastered 2nd grade phonics skills; teach syllabication and/or use a program that targets multi-syllabic words such as REWARDS Secondary (grades 6-12)• Particularly in middle school, it may be very
relevant to teach skills of syllabication to all students in Language Arts classes
Data Review & Instructional Grouping• If patterns undetectable, administer a phonics
screener and target error correction through instruction and practice
• May require a phonics program, such as: • Phonics for Reading• 40-50 minutes daily or split the lesson over 2 days• Inexpensive in comparison to other programs
• Discover Intensive Phonics for Yourself aka Reading Horizons – computer plus DI
• 30-40 minutes, 3 days/wk minimum on computer; 1-6 stations. $999, 7-14 stations approx. $899
• www.phonicstraining.com for program demo
Data Review…Continued
• If accuracy between 92-95% administer phonics screener and sort students by instructional need; more explicit programming is likely to be required
• It is unlikely that students below 92% accuracy understand what is being read due to lack of decoding skills
• These students are also likely to have language needs, specifically vocabulary deficits
Data Review & Instructional Grouping
• For these students, a robust reading program is recommended, such as:
• Corrective Reading Decoding and Comprehension– Research employing experimental design found
significantly positive gains in word reading and fluency (Decoding), reading comprehension scores and demonstration of comprehension skills (Comprehension)
– Small group (15 or less), 45-55 minutes, daily• Language!– Two daily lessons that total 90 minutes– Whole-class, center-based program with flexible grouping
and small group instruction provided by teacher
Logistics for Intervention Delivery• With schedules, timing is an important and substantial
consideration • Once programming for skill instruction is aligned, the
following questions will want to have already been answered:– Intervention curricula and programs are in-house– Teacher for intervention and progress monitor is
identified– Schedule for data review by the data team is in place– If not completed in the spring, an approach to
changing student schedules is defined
Strengthening Core Classes• Expectations for instruction across content areas • Vocabulary– Specific word instruction embedded in lessons with
multiple opportunities to use language in context– Word learning instruction for words encountered in
text• Comprehension– What strategies do we expect students to know and
perform, and at what grade-level?– Alignment of when strategies are taught, at what grade
level and at what time of year – Use of strategies embedded in lesson plans and
explicitly referenced
Instructional Grouping Take Home Points
• Use instructional recommendations as a guide; do not go by instructional recommendation alone
• Look more closely at the data and specific skill areas of deficit and proficiency; be discerning
• Leave meetings with a plan that addresses the needs of all students
• Think creatively, outside of the box
• Identify the smallest change that can be made to make the biggest impact in student performance
ResourcesCenter on Teaching and Learning
Improving Adolescent Literacy-Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices, US Dept. of Ed. Institute of Educational Sciences Recommendations
http://ctl.uoregon.edu/pd/cf09/strands/adolescent_literacy
Topics: Explicit vocabulary instructionExplicit comprehension strategy instructionStudent motivation and engagement in literacy
learningIndividualized interventions for struggling
readers
Thank you for supporting student literacy!