intervention selection and implementation nebraska department of education response-to-intervention...

Intervention Selection and Implementation

Nebraska Department of Education Response-to-Intervention Consortium

Overview

• Scientifically valid practice

• Before intervention selection

• Approaches to intervention selection• Standard Protocol

• Problem-solving

• Support for Interventions

• Useful resources

Introduction• National Association of State Directors of

Special Education (NASDSE) definition of Response to Intervention (RtI) consists of three essential components:• “ RtI is the practice of

(1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and

(2)using learning rate over time and level of performance to

(3)make important educational decisions.”

Batsche, Elliot, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Schrag, & Tilly (2005)

Introduction

• “High-quality instruction/intervention is defined as instruction or intervention, • matched to student need,

• that has been demonstrated through scientific research and practice to produce high learning rates for most students.”


Scientifically Valid Practice• What is “scientifically based”?

• Programs and procedures that have been thoroughly and systematically examined in an unbiased way and demonstrate valid outcomes

1. Use of rigorous, systematic and empirical methods

2. Adequacy of the data analyses

3. Reliance on measurements that provided valid data across observers and across observations

4. Acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or a group of independent experts through a thorough, unbiased and empirical review

Taken from commentary section of federal regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act §300.35

Scientifically Valid Practice1. Use of rigorous, systematic and empirical

methods• Is it based on legitimate theory or research?

• Did design control for bias and inaccurate claims of effectiveness?

• Does the research explicitly report the investigators, participants and methods?

Scientifically Valid Practice2. Adequacy of the data analyses

• Does the design used in the research prevent other possible explanations for obtained results?

• Are the actual results consistent with the conclusions about the intervention’s effectiveness?

• Are the populations studied clearly identified to determine the populations to whom the results can be generalized (i.e., does it describe the participants’ ages, demographics, and cognitive, academic and behavioral characteristics)?

• Are the measures used to obtain the results thoroughly described?

Scientifically Valid Practice3. Reliance on measurements that provided valid

data across observers and across observations• Are the data obtained by multiple observers from

multiple locations? • Were there methods to control for observer bias?

• Are the interventions reported in enough detail to permit replication?

• Was instructional fidelity measured and reported?

Scientifically Valid Practice4. Acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or a group of

independent experts through a thorough, unbiased and empirical review

• Was the research reviewed by unbiased professionals?

• Were the methods and results examined and verified by external sources?

• The What Works Clearinghouse (http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/) provides a guide for locating credible and reliable scientifically-based interventions

• Strong curriculum

• Strong instruction

• What is happening in the class for the student at risk?

Where to Start: Before Selecting an Intervention

• Effective, scientifically-based curriculum

• A Consumer’s Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program Grades K-3: A Critical Elements Analysis• Provided by the Institute for the Development of

Educational Achievement College of Education, University of Oregon

• http://reading.uoregon.edu/

• Evidence of Program Efficacy

• Guided Critical Elements Analysis


• Four effective instructional elements supported by research

1. High academic engagement

2. Strong academic focus and clarity in content coverage

3. Moderate-to-high rates of academic success

4. Performance monitoring and informative teacher feedback


Gettinger & Stoiber (1999) Phillips, Fuchs, & Fuchs, & Hamlett (1996)

Effective Instruction1. High academic engagement

• Does the teacher frequently move around the room to monitor student performance and demonstrate attentiveness to student behavior and progress?

• Does the teacher minimize the amount of time spent in non-instructional activities (i.e., transitions, organizing materials for lessons)?

• Does the teacher use instructional materials that are the appropriate difficulty level?

• Does the teacher utilize diverse learning activities and instructional formats (i.e., whole group, small group)?

• Does the teacher utilize classroom management strategies to prevent disruptive behaviors?

Gettinger & Stoiber (1999)

Effective Instruction2. Strong academic focus and clarity in content coverage

• Academic focus

• Systematic, goal-oriented activities

• Lessons and content related to attaining specific learning goals

• Ready access to a variety of teaching materials

• Clarity

• Is the academic content well organized (e.g., explanations provided in a step-by-step fashion and illustrated through examples and applications)?

• Does the teacher pose questions to gauge and extend comprehension?

• Does the teacher clearly communicate expectations and performance standards?


Effective Instruction3. Moderate-to-high rates of academic success

• Relates to task difficulty level and rates of student success• Do the students understand the academic task well?

• Do the students make few errors in the academic task?


Effective Instruction4. Performance monitoring and corrective feedback

• Feedback about students’ accuracy and how to correct errors

• Students demonstrate higher levels of academic engagement and achievement with frequent performance feedback

• Characteristics of good corrective feedback

• Specific and explicit reference to the standard or objective to be achieved

• Information about accuracy

• Steps to take to correct error in addition to recommendations about practice



What is actually happening in the classroom?

• Are there incentives for the student to do the work?

• Are the incentives to do the work greater than the incentives to do other things?

• Does the teacher reduce unpleasant aspects of the task?

• Is there a clear rationale for why it is important to do the work?

Witt, Daly, & Noell (2000)

5. Are the opportunities to do the work frequent or infrequent?

6. Does the student actually spend enough time doing the work to really learn how to do it?

7. Did someone show the student how to do the work?

8. Did someone prompt the student when he or she was unsure of how to do the work?




9. Were practice opportunities provided?

10.Did someone praise the student and give feedback for correct answers?

11.Did someone correct the student’s errors?

12.Was the activity teaching the student what the teacher wants him or her to learn?

13.Was the task easy enough so the student could learn it?


Approaches for Intervention Selection• Beyond strong curriculum and instruction…

• Two approaches for intervention selection:• Standard Protocol• Problem-solving

• Common elements of both approaches (NASDSE):• Procedural steps are followed sequentially, • Interventions are scientifically-based, • Data are collected frequently• Goals or interventions are changed based on child outcomes,

and • Decisions are made based on outcome data


Standard Protocol Approach• Struggling students are placed in a standard treatment

package or instruction• More structured and intensive than general education instruction

• Centers on the five essential components of reading

• Phoneme awareness,

• Phonics,

• Vocabulary,

• Reading fluency and

• Comprehension

• Small groups of 3-6 children in pull-out fashion

• However, various grouping practices associated with the efficacy of a scientifically-based program are appropriate (i.e., whole class, small group, pairs, etc)

Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/

Standard Protocol Approach Example

Example: Sharon Vaughn’s 3-tier Reading Model: http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/

• Emphasizes ongoing data collection and immediate intervention for students who need it

• Composed of elements based on research proven practices• Systematic and explicit instruction in five critical areas of

effective reading instruction

• 3-Tier Reading Model • Classroom instruction

• Supplemental intervention

• Intensive intervention

Standard Protocol Approach Example

• Classroom instruction: 90 minutes per day• Supplemental intervention

• Specialized, scientifically based reading program emphasizing 5 areas of reading

• Small group (3-5 students)• Minimum of 30 minutes per day in addition to classroom instruction• Progress monitor 2x per week

• Intensive intervention• Students who have not made adequate progress in Supplemental

intervention• Intensive, scientifically based reading program emphasizing 5 areas of

reading• Small group of 3• Minimum of 2 30 minute sessions per day in addition to classroom

instruction• Progress monitor 2x per week

• Students move in an out of the levels as neededVaughn, S. (April, 2005). 3-Tier Reading Model: Using RTI to Reduce Reading Difficulties and Identify Students with Learning Disabilities. Invited address at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.

Intervention Programs• Treatment packages that may be useful

• Oregon Reading First Review of Supplemental and Intervention Reading Programs: http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/

• Headsprout: http://headsprout.com

• Phonemic Awareness in Young Children (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998)

• Ladders to Literacy, Preschool Activity Book (Notari-Syverson, O’Connor, & Vadasy, 1998)

• Ladders to Literacy, Kindergarten Activity Book (O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadasy, 1998)

• Road to the Code: A Phonological Awareness Program for Young Children (Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 2000)

• Phonological Awareness Training for Reading (Torgesen & Bryant, 1994)

• The Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998)

Matching to Student Need Through Problem-Solving Approach

• Focuses on selecting specific instructional strategies matched to student’s needs (rather than a whole treatment package)

• Selection of instructional strategies is based on the students’ individual level of proficiency and motivation

Motivation• The problem may not always be lack of skill

• The student needs sufficient motivation to respond to the instructional demands• For example,

• Chris only finished 25% of his math worksheets correctly until his teacher told him he could have extra computer time for right answers.

• Sandy had poor high frequency word identification skills and was non-compliant when taught using a worksheet; but, she improved significantly when the teacher changed to a flashcard activity with a classmate

Matching to Student Need Through Problem-Solving Approach

• The Instructional Hierarchy• Modeling, prompting, error correction, feedback for every response

• Practice, incentives for improving rate & feedback for performance

•Practice and feedback across items, practicing the skill in the context of other skills, explicitly teaching when and when not to use the skill and assigning practice

Acquisition

Fluency

Generalization

Haring, Lovitt, Eaton, & Hansen (1978)

Generalization Strategies

• Practice and feedback across instructional items• Teach and provide practice reading many different

words with long vowel sounds

• Provide practice and feedback on reading rate in different stories

• Practicing the skill across similar types of instructional items• Reading long- a words and long- e words

• Provide practice and feedback on reading phrases and paragraphs

Generalization Strategies

• Practice using the skill to perform other skills successfully• Have student practice reading high frequency words on

flashcards and in sentences

• Have student practice reading paragraphs fluently and to complete comprehension activities

• Explicitly teaching the student when and when not to use the skill and assigning practice• Have student practice reading long-a words and short-a

words together

Implementing the Intervention• Describe the procedures to follow in a step-by-step plan

• Identify • Who is responsible for implementing the intervention

• When the intervention will be implemented

• How often the intervention will be implemented

• Who is responsible for monitoring the student’s progress as well as whether the intervention is being implemented as it is designed

• Identify a date for evaluation of success

• Monitor• Student progress

• Intervention implementation integrity

• Provide support, feedback and motivation to interventionist

Implementing the Intervention• What makes treatment plans work or fail

• Are the incentives for doing the plan enough?

• Are there incentives to not do the plan?

• Does the person doing the plan think that the plan is worth the effort and likely to work?

• Has the person doing the plan learned how to do it properly?

Implementing the Intervention

• Directly observing implementation• Ask permission to stop by to see how it’s going

• Bring written plan

• Identify steps not being done correctly

• Offer feedback

Implementing the Intervention

1. Present the text to the student and say, “I WILL READ THE STORY ALOUD TO YOU TO HELP YOU LEARN TO READ THE WORDS. PLEASE FOLLOW ALONG WITH YOUR FINGER.”

2. Read the text at a comfortable reading rate while monitoring that the student is following along correctly with his or her finger.

3. Say, “NOW, PLEASE READ THE STORY TO ME FOR 2 MINUTES.” While the student is reading the passage aloud, follow along on the Examiner Copy underline/highlighting errors. If the student hesitates on a word for more than 3 seconds, say the word and underline/highlight it.

4. When the student has finished reading for 2 minutes, show him or her your copy with underlined/highlighted words.

5. Read each error word correctly to the student (model correct reading of the word).

6. Have the student read the phrase/sentence containing the error word aloud three times. [If a sentence contains more than one error word, model correct reading of all error words in sentence first and then have the student read the phrase/sentence three times.]

TOTAL NUMBER OF STEPS COMPLETED:

PERCENTAGE OF STEPS COMPLETED: __ __ __ __ __

Steps for Early Literacy Passage Reading Intervention M T W Th F

• Regardless of the approach taken, interventions must have local validation• Validate effectiveness through individual student outcome

data

• NASDSE: “Selection and implementation of scientifically based instruction/intervention markedly increases the probability of, but does not guarantee, positive individual response. Therefore, individual response is assessed in RtI and the modifications to instruction/intervention or goals are made depending on results with individual students.”

• Need to have a good model for changing an intervention to meet child’s needs• Plotting data and evaluating trends

Local Validation


Case Example

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Classroom Instruction

Classroom + Supplemental Intervention

Classroom + Supplemental Intervention + Extra Practice and Error Correction

Corr

ect

Word

s p

er

min

.

Week

• Matching to student need • Providing scientifically-based intervention

• Adapting the intervention based on the student’s progress

• Intervention selection and implementation requires• Scientific and local validation

• Problem-solving

• Consistent and repeated monitoring

• Framework and flexibility to adapt intervention to meet student’s instructional needs

Conclusion

• Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement (IDEA)• idea.uoregon.edu/

• Interventioncentral.org• National Reading Panel

• http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/publications.htm

• RTI Toolkit• Contact Ed Daly at [email protected]

Useful Resources

Useful Resources (cont.)• TA document Published and available through

the Nebraska Department of Education• http://www.nde.state.ne.us/

• Big Ideas in Beginning Reading• http://reading.uoregon.edu/

• Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts• http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/materials/

• What Works Clearinghouse

• http://www.whatworks.ed.gov

intervention selection and implementation nebraska department of education response-to-intervention...

Documents

valid practice

valid data

intervention consortium

valid outcomes

empirical methods

intervention rti

data analyses

empirical review