1 / 47

ESU #1 Matthew Burns, Ph.D.

ESU #1 Matthew Burns, Ph.D. RTI = MTSS. The systematic use of assessment data to most efficiently allocate resources in order to enhance learning for all students. Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006. MTSS and Problem-Solving. TIER III. Measurement Precision. TIER I I.

tavon
Download Presentation

ESU #1 Matthew Burns, Ph.D.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ESU #1Matthew Burns, Ph.D.

  2. RTI = MTSS The systematic use of assessment data to most efficiently allocate resources in order to enhance learning for all students. Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006

  3. MTSS and Problem-Solving TIER III Measurement Precision TIER I I Measurement Frequency Problem-Analysis TIER I

  4. Problem Solving • Tier I – Identify discrepancy between expectation and performance for class or individual (Is it a classwide problem?) • Tier II – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify category of problem. (What is the category of the problem?) • Tier III – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify causal variable. (What is the causal variable?)

  5. Sensitivity = a / (a + c) = .86 for ORF and .31 for F&P, Specificity = d / (b + d) = .78 for ORF and .66 for F&P, Overall Correct Classification = (a + d) / N = .80 for ORF and .54 for F&P

  6. Four Purposes of Assessment Program evaluation: How is the education system working for students overall? • State test Screening: Which of my students are not meeting grade level expectations given Universal Instruction? • E.g., MAP Diagnostic: What are the specific needs of students who struggle with math? E.g., measures of specific skills Monitoring Progress: What does the student’s growth look like? E.g., CBM

  7. Path to Reading Excellence in School Sites w www.cehd.umn.edu/reading/PRESS/default.html

  8. Grade Level Team Meeting • Is there a classwide problem? • Who needs Tier 2? • Did we miss anyone? • What should we do for Tier 2? • Should we go to Tier 3?

  9. Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  10. First Question – Classwide or Individual Problem

  11. Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  12. ClasswideInterventionhttp://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals

  13. Partner Reading Partnerships Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  14. Procedure Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  15. Timeline Collect Data: Pre-test (fluency and comprehension) • Day 1: Train Students on Set Up Procedures and Partner Reading, Practice Reading for 10 minutes, Error Correction • Day 2: Train Students on Paragraph Shrinking, Practice Reading for 10 minutes • Day 3-10: Partner Reading, Paragraph Shrinking 15 minutes every day Collect Data: Post-test(fluency and comprehension) Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  16. Partner Reading RULES • First Reader reads for 5 minutes. • Second Reader reads the same text for 5 minutes. • Second Reader retells for 1 minute. Talk only to your partner and only talk about Partner Reading Keep your voice low Help your partner Try your best! Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  17. Paragraph Shrinking • Name the most important who or what. • Tell the most important thing about the who or what. • Say the main idea in 10 words or less. Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  18. STOP. That word is______________ What word? ______________________ Correction Procedures Good Job! Go back and read that line again. Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  19. What we found: 3rd grade Partner Reading data Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  20. What we found: 3rd grade Partner Reading data Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  21. Growth from Winter to SpringClass-Wide Interventions10 Classrooms K-3

  22. Growth from Winter To SpringNO Class-Wide Interventions11 Classrooms K-3

  23. Class-wide Interventions Implemented in 10 of the 21 Classes Below Winter Benchmark:9 of the 10 Above Spring Benchmark

  24. NO Class-wide Intervention Implemented in 11 Classes Below Winter Benchmark2 of the 11 Above Spring Benchmark

  25. Step 2 – Who Needs Tier IIAlso – Did we miss anyone?

  26. Reading Interventions for Tier II • PALS • HOSTS • Read Naturally • Rewards • Reading Rockets • Etc., etc., etc. PROFICIENT READING

  27. National Reading Panel • Is phonemic awareness instruction effective in helping children learn to read? • Reviewed 52 studies of PA instruction. • Three general outcomes were explored • PA tasks such as phoneme manipulation, • spelling, • and reading tasks such as word reading, pseudoword reading, reading comprehension, oral text reading, reading speed, time to reach a criterion of learning, and miscues

  28. National Reading Panel Results • PA instruction demonstrated better efficacy over alternative instruction models or no instruction • Improved PA measures (strong), reading (d = .53) and spelling skills • Teaching one or two PA skills was preferable to teaching three or more • PA instruction benefited reading comprehension (Ehri et al.).

  29. Means and Ranges of Effect Sizes by Reading Outcome Measure

  30. Tier II Interventions • PALS • HOSTS • Read Naturally • Rewards • Reading Rockets • Etc., etc., etc. Phonemic Awareness Phonics Fluency Vocabulary and Comprehension

  31. Assess 4 NRP Areas • Phonemic Awareness • Phoneme segmentation fluency • Phonics • Nonsense word fluency (WJ Pseudoword) • Fluency • Oral reading fluency (TOSCRF) • Vocabulary/Comprehension

  32. `

  33. Comparison of Targeted and Comprehensive • 306 second-grade and 303 third-grade students • Attended one of six elementary schools in an urban school district • 51.4% females, 14% white students, and 80% were eligible for the FRPL • Leveled Literacy Intervention • PRESS Interventions (comprehension, fluency, decoding, phonemic awareness)

  34. ACCURACY > 93% Fluency intervention Minnesota Center for Reading Research

  35. burns258@umn.edu

More Related