Academic Intervention Presentation

1. Academic Intervention Presentation Elizabeth L. Roberds Practicum Spring 2010

2. “M” 8 year old 2nd grade (“assigned” not “promoted”) Male White Fraternal twin – born 34 weeks, birth complications “Tongue tied” until age 3, delayed speech Diagnosed with ADHD, no longer on medication Diagnosed with Asthma Special Education for Speech Impairment Receives reading and math help Recent parent separation with history of domestic violence

3. Problem Analysis • What is going on with “M”? • Probably a lot of things. • Evaluation • Records Review • Teacher and Parent Interview • Observation • Cognitive and Achievement Testing • Case Conference • Decision to do Intervention

4. Records Review History of academic difficulty, did not have all letter sounds down by end of Kindergarten. Assigned to 1st grade. Almost retained for 1st grade, but assigned to 2nd due to the request of his mother. Speech services 3x/week for 30 min. Reading and math help in the resource room 2x/day, 5 days/week, for 50 min.

5. Teacher Interviews • Concerned with his academic skills • “In the red” for math and reading probes • Homeroom teacher not able to discuss specifics of reading problem. Was unable to tell me if he could read at all. • Resource room teacher reported problems with decoding and comprehension, and stated she thinks he might need to be in the Mild classroom. • Concerned with his inattention • Homeroom teacher reported that inattention seems to slow progress.

6. Observation using Time Sampling • On-task was defined as following teacher instructions and working on assigned activities. • An in-class systematic observation during academic activity in homeroom: • M on-task 55% of the time • peers on-task 70% of the time • An in-class systematic observation was also conducted in gym class: • M on-task 70% of the time • classmates on-task 85% of the time

7. Results of the Evaluation – WISC-IV

8. Results of the Evaluation – WJ-Ach

9. Qualitative Analysis of Reading Partial decoder – could often read the first letter sound correctly, but then guessed the rest of the word. Appeared to know mainly sight words. Lacks confidence in reading ability Apparent interest in reading material So…in addition to poor reading skills, we needed to change…

10. Problem “I can’t read.”

11. Goal “I can read.”

12. Case Conference • Committee decision to try an empirically based reading intervention: Word Building. • Other services were available after school for math. • Reading thought to be holding him back in all areas.

13. What is Word Building? An empirically based reading intervention with a research base for ages 7-10 Good for “partial decoders” Uses letter cards to “build” words using “progressive minimal contrasts” (Rathvon, 2008, p. 184). Draws attention to all letter placements Includes individual word decoding, sentence reading, and discussion of meaning

14. McCandliss, Beck, Sandak, & Perfetti (2003). • Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention • Children age 7-10 who at least completed 1st grade and who evidenced reading difficulty as measured by pseudoword decoding tasks, word reading task, reading comprehension, and phonemic awareness. • No children with neurological or psychological disorders included. • 20 hours of instruction with the Word Building intervention over the course of 4 months by minimally trained tutors.

15. McCandliss et al. (2003) cont. • “Relative to children randomly assigned to a control group, children assigned to the intervention condition demonstrated significantly greater improvements in decoding attempts at all grapheme positions and also demonstrated significantly greater improvements in standardized measures of decoding, reading comprehension, and phonological awareness” (p. 75).

16. McCandliss et al. (2003) cont. • Intervention is a “good fit” for M because: • Age and grade • Decoding, comprehension, phonemic awareness are all concerns for “M” • Exact intervention can be duplicated However, there are concerns such as he does have a psychological diagnosis.

17. Ehri (2005) • Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues • Four phases characterize the course of development of sight word learning: • pre-alphabetic (visual cues) • partial (knowledge of most letter sounds, but often a focus on the first and sometimes ending letters, unable to segment the word’s pronunciation into all of its phonemes, often difficulty with vowel sounds) • Full (can learn sight words by forming connections between letters, can segment pronunciations into phonemes that match up to the graphemes they see) • consolidated alphabetic (when more sight words are held in memory) (pp. 167-175). • The phases are distinguished according to the type of alphabetic knowledge used to form connections. • Increased alphabetic knowledge = better reading ability • Individuals move from partial to full as their alphabetic knowledge increases.

18. Ehri (2005) cont. • Relevant because M is at the partial level. • Word Building is supported for use with partial decoders. • Research by Ehri indicates that for M to move to the next level of reading ability, his alphabetic knowledge must be increased. • Word Building focuses on learning letter sounds and how they form words. • Eventually, as his decoding skills increase, he will build more “memory” words.

19. Shankweiler, et al. (1999) • Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties • 361 children ages 7.5-9.5 with varying reading abilities were measured for skill in word reading, pesudoword reading, and reading comprehension. • A strong correlation was found between decoding skill and reading comprehension. • “The findings support the conclusion that bottom-up skills largely drive the reading process in this age group” (p. 70).

20. Shankweiler, et al. (1999) cont. • This study is relevant to M as he falls within the age range studied. • Word Building is a good choice because it addresses basic reading skills (decoding), which may pave the way for higher order skills (such as reading comprehension).

21. Behavioral Definition/Goal • The goal of the intervention is to increase M’s reading ability. • Reading ability was, for the course of the intervention, measured by oral reading fluency (ORF), which was measured by words read correctly per min. on grade level DIBELS reading probes. • ORF was chosen because tracking oral reading fluency is supported in the literature as a reliable, valid method for monitoring the progress of readers and evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions (Rathvon, 2008). • While progress through the levels of the intervention was tracked and charted, it was not considered to represent reading ability.

22. Baseline Data ORF data was available for a period of two months prior to the start of the intervention (Early September-Early November). 6 data points made up this baseline period. WPM between 14-24, with an average of approximately 18 WPM.

23. Baseline Data

24. Problem Validation M’s baseline data indicates that he is far below his school’s expected grade-level progress in ORF. BOY – 44 MOY – 68 EOY – 90

25. Problem Validation

26. Goal Setting • Idealized goal for M is 90 WPM by EOY, which would get him on track for expected progress. • Based on baseline average, necessary increase of 2-3 words/week • Happy with any increase. • An increase of 2 words/week would bring him to 28 WPM by winter break • Time frame: 5 weeks of intervention • Also, hopefully an improved attitude 

27. Goal Setting

28. Intervention Plan • Assessment of word reading, supplementary to ORF scores: • M asked to read from list of dolch words to determine which words he already knew • Unknown words grouped by similarities and put into “lessons”

29. Intervention Plan • Word building • Materials: • Alphabet letter cards, 5-16 per session • Smiley face card and question mark card • Small white board and marker • Word lists, as a guide for building words • Sentence lists, 8-10 per session, using words formed in the session • Word flashcards, set of all words used in each session • Calendar of month, with sessions marked • Stickers, both small and large, for reinforcement

30. Intervention Plan • Word building • Part 1: Word Building: • 1. Review letter sounds to be used in the lesson using cards • 2. Say the first word on the word list and ask M to “build” the word using the letter cards. • 3. After it is “built,” write the word on the whiteboard and have M change his word if necessary. • 4. Have M read the word out loud. • 5. Tell M the next word on the word list, telling him to replace one card with another to form the new word. • 6. Repeat steps 3 and 4. • 7. Repeat procedure with all words on the word list. • If M cannot read one of the words, encourage him to attempt reading using the letter sounds, helping him to blend sounds as necessary.

31. Intervention Plan - Materials Image reproduced from McCandliss et al., (2003).

32. Intervention Plan • Word building • Part 2: Tutoring: • 1. Take out word cards • 2. Show 1st word card to M and ask him to read the word. If he reads it correctly, place the word card on the smiley face card. If he reads it incorrectly, correct him and place the word card on the question mark card. • 3. Review missed words, encouraging sounding out the letters. • Part 3: Sentence Reading: • 1. Write the sentences for the session on the white board or on paper. • 2. Have M read each sentence, encouraging him to sound out lesson words and providing more complicated words. • 3. After each sentence, discuss what each sentence means.

33. Intervention Plan • Word building • Part 4: Planning and feedback: • 1. Go through word flashcards once more. Calculate percentage read correctly. • 2. If M can read 90% or more of the words in the lesson, move on to the next lesson. If not, repeat the lesson. • 3. M is given a large sticker for his calendar on days where he passes a unit. He is given a small sticker for his calendar on days when he does not pass a unit but puts forth good effort.

34. Intervention Plan • Logistics • When: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for 30 min. in the mornings • Where: Grissom Elementary School in the school psychology office, the conference room, the library, or, on one occasion, in the hallway. • Persons responsible: Elizabeth Roberds (primary), and two 1st year students (Jesse and Melissa) • Persons responsible are to keep track of and record intervention times and post-test level data.

35. Measurement Strategy • What: DIBELS • How/When: Already collected approx every 1-2 weeks • Where: Data room at Grissom Elementary School • Who: Interventionists An issue with this data collection procedure: Grissom only takes one measurement at each time, while best practices would be to take 3 and take the median.

36. Decision-making Plan/Progress Monitoring DIBELS data was in actuality collected by school approx. 2 times/month during the intervention. Graphing was used to summarize the data for evaluation. Permission to run the intervention was obtained from M’s mother until the winter break. The number of data points collected with ORF probes was determined by how often the school pulled M from class, and the number of days M was absent. The data was analyzed each time a new ORF score was available. Also, progress was monitored by M’s movement through the levels of the intervention.

37. Progress Monitoring

38. Progress Monitoring

39. Progress Monitoring

40. Evaluation Baseline – 17.8 Intervention – 21.3 Post-Intervention – 38.4 Treatment Integrity: All 3 people involved reported excellent treatment integrity.

41. Evaluation • At any point, lack of movement to the next levels or a consistent drop or plateau in ORF scores would have required an adjustment to the intervention. • Levels usually passed in 2 or 3 tries • Data was reviewed each session, used to decide when to move on to new words (90% accuracy needed). • Data reviewed at the end to decide if progress was made…it was. • Intervention ended, further consent was not obtained.

42. References Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167-188. McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Study of Reading, 7, 75-104. Rathvon, N. (2008). Effective School Interventions (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press: New York. Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., et al. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 69–94.