Intensifying Beginning Reading Intervention for Students who Don’t Respond

1. Intensifying Beginning Reading Intervention for Students who Don’t Respond Michael Coyne Neag School of Education University of Connecticut mike.coyne@uconn.edu www.cber.org

2. Research Conduct school-based research on developing and evaluating evidence based practices in literacy, behavior supports, and assessment Translating Research to Practice Support schools, districts, and states in adopting, implementing, and sustaining evidence based practices

3. Context Overview • Framework for thinking about intensifying intervention for students who don’t respond • Randomized trial evaluating the effects of adjusting kindergarten intervention based on students’ response to intervention

4. Context

5. Context RTI: Critical Components • Comprehensive & coordinated classroom instruction for all students. The effectiveness of classroom instruction is evaluated through universal assessments. • Universal assessments are also used to identify students who require additional intervention • Supplemental intervention and ongoing progress monitoring for students at risk for performing below grade level • Intensified intervention support for students who do not respond to core instruction and targeted intervention

6. Context RTI: Critical Components • Comprehensive & coordinated classroom instruction for all students. The effectiveness of classroom instruction is evaluated through universal assessments. • Universal assessments are also used to identify students who require additional intervention • Supplemental intervention and ongoing progress monitoring for students at risk for performing below grade level • Intensified intervention support for students who do not respond to core instruction and targeted intervention

7. Tier 1 Supports • Comprehensive & Coordinated Classroom Instruction for All Students • Comprehensive -addresses all key academic or behavioral outcomes • Evidence based program(s), strategies, & materials • Implementation is coordinated & prioritized • Differentiation for the range of learners • Fidelity of implementation is emphasized and documented • Ongoing teacher support 100% of Students

8. The goal of classroom instruction is to enable a high percentage of students to meet grade level goals 80% of Students

9. Tier 2 Supports • Supplemental Intervention For Students at Risk for Performing Below Grade Level • Screening data used to identify students needing additional intervention • Intervention options are evidence- based, consistent, and coordinated • Intervention is planned, scheduled and implemented to best leverage resources • Student response to intervention is assessed • through progress monitoring data 20% 80% of Students

10. Progress Monitoring: CBM Stacy • A first grade student who moved to Center School in December. • On the January benchmark ORF assessment, she read 4 correct words per minute (cwpm). • According to benchmark goals for Winter of 1st grade, Stacy is at high risk for failing to meet the end of year goal. • An analysis of assessment protocols indicated that Stacy: • Had established phonemic awareness • Knew all her letter sound correspondences • Lacked a strategy for decoding words • Knew very few sight words

11. Progress Monitoring: CBM • Take part in all classroom reading instruction (i.e., core instruction). • Receive small group intervention (5-6 students) focusing on decoding, for 30 minutes, four time a week. • Monitor progress weekly. Stacy’s Instructional Plan 20%

12. Adjust intervention Progress Monitoring: CBM Aimline

13. Adjust intervention Progress Monitoring: CBM Aimline

14. Tier 2 Supports Alterable Components • Content • Instructional Design • Programs/Materials • Interventionist/ Interventionist Expertise • Grouping • Dosage • Scheduling Adjusting Intervention 20%

15. Tier 2 Supports Content • Reading • Comprehension, Vocabulary, Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency • Content becomes increasingly targeted Adjusting Intervention 20% intensity/resources

16. Tier 2 Supports Instructional Design • Initial teaching of skills/strategies • Reteaching of skills/strategies • Review and practice of skills/strategies • Features of effective instruction • Explicit instruction • Scaffolded instruction • Opportunities to practice with high quality feedback Adjusting Intervention 20% intensity/resources

17. Tier 2 Supports Program/Materials • “Double dose” of core materials • Intervention component of core materials • School designed strategies/activities • Stand alone program • Highly scripted/systematic program Adjusting Intervention 20% intensity/resources

18. Tier 2 Supports Adjusting Intervention Interventionist • Student • Volunteer • Paraprofessional • Classroom Teacher • Specialist Interventionist Expertise • Amount of training with intervention • Experience implementing intervention • Student success • Availability of coaching/support 20% intensity/resources

19. Tier 2 Supports Grouping • Size of intervention group • 10 students, 4 students, one-on-one • Within class grouping • Across class grouping • Across grade grouping Adjusting Intervention 20% intensity/resources

20. Tier 2 Supports Dosage • How much time per day? • How many days per week? • How many weeks? Scheduling • When will intervention take place? • Where will intervention take place? Adjusting Intervention 20% intensity/resources

21. Tier 2 Supports Intervention Implementation • Continuum of scheduling, grouping, and delivery alternatives are coordinated at a school-wide level to best leverage personnel, expertise, materials, and resources Adjusting Intervention 20%

22. Project ERI Two Approaches to RTI • Standard Protocol • Uses a consistent approach to providing multi-tier supports in which standardized interventions are implemented that can address multiple students’ needs. • Problem Solving/Individualized • Uses an individualized approach to providing multi-tier supports in which a team develops interventions that target each student’s individual needs.

23. Project ERI Funded By: Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education • Early Intervention for Young Children with Disabilities: Goal 3 • Project Director:Deborah Simmons, Texas A&M University

24. Project ERI • Texas A&M: Deborah Simmons, Shanna Hagan-Burke, Oi-man Kwok, Minjung Kim, Leslie Simmons, Caitlin Johnson, & Aaron Taylor • University of Connecticut: Chrissy Civetelli, Sharon Ware, Ashley Capozzoli • University of Central Florida: Mary Little & D’Ann Rawlinson The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324E060067 to Texas A&M University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.

25. Project ERI Research Question: Year 03 • Does adjusting instructional support based on response to intervention lead to increased learning outcomes for kindergarten students receiving a small group beginning reading intervention?

26. Project ERI Participants • 9 schools in TX, CT, & FL • 17 interventionists • Interventionists were school identified and included paraprofessionals, reading teachers, special education teachers, and other specialists • 101 kindergarten students • 67 treatment students • 34 comparison students

27. Project ERI Participants • Students were screened on measures of alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness to identify those students who were most at risk for experiencing reading difficulties at the beginning of kindergarten (e.g., performing below the 30%) • Students who qualified were randomly assigned to the treatment (ERI modified) or comparison conditions (ERI standard) • Interventionists were also assigned to treatment or comparison conditions (some interventionists taught groups in both conditions)

28. Project ERI The Early Reading Intervention • Small-group beginning reading intervention that focuses on key foundational reading and spelling skills. • Phonemic skills:first and last sound isolation, blending, and segmentation • Alphabetic skills: letter name/sound identification, word decoding, letter dictation, and whole word spelling • 126 carefully sequenced and highly scripted 30-minute lessons • Previous research supports the efficacy of ERI on early pre-reading and reading outcomes (Simmons et al., in press; Simmons et al., 2007)

29. Project ERI ERI Standard Condition • ERI was implemented as designed • Small groups (3-5) • 30-minutes per day, 5-days per week • Started at Lesson 1 and progressed sequentially through the program (1 lesson per day) • Students took 4 program specific mastery assessments over the year

30. Project ERI ERI Modified Condition • Implementation of ERI was adjusted based on students’ response to the intervention • Ongoing response data • Interventionists collected informal data on student response weekly and students took 8 program specific mastery assessments over the course of the year • Regrouping • Students were regrouped based on data from program mastery assessments • Regrouping opportunities occurred approximately every 4 weeks • Program Pacing • Groups repeated or skipped specified lessons based on data from program mastery assessments

31. Project ERI

32. Project ERI

33. Project ERI Effect Sizes • Magnitude of the effect of an intervention • Improvement Index: the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if the student had received the intervention.

34. Project ERI Summary & Implications • In this study, adjusting instructional support based on response to intervention lead to reliable learning gains of moderate magnitude across multiple measures assessing phonemic, alphabetic, reading, and spelling skills. • Adjustments in intervention were fairly modest in scope and relatively feasible for school personnel to carry out.