ESU #1 Matthew Burns, Ph.D.

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

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

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

7. 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?)

9. 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

10. 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

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

13. 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?

14. Minnesota Center for Reading Research

15. First Question – Classwide or Individual Problem

17. Minnesota Center for Reading Research

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

20. Partner Reading Partnerships Minnesota Center for Reading Research

21. Procedure Minnesota Center for Reading Research

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. 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

36. 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.).

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

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

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

41. `

42. 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)

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

47. burns258@umn.edu