Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008

1. Oregon Branch of theInternational Dyslexia AssociationLecture Series 2007-2008 Response to Intervention And Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses: Specific Learning Disabilities 2008 Jim Hanson, M.Ed. JaBrHanson@yahoo.com

2. Goals of the Presentation • Response to Intervention • Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses • Complimentary, not exclusive approaches

3. What Parents Want to Know • Why doesn’t my child read well? • What can we do about it?

4. ORBIDA Position Statement • RTI-Response to Intervention or Problem Solving Model • Strengths and Weaknesses • Parent’s right to both

5. Let’s Be Perfectly Clear Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Model IS NOT Ability/Achievement Discrepancy Model

6. IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Doesn’t Discriminate • Disabled and non-disabled readers • Children who were found to be difficult (and easy) to remediate • RTI and PSW are new to the law and schools, not new to research Vellutino et al. (2000) p. 235

7. What is Response to Intervention? • Researched-Based General Education Reading Curriculum • Universal screening (all students) on Big Ideas (Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension) • Small group interventions with lowest 20% • See if they respond

8. RTI Definition • RTI is • The practice of providing high-quality instruction and intervention • matched to student need, • monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about change in instruction or goals • and applying child response data to important educational decisions. (NASDSE, 2005)

9. Progress Monitoring

10. Research findings • CBM with “goal raising rule” for students responding well: effect size .52 SD • CBM with “change the program rule” for students not responding well: effect size .72 SD • Results in teachers planning more comprehensive reading programs Fletcher, et.al. 2007

11. Oregon Experience • U of O, Bethel, Tigard-Tualatin, Oak Grove, MLC • Reading First - NCLB Funds, K-3 - High Poverty/Low Achieving Schools, Cohort A - 33 schools in 14 districts - 3yrs,17 schools Cohort B - 8 districts -1yr, Cohort C - 6 non RF schools matched for comparison • Oregon RTI Initiative - IDEA Funds, district - wide reform, TTS contract years/numbers of Schools, 5 districts – 1 yr, 9 additional districts 2006-2007, secondary preparation grants • Support for All Students Reading – SIG Funds, emphasis on secondary – Bethel contract • Parent Education – SIG Funds ORPTI contract

12. RtI Risks: Integrity • Integrity of Intervention: is it being delivered correctly? • 20% by school or by district? • DIBELS lowest 20% or district benchmarks? • Allow teacher to nominate kids for intervention? • Reliability among schools, school districts, and states

13. Challenges • Readiness of districts • Training Rural districts • Lack of understanding of infrastructure needs for systems change • Balance between prescriptive and hands-off • Professional development time

14. Response to Intervention • Dual Discrepancy: • First, below their peers on group screening and • Second, did not respond adequately to interventions.

15. From RtI to PSW and Neurological Theory

16. Response to Intervention Research-based curriculum Assessment of progress Tiered interventions Part of comprehensive evaluation Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses Norm-referenced assessment based Academic comparison Academic-cognitive comparison Part of comprehensive evaluation Options (either – or both)

17. Main Idea of PSW • Many academic and cognitive abilities in the average range • Specific academic weaknesses • Specific cognitive weaknesses • Research-based links between the academic and cognitive weaknesses • Unrelated cognitive abilities are average or above • Full Scale IQ is irrelevant, except for MR

18. Dyslexia: Improving the Science Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge” NICHD (1994).

19. The sea of strengths: Neurological Models-Shaywitz “The phonological model crystallizes exactly what we mean by dyslexia… a circumscribed, encapsulated weakness is often surrounded by a sea of strengths: reasoning, problem solving, comprehension, concept formation, critical thinking, general knowledge, and vocabulary” Shaywitz (2003).

20. Not just phonological weakness? “Rote memorization and rapid word retrieval are particularly difficult for dyslexics” Shaywitz (2003).

21. Wolf’s Double Deficit Model • Phonological Processing • Rapid Automatized Naming

22. Shaywitz, Fletcher, and McGrew Phonological Awareness (Ga, PC) Working Memory (WM) & Associative Memory (MA) Processing Speed (Gs), & Naming Facility (NA) • Phonologic Weakness • Memory • Rapid Word Retrieval • Phonologic Awareness • Working Memory • Rapid Naming

23. Neurology and CHC converge

24. What is CHC Intelligence Theory? • Cattell, Horn and Carroll • 7 Broad Categories of Intelligence • Clean, Not Mixed Factors (No Sharing) • Many Narrow Categories of Intelligence Underneath Each Broad Factor • Less Emphasis on a Full-Scale Score

26. Regression Coefficients • > .3 = strong relation • .1-.3 = moderate relation • <.1 = non-sign

27. Phonemic Awareness 3

28. Comprehension-Knowledge

29. Oral Language

30. Working Memory

31. Long-term Retrieval

32. Processing Speed

33. Fluid Reasoning

34. Visual-Spatial Thinking

35. Comprehensive Evaluation: Conclusions for Reading • Phonological Deficit? • Vocabulary Deficit? • RAN Deficit? • Working Memory Deficit? • Processing Speed Deficit? • Associative Memory Deficit?

36. Doesn’t that make sense? • When we test students with poor reading achievement, we expect to find that at least one or two of the cognitive abilities that underlie reading are compromised. If there are no cognitive weaknesses, it’s probably not a neurologically based learning difference!

37. Flanagan & Ortiz: • Aptitude-Achievement Consistency: • Achievement low, deficit in at least one relative cognitive ability, most abilities average or above.

38. Consistency-Discrepancy (Naglieri) and Concordance-Discordance (Fiorello & Hale) • Processing Strength to Academic Strength (no significant difference) • Processing Strength to Academic Weakness (significant difference) • Processing Weakness to Academic Weakness (no significant difference) • Processing Strength to Processing Weakness (significant difference)

39. Another approach: Academics only • Word recognition & spelling <90 (phonological poor, spatial & motor skills good) • Reading fluency <90, accuracy good (automaticity problem: RAN poor) • Reading comprehension <90, 7 points below word reading (vocabulary, working memory & attention poor, phonics good) • Math computations <90, all reading good (executive functioning, working memory & attention poor, phonics and vocabulary good) • Spelling <90 (residuals of poor phonics, fluency often impaired) • Word recognition, fluency, comprehension, spelling & math <90 (language and working memorypoor) Fletcher et. al. (2007) Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention

40. Just the sounds… • Children who were weakest in phonological awareness only performed best on basal curriculums that taught the alphabetic principle explicitly Fletcher et al. (2003) • Auditory Discrimination in Depth (Lindamood) • Alphabet Phonics (Orton Gillingham) • Phonographics* • Project Read • Read Spell Pat • Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading (SRA)* • *Some research-based evidence

41. Just the sights…eight weeks of intervention in Georgetown • Visual imagery (SI) is being tested • Cocktail of Visual & Phonemic Awareness (TAAS) • Better Non-word reading and PA3 (p<.05) • Reading accuracy improves; rate still poor • Real word reading and comprehension improvements, but they are not significant. • Increases in left and right hemisphere functioning • Eden (2005)

42. Just the pictures • PAL Looking Games

43. Just the associations • PAL Alphabet Retrieval Games • Rewards (Archer) • Phonics for Reading (Archer) • Corrective Reading (SRA)

44. Just the meaning… • Children with poor reading comprehension and adequate decoding (who often demonstrate problems with oral language, crystallized intelligence and fluid reasoning) might profit from training in meta-cognition, accessing visual-spatial imagery skills, linking, and explicit teaching of Theme Identification Keene, E. & Zimmerman, S., (1997). The mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a readers’ workshop. Heineman: Portsmouth, NH.

45. More comprehension • Collaborative Strategic Reading (Vaughn) • Reading in the Content Area (Kinsella)

46. Just…what was that? • Multi-sensory techniques may improve reading in children with memory span deficits (self-monitoring, generalization, integration, feedback) • Swanson, H. and Saez, L. (2003)

47. Just my speed… • For Processing Speed and RAN (affecting fluency) • RAVE-O and PAL+Fluency Bowers, P. and Ishaik, G. (2003). • Six Minute Solution (Hiebert) • Read Naturally (Imhott)

48. Just about everything. • Students with phonemic, RAN, and memory span deficits had to learn sight words first and then internal phonological structure • Fletcher et. al (2003)

49. When fluency training doesn’t matter…

50. When Slingerland goes awry…