Report

EDUC 5555: Assessment & Intervention Class 10 Tier 2 & 3 Supplemental and Intensive Instruction Buzz-Bang • Buzz Bang Activity: a Counting Game, we will count in sequence beginning with “one” – If your number is a multiple of 3, then say “Buzz” in place of saying your number – If your number is a multiple of 4, then say “Bang” in place of saying your number • Reflections – Anyone get nervous? Did it cause a mistake? – What was your thought process? – How does this relate to our students that struggle in math? Class 10 Objectives Participants will be able to • Use Aimsweb MCAP reports diagnostically • Know how to Progress Monitoring • Walk through a case study through the lens of RtI • Prepare for next week’s final assessment & complete course evaluation How to analyze M-CAP tests: Available for 2nd- 8th graders that take the M-CAP • There are 2 Options for using the M-CAP for diagnosis: – Option #1: through the Aimsweb data system, individual item analysis – Option #2: using the Aimsweb item analysis reports to look at student tests How to analyze M-CAP tests: Available for 2nd- 8th graders that take the M-CAP Option #1 Option #1 Input item analysis Option #1 Option #1 Class level look Option #1 Student level look Option #1 Option #1 Another look at M-CAP item analysis • Included in this class’s materials are the reports for Grades 2-6 M-CAP tests, showing what each test item is testing for, and giving instructional recommendations for each test item. • Teachers could use these reports as “blue prints” for identifying student needs or weaknesses Option #2 Item Analysis using MCAP Option #2 Jigsaw Activity Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools • As a whole class, review pages 5-7, beginning with “Summary of the Recommendations” • On pages 11-12, the 8 recommendations are listed; Assign small groups or partners one of the 8 recommendations • Each recommendation needs to be read through, focusing on these 3 main ideas: – What the recommendation is – How to carry out this recommendation – Potential roadblocks and solutions Assessment in a Special Education and RtI model Benchmarking All students Three times a year All areas At grade-level No accommodations Progress Monitoring To monitor progress of individual students and determine rate of improvement and need for adaptation of intervention Weekly, biweekly, monthly assessments In area of need At instructional level Progress Monitoring Research has demonstrated that when teachers use formative evaluation [progress monitoring] for instructional decision-making purposes: – students achieve more – teacher decision making improves – students tend to be more aware of their performance (e.g., see Fuchs, Deno, Mirkin, 1984; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Ferguson, 1992; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991; Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005) Level of Intervention and Monitoring Frequency Tier 3 Progress Monitoring (< 25th%ile) Tier 2 (Every two weeks or weekly) Strategic Monitoring (25th-50th%ile) (Monthly) Tier 1 75-80% of students Universal Screening (Three times per year) Using AIMSweb Individual or Comparison Reports: Box Plots ¼ of scores Above Average ¼ of scores Fourth Quartile (75th – 100th%ile) Third Quartile (50th- 74th %ile) Average ¼ of scores ¼ of scores Below Average Median or Middle Score Second Quartile (25th-49th %ile) First Quartile (0-24th%ile) 3 Options for Progress Monitoring • Using Survey Level Assessment and Instructional Level probes • Using Grade level probes • Using Sub Skill probes Survey Level Assessment (Finding a student’s Instructional Level) • To find a student’s Instructional Level using Survey Level Assessment, administer below grade level probes until the student scores at or above the 25th%ile for that grade level’s norms. (see Appendix A & Appendix B in Progress Monitoring Guide in Class Materials). • Progress Monitor at that level until the student scores at or above the 75th%ile for that grade level probe. (Once they reach that goal, bump them up a grade level for progress monitoring.) Where do you enter the survey level information data Click on button to get graph John Conducting a Survey Level 3rd grade passage Assessment 62/4 John 4th grade passage 49/7 John 5th grader: 5th grade passage 26/12 Using Grade level probes for Progress Monitoring • Grade level probes can be used for simplified progress monitoring • Assess on a regular basis using the grade level probe, with the goal for the student to score at or above the 75th%ile. • For high achieving students, a more appropriate goal would be AT LEAST the 90th%ile for their grade level. Students thought to be gifted in math would score at or above the 96th%ile using a grade level CBM probe. Using Sub Skill Probes • Sub skill probes (Addition, Subtraction, Add/Sub, Multiplication, Division, Mult/Div) are actually Mastery Measures, as they directly align to and assess a specific skill. • These probes can be used when a specific area of weakness in computation is identified, (i.e. Addition facts) and should always be used in tandem with either a M-CAP or M-COMP probe so that general outcomes are not ignored. Progress Monitoring Consider the 3 options for progress monitoring, and when each option would be most appropriate (consider the type of student and the needs of the student): • Survey Level Assessment and Instructional Level probes: who, how often, and why? • Grade level probes: who, how often, and why? • Sub Skill probes: who, how often, and why? Decisions based on data-points Decisions are based on at least 4 data points • If all 4 scores fall above goal-line, responding to instruction (increase goal if continues for 4 more data points) • If scores are hovering about the goal line, continue what you are doing. • If all 4 scores are below goal-line, but parallel, decide to “wait” for 4 more points to see if student performance accelerates in level to reach original goal. • If all 4 scores fall below goal-line, not responding to instruction, revise plan and implement different teaching strategy. • Mark change on graph with vertical line. Derived from: Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) and Shapiro (2006) Data Decision Guidelines ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS (and continue to progress monitor) --Is the intervention being done with fidelity --Is the student in the right level of materials --Has the student been in school? Are they getting enough minutes of intervention per week? Should the intervention be “tweaked”? Changed? Is there a better Intervention to “match” the student needs? Staff should work together to discuss the data, the student, and what intervention changes would have a better chance of success. An important note about Progress Monitoring: While Benchmark assessments must be standardized to the 8 minute timings, progress monitoring has some flexibility, and may be shortened to 2-5 minutes, so long as the teacher is consistent in the amount of time given each time he/she progress monitors. What Is the Status of Progress Monitoring in Your School? In Your Classroom? • What efforts have you already made toward implementation of progress monitoring? • What are your goals for implementation for this year? • Considerations: – – – – 32 Time Money Technology Training ACTION PLAN Math Difficulties for Students with Learning Disabilities (LD) Perception Memory Language Behavior Auditory Reasoning Motor 33 Math Difficulties for Students with LD • Conceptual vs. procedural difficulties • Procedural: Incorrect or misordered procedures • Conceptual: incorrect response from absent or incorrect principles or concepts 34 LD/Math-Related Problems (see Chart 4) • Conceptual vs. procedural difficulties? – Perception – Executive function • Dysfluency (efficiency, accuracy, flexibility) • Lacking a sense of ‘ten-ness’ (Fiefer & De Fina, 2005) 35 Intervention Principles Student-teacher ratio Repetition Scripted procedures/lessons Pace Sequence Concrete representations 36 RTI: An Individual Case Study: Math Computation • Jared is a fourth-grade student. His teacher, Mrs. Rogers, became concerned because Jared is much slower in completing math computation problems than his classmates. 37 Tier 1: Math Interventions for Jared • Jared’s school uses the district-adopted math curriculum. In addition to the core curriculum, the program contains intervention exercises for students who need additional practice or remediation. The instructor, Mrs. Rogers, works with a small group of children in her room— including Jared—having them complete these practice exercises to boost their math computation fluency. 38 Tier 2: Math Interventions for Jared • Jared did not make sufficient progress in his Tier 1 intervention. So his teacher consulted with other teachers at her grade level (her PLC). It was decided that Jared would be placed on the school’s educational math software, FASTT Math (Fluency and Automaticity through Systematic Teaching with Technology), an intervention program that helps students develop fluency with basic math facts, at their individualized level. Jared worked on the software in 10-minute daily sessions to increase computation fluency in basic multiplication problems. 39 Tier 2: Math Interventions for Jared (Cont.) • During the Tier 2 intervention, Jared was progress monitored monthly using M-COMP probes to see how he was progressing toward grade level goals. • He was also progress monitored weekly using a Sub Skill probe, with a focus on Multiplication Facts. The goal was to bring Jared up to at least 40 correct digits per 2 minutes. 40 Tier 2: Math Interventions for Jared: Progress-Monitoring 41 Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared • Progress-monitoring data showed that Jared did not make adequate progress in his Tier 2 intervention. So he was referred to the School-Wide Assistance Team (SWAT). The team and teacher noted that Jared counted on his fingers when completing multiplication problems. This greatly slowed down his computation fluency. The team decided to use a research-based strategy, taped problems, to increase Jared’s computation speed and eliminate his dependence on finger-counting. During the Tier 3 intervention, Jared continued to be assessed using Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) Math probes. 42 Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared Time-Delay Math Computation Intervention: • A series of math worksheets were created (2 digit times 2 digit; no regrouping). • For each worksheet, a digital recording (MP3 file) was made in which the computation problems and their answers were read aloud several times. – In the first reading, there was no delay between the problem and the answer. – In the second reading, there was a four-second delay between the problem and its answer. – In the third reading, there was a two-second delay between the problem and its answer. – In the final reading, there was a two-second delay between the problem and its answer. Source: McCalum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing 43 multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434. Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared Time-Delay Math Computation Intervention (cont.): • Jared was given a math worksheet 3 times per week. With the worksheet, he was given an iPod with the digital file of the problems and answers being read. • In each session, Jared listened to the tape while he completed the math worksheet. He was encouraged to ‘beat the tape’ by answering the problem before the taped reader read the answer. • At the end of the session, Jared’s worksheet was collected. • Jared’s math computation speed was independently assessed using CBM math computation probes. Source: McCalum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing 44 multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434. Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared Time-Delay Math Computation Intervention: Building Intervention Capacity: • High school students were recruited to make the digital files of problems and answers read aloud. • The school saved the worksheets and related digital files for the taped-problems intervention to use with other students. Source: McCalum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing 45 multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434. Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared: Progress-Monitoring 46 Tier 3: Math Interventions for Jared Time-Delay Math Computation Intervention: Outcome • The progress-monitoring data showed that Jared was well on track to meet his computation goal. At the SWAT follow-up meeting, the team and teacher agreed to continue the fluency-building intervention for at least 3 more weeks. It was also noted that Jared no longer relied on finger-counting when completing number problems, a good sign that he had overcome an obstacle to math computation. Source: McCalum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing 47 multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434. In conclusion… “Ineffective instruction does not mean bad teaching. It simply means the treatment is not producing the desired behavior.” ~ Ken Howell Great Things Are Possible! Instructions for Next week’s Final Assessment Bring with you to class next week: • Data you have collected on a student that you are concerned is having difficulty in math (CBM data, CFA data, Topic test, etc.) or class-wide data that indicates a specific problem with a concept or skill Your final assessment will include you and a team of 2 other teachers (your temporary PLC) creating a Plan of Action for that student or class. Endorsement Program Evaluation Before our final class next week, please take 10 minutes to complete this program evaluation: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CSDMATH Also for Next week: Don’t forget to bring your payment ($45 made payable to SUU) for the SUU registration fee