Coordinating Instructional Supports: Maximizing Learning and Instructional Resources

College of Education, University of Oregon

Center on Teaching & Learning

Beth Harn (bharn@uoregon.edu)

Objectives Summarizing recent research findings

related to multi-tiered reading instructionMinimizing the predictiveness of demographic

variablesThe power of aligning instructional supportsThe impact of intervention time in accelerating

early reading development Intensifying instruction in meaningful ways for

students needing intensive supports in second grade

3

The Role of Instruction for At Risk ReadersClassroom instruction is the “single best weapon against

reading failure” (NRC, 1998, p. 343)

Instruction is comprised of two components:What is taught

Content of knowledge to be learnedEarly reading: phonological awareness, alphabetic

principle, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency with connected text (NRP, 2000; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998)

How the content is designed and delivered (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998)

How the content is organized, structured, and sequenced

Time and grouping structures devoted to learning The explicitness of the instructional language in

communicating specific skills and strategies to support, integrate and expand student learning

4

Prerequisites of Multi-Tiered Approaches to Implement RTI

Promoting a systems approach focused on prevention

Integrating, coordinating, and differentiating academic and behavioral supports

Using screening and progress monitoring measures

Making data-based decisions with a dual focus on both the group and individual student levels

Employing evidence-based teaching practices (Chard, et al. 2008; Kame’enui, Good, & Harn, 2005; Sugai & Horner, 2005)

5

Examining & Creating Learning Efficiencies at the Systems Level

Goal of Project CIRCUITS was to assist schools in building capacity and sustainability of a three-tier prevention model (schoolwide reading) by: Using schoolwide assessment data in early literacy

skills to identify students at risk for reading difficulties, make instructional decisions, and monitor progress

Implementing research-based interventions at the secondary and tertiary levels to accelerate learning

Providing professional development to school staff to implement interventions effectively

6

Predicting Reading Success in a Multilevel Schoolwide Reading Model: A Retrospective Analysis Chard, D. J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, B. A., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Kame'enui, E. K. (2008). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 174-188.

A collaboration study with University of Texas at Austin

7

Predicting Later Reading Outcomes Examining variables related to predicting 3rd Grade performance on

the SAT-10 within the context of supportive, tiered instructional support systems Unalterable Variables/Demographics: Gender, English Language

Learner, Ethnicity, Special Education status Findings: Females performed lower; African American

performed lower than Caucasians; no effect of ELL, Sped Status

Student Variables: Behavior: Social Skills, Problem Behaviors, Academic

Competence Findings: Students with more Problem Behaviors

performed lower; Students with higher ratings of Academic Competence performed better; no effect for general Social Skills

Initial Literacy Skills (Scores in First Grade): LNF, PSF, NWF, WRMT; Growth/slope on ORF across grades 1-3; Spring of First Grade ORF

Findings: Fall/Spring PSF; WRMT, Spring 1st Grade ORF; Growth/slope ORF (best predictor)

8

Predicting Later Reading Outcomes Overall model including all predictors accounted for:

71% of variance on SAT10 77% of Spring 1st ORF11% of Growth on ORF

Growth on ORF is the best predictor of performance on SAT-10; however, with the variables included in this analysis we account for little for how growth occurs.

Something not measured is significantly influencing reading growth, what might this be?

Other demographic variables not measuredOther early student skill variables not

measuredThe nature of the instructional experiences

that occurred across the 3 years and experiences in kindergarten (how to capture or quantify?)

9

Understanding and Maximizing Instructional Experiences

The Importance of Coordinating & Orchestrating Instructional Supports

Aligning Instruction Within grade, across contexts

General education and Title Supporting transitions across programs/materials

Across grade Supporting advanced reading and accelerating struggling readings

across grades

Instructional Time Maximizing the minutes Intensifying early to reap long-term rewards

Effective Personnel Importance of regular, target professional development

“Coaching” approach to fine tune support Delivering programs, using materials, behavior management

10

Features to Vary in Intervention Implementation

Varying the Intensity in Implementationfrom Easy to Hard

Instructional Delivery: explicit, systematic teacher wording; error correction; prioritized content; scaffolded support; and prioritized content (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001;Harn, Kameenui, & Simmons, 2005)

Programs/materials vary significantly in breadth (range of skills) and depth (explicitness of delivery)

Group Size: Increases opportunities to respond, receive feedback, and enables targeting to student needs While 1-1 is seen by some as ideal, it isn’t necessarily more

effective than groups of 3-5 (Elbaum, Vaughn, Tinajero, & Watson-Moody, 2000)

Resource allocation, scheduling, personnel challenges Time: A common approach is to provide additional time; however, it

isn’t necessarily just more time, but how the time is spent Teaching the same skills, re-teaching—firming learning Extending skills—accelerating learning Simmons, et al. (2008) found that the most at risk kindergarteners

made significantly more growth when provided 30 rather then 15 minutes of explicit, systematic intervention

Aligning Instructional Supports: Content, time, emphasis, and delivery

12

Summary of System-Level Features Year 01 (2002-2003): Examined the features, components, and

characteristics of primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions in grades K-1 in 9 elementary schools. Data collected included: Observations of reading instruction across primary, secondary, and

tertiary settings (Winter & Spring) Student achievement in K & 1 (DIBELS, WRMT-R) Programmatic/curricular, planning and support, group size, time

allocated, etc. Summary: Even within both districts implementing a systems

approach to reading, there were differences Across Districts: Time spent on different instructional objectives

(e.g., vocabulary), many different reading interventions within and across tiers

Within Districts: Great variability in instructional focus and approach within and across tiers(e.g., general and special education and Title)

Time, number of instructional objectives, frequency of opportunity to respond; Number and type of interventions

13

Examining Instructional Alignment to Promote Generalization

First Grade: Examined the efficiencies of aligning instructional supports across settings (general education and supplemental) compared to prior year (historical control)Secondary Supports: 30-minute small group intervention

What was taught – word reading, phonics, and fluency development

How it was taught – small group (<6); used core reading materials yet skills were strategically chosen (re-teach) and taught using more explicit instructional delivery and opportunities to respond

Tertiary Supports: 60 minute small group intervention What was taught – phonological awareness, word

reading, phonics, and fluency development How it was taught – small group (<5), program was

designed to follow similar skills used in core program yet with more explicit instructional delivery, opportunities to practice and review

14

Effects of Aligning Instructional Supports on Established Systems

Word ID Word AT

15

Effects of Aligning Instructional Supports on Established Systems

Pass Comp Total Reading

16

School ASchool B

Variability in School-Level Outcomes for At-Risk Students When examining the

alignment of instructional supports in first grade, two schools who did the “same things” (time, programs, groupings) got very different results both:

across years (compared to themselves)

across sites (compared to each other)

Why might this happen?

17

Intensifying Instruction: Does Additional Instructional Time Make a Difference for the Most At-Risk First Graders? Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 115-125.Joint Analyses with University of Texas at Austin

18

The Effect of Intensifying Instructional Time 1st grade students most at-risk for reading difficulties (i.e., PSF<11 or NWF<10)

Context: Both Universities were working in schools implementing multi-tiered models of instructional supports University of Oregon: Implemented tier 3 supports within a

prevention framework in first grade (60 minutes of intervention) University of Texas at Austin: Implemented tier 2 supports

within a prevention framework in first grade (30 minutes of intervention)

Descriptives in the Fall Results by Location.

Location PSF(Mean/SD)

NWF(Mean/SD)

Oregon (N=21) 18 / 15.17 4 / 3.69

Texas (N=33) 11 / 11.68 4 / 4.69

Combined (N=54) 14 / 13.76 4 / 4.23Key. PSF= Phoneme Segmentation Fluency; NWF= Nonsense Word Fluency

19

Nature of Intervention Efforts

Features of first grade intervention by location.

Delivery Features

Texas Oregon

Time 30 minutes; 5 days/wk 60 minutes; 5 days/wk

Group Size 4-5 4-5

InterventionistProject

personnel/Master’s Student

Educational Assistants/School-based personnel

DeliveryDeveloped in

response to learnerScripted lessons

Fidelity Monthly Observations with Weekly Coaching

Monthly Observations with Monthly Coaching

20

MeasureOR

Mean/SD Fall

TX Mean/SD

Fall

OR Mean/SD

Spring

TX Mean/SD

Spring

Word Attack 97.08/11.87 87.64/9.59 111.08/9.19 * 101.79/11.26

Word Iden. 89.40/10.61 86.58/11.06 105.8/10.8 * 97.85/12.10

Pass. Comp 90.95/10.68 84.91/9.48 97.24/10.11 90.73/10.60

SWE 84.81/7.58 81.12/7.52 91.81/10.90 * 81.76/11.28

PDE 95.43/8.78 88.61/6.80 97.86/9.63 * 88.58/9.95

NWF 5.33/4.32 4.45/4.69 61.96/19.95 * 45.94/15.90

ORF (Win-Spr) 5.00/3.19 5.00/3.92 23.57/13.67* 14.61/8.03

Results Across Locations Students across both locations/intensity levels displayed

significant progress on all measures across first grade

* = Significant difference across location

21

Results of Intensity Efforts Significant mean differences

on Spring ORF by location/intensity

Fewer significantly low readers at the end-of-year on ORF Intensifying early may reap

long-term rewards. Will follow-up on students to see

how effect was maintained

Implications on resource allocation Personnel, time, materials

Intensifying Instructional Supports in Meaningful Ways

23

Examining Students Within Systems 2nd Grade: Interventions Secondary: 45-minute small group (5-8) intervention

What was taught – word reading, phonics, vocabulary and fluency development

Design Feature Examined -- the nature of text type/control/redundancy within a fluency building intervention

Results: no effect for text type in fluency development on a comprehension, word reading and connected text fluency

Tertiary: Two, 45 minute sessions of small group intervention What was taught – word reading, phonics and fluency

development Design Feature Examined -- implementation of fluency

intervention; level of implementation support Results: wide variability in student response to interventions,

yet fluency instruction was important in improving outcomes

24

Examining Students Within Systems-- 2nd Grade Intensive Students (Tier 3)

Students reading less than 20 ORF at the beginning of second grade Project Implemented Intervention Students

17 students across 5 schools School Implemented Intervention Students

18 students across 4 schools Design of Instructional Program Selected to Accelerate Learning

Research-based, explicit, systematic: Reading Mastery/Fast Cycle, and added Read Naturally in February to increase time reading connected text

Delivery of Intervention Efforts Two 45-minute periods of instruction each day (Nov. 1- May 20) Small group instruction (i.e., 1-4) Placement based on instructional needs

Groups modified as data and instructional needs warranted

25

Tertiary Progress Monitoring on ORF by Sub-Group

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Date

CW

PM

Group A (n=10) Group B (n=6) Comparison (n=10)

Phase Shift with RN for Group A

Phase Shift with RN for Group B

Start of Intervention

Feb 28-Apr 28 Slopes(word per/wk)

A= 2.58B= 2.22C= 1.92

Sep-Feb 14 Slopes

(word per/wk)A = 1.10B = .94

C = 1.08

Year-Long PM on ORF by Sub-Group

26

Variability in Response to Instruction

05

101520253035404550556065707580859095

100

Fall B

ench

Nov 5

Nov 15

Nov 26

Dec 6

Dec 17

Dec 27

Jan 7

Wint

er B

ench

Jan 2

7Feb

7

Feb 1

8

Feb 28

Mar

2

Mar 14

-16

Mar 31

Apr

1

Apr 11

-13

Apr 21

-22

May 2-

3

May 11

-13

Date

CW

PM

Bert Carson Isaac

DIBELS Benchmark = 90

Start of Intervention

Students Who Made the Most Progress in Response to Intensive Interventions

27

Variability in Response to Instruction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Fall B

ench

Nov 5

Nov 15

Nov 26

Dec 6

Dec 17

Dec 27

Jan 7

Wint

er B

ench

Jan 2

7Feb

7

Feb 1

8

Feb 28

Mar

2

Mar 14

-16

Mar 31

Apr

1

Apr 11

-13

Apr 21

-22

May 2-

3

May 11

-13

Date

CW

PM

Tim Steve Allen

Start of Intervention

Students Who Made the Least Progress in Response to Intensive Interventions

Evaluating Response to Intervention & Determining Need for Modifications

Mrs. J's Morning 2nd Grade Group ORF Progress

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Date

Co

rrec

t W

PM

Kelly Terri John Jose

Added Fluency ComponentPhonics & Reading Intervention

Trendline: Slope=4 Word/wk

Trendline: Slope=1.38 Word/wk

Trendline: Slope= .5 Word/wk

Trendline: Slope= -1.2 Word/wk

How is the group responding? Time for a change in instructional focus..

How is the group responding to the change? Are all the same? Time for individual modifications….

Coordinating a Schoolwide Instructional Support Plan: 3-Tier Instructional Support Plan

Level of Instructional

Support

Who? (What Skill-level of

Students) With What?

(Which Materials & Activities)

What More?

(Supplemental or Additional Support Materials and Activities)

How Are We Doing? (Determining Instructional

Effectiveness with Progress Monitoring)

Tier 1 / Primary:

Which Students: As measured by:

Name of Program / Materials: When: Activities:

Group Size:

Name of Program / Materials: Who to Deliver: When:

____ w/in typical instructional time ____ in addition to typical time

Specify Time (minutes, days of week): Group Size:

Who to Collect: How Often: Criteria: Determining Fidelity of Implementation (Who, With What, How often?):

Tier 2 / Secondary:

Which Students: As measured by:

Name of Program / Materials: When: Activities:

Group Size:

Name of Program / Materials: Who to Deliver: When:

____ w/in typical instructional time ____ in addition to typical time

Specify Time (minutes, days of week): Group Size:

Who to Collect: How Often: Criteria: Determining Fidelity of Implementation (Who, With What, How often?):

Tier 3 / Tertiary:

Which Students: As measured by:

Name of Program / Materials: When: Activities:

Group Size:

Name of Program / Materials: Who to Deliver: When:

____ w/in typical instructional time ____ in addition to typical time

Specify Time (minutes, days of week): Group Size:

Who to Collect: How Often: Criteria: Determining Fidelity of Implementation (Who, With What, How often?):

Attending to Intervention Details Nature of Instructional Materials

Research-based, explicit, systematic Matching Instructional Objectives to Student Needs

Homogenous Grouping Grouped according to skill level Intensified Grouping Arrangements Intensified and Prioritized Time for Instruction

Implementation: Responding to Student Performance Coordination in scheduling of intervention (content,

time, personnel, materials) Professional development

Formal fidelity and on-going coaching Progress monitoring and instructional modifications

when data warrant

The importance of our efforts “The most expensive burden we place on society is

those students we have failed to teach to read well. The silent army of low readers who move through our schools, siphoning off the lion’s share of administrative resources, emerge into society as adults lacking the single prerequisite for managing their lives and acquiring additional training. They are chronically unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable. They form the single largest identifiable group of those whom we incarcerate, and to whom we provide assistance, housing, medical care, and other social services. They perpetuate and enlarge the problem by creating another generation of poor readers.” (Fielding, Kerr, & Rosier, 1998).

Some states are using the percent of non-readers in 3rd grade in determining the number and size of prisons

32

Conclusions

Struggling readers need instruction that is “more intensive, more relentless, more

precisely delivered, more highly structured, and direct and more carefully monitored for

procedural fidelity and effects” (Kavale, 1988, p. 335)

Students at risk for reading difficulties “do not discover” what teachers leave unsaid about the

complexities of word learning(Gaskin, Ehri, Cress, Ohara, & Donnelly, 1997, p. 325)”

References Chard, D. & Harn, B. (2008). Project CIRCUITS: Center for Improving Reading Competence

Using Intensive Treatments Schoolwide. In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.) Schoolwide Prevention Models: Lessons Learned in Elementary Schools (pp. 70-83). New York: Guilford Publications.

Chard, D. J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, B. A., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Kame'enui, E. K. (2008). Predicting reading success in a multilevel schoolwide reading model: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 174-188.

Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying instruction: Does additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk first graders? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 115-125.

Harn, B. A., Stoolmiller, M., & Chard, D. J. (2008). Measuring the dimensions of alphabetic principle on the reading development of first graders: The role of automaticity and unitization. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 143-157. 

Harn, B. A., Kame'enui, E.K., & Simmons, D.C. (2007). Essential features of interventions for kindergarten students most in need of accelerated learning: The nature and role of the third tier in a primary prevention model. In D. Haager, S. Vaughn, & J. Klingner (Eds.) Evidenced-based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention (pp. 161-184). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Simmons, D. S., Coyne, M., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, B. A., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 158-173.

Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., Harn, B., Coyne, M. D., Stoolmiller, M., Edwards, L. Smith, S. Thomas-Beck, C., & Kaufman, N. (2007). Attributes of effective and economic kindergarten reading intervention: An examination of instructional time and design specificity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(4), 331-347.