screening process - digging deeper instructional sort our focus the wisconsin rti center/wisconsin...
TRANSCRIPT
Screening Process - Digging Deeper Instructional Sort
Our Focus
The Wisconsin RtI Center/Wisconsin PBIS Network (CFDA #84.027) acknowledges the support of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction in the development of this document and for the continued support of this federally-funded grant program. There are no copyright restrictions on this document; however, please credit the Wisconsin DPI and support of federal funds when copying all or part of this material.
Reviewing Your Selected and Intensive Levels of Support
Screening Assessments - Not Always Enough
Screening assessments often do not go deep enough in answering the questions:
• Why is the student below the expected level?• How far beyond the expected level is the
student?• We need to “DIG DEEPER!”
School Level Groups Individuals
Impact of universal level of support on students
(aggregated and disaggregated)
2. School-Level Digging Deeper Review:• What are our universal level instructional strengths? • What are our universal level instructional concerns? • Do we have any underserved groups? School-level team gather additional information and review at a deeper level
1. School-Level Screening Review:• Do we have a healthy system?
School-level team looks at universal screening results
1. Grade-Level Screening Review: Groups and Individual Students
Department-/Grade-level team looks at screening results
Groups/individuals potentially in need of additional support
2. Grade-Level Digging Deeper Review:• What are the student’s instructional strengths? • What are the student’s instructional concerns?School-level team gather additional information and review at a deeper level
Concept of Print
Phonological Awareness
Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension
CCSS - Going From Broad to Precise
Universal Reading Screening for ALL StudentsAre Students “on Track?”
At Benchmark: Continue High Quality Universal Instruction
Below or Above Benchmark:Dig Deeper
3rd Grade and Higher Begin Right to Left
Kindergarten -2nd Grade Begin Left to Right
CCSS Foundational Skills
Fluency> Bridge to Comprehension
Comprehension Screener Instructional Sort Example
Comprehension Screener
Students Above or Below Benchmark
Dig DeeperStudents Above
BenchmarkAdditional Data
Needed to Articulate Matched Instruction
Dig Deeper Students Below
BenchmarkAdminister
Fluency/Accuracy Assessment
Students At Benchmark
Continue Universal Core High Quality Instruction
Gather Additional Information
The Instructional Sort Helps Us:
1• Know if there is an area that needs universal whole group attention.• Determine if a large percentage of students have a similar need/s.
2
• Guide differentiation within the universal level for whole group, small group, and individual students.
• Determine when the instructional need is more intense.
3• Provide matched intervention grouping.
Data
• Is the student above or below the screening benchmark?• If so, dig deeper
Review
• What is the reading concern? • Did you validate the problem using additional data?• Do you have precision information to articulate matched additional
supports?• Instructional Sort: Administer oral fluency assessment/s with students who
are below the benchmark. Sort student names in the quadrant that aligns with the student’s baseline/median results.
• Administer assessments with no grade level ceiling for students above the benchmark and determine matched instruction.
Process
• Refer to the Instructional Sort and analyze data at the building, group, and student levels.
• Determine ambitious goals so student/s will meet or exceed end of the year benchmarks.
• Define additional instruction and intensity level.
Dig Deeper - Systemic and Systematic Screening Process
Why is Fluency So Important?“…fluency is an essential element that bridges the gap between word recognition and comprehension.” Vaughn and Linan-Thompson
What does this translate to…
• Students’ struggles with comprehension skills may be a result of deficits in any of the foundation skills and/or deficits in comprehension strategies.
• So we need to have a systemic and systematic process to analyze why students are not proficient and make an instructional match within a culturally responsive multi-level system of support.
Next Step: Administer Oral Fluency Assessment for Students Who Performed Below the Benchmark on the Comprehension Screener
Student Words Correct per Minute
Accuracy
Tim 60 wcpm 80%
Rickie 85 wcpm 97%
Janelle 82 wcpm 85%
Mike 62 wcpm 98%
Chris 163 wcpm 98%
Lainie 67 wcpm 100%
3rd Grade Class- Fall
Fall Benchmark ORF=> 70 Fall Accuracy =>95%
Inaccurate and Slow RateGroup 3-Instructional Focus*Phonological Awareness*Phonics*Word Recognition*Multi-syllabication Tim
Instructional Sort
Next Step: Sort Your Data and Identify Student Instructional Need/s and Dig Even Deeper
Remember: Teams should analyze data at school, groups, and student level
Howell, cited by Harken and Fay
Group 1: Accurate and FluentRickieChris
Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim
Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle
Instructional Sort
Why is Rickie performing below the benchmark on the comprehension screener? Find root cause.1.) Can rule out fluency as a barrier. 2.) Focus on digging deeper in the instructional areas of comprehension/vocabulary.
Group 1- RickieSample Instructional Plan:
• Instruction on monitoring for meaning
• Instruction on determining main ideas
• Instruction on fix-up strategies• Instruction on *tier 2 academic
vocabulary and vocabulary learning strategies
*Beck, McKowan and Kucan(2002)Howell, cited by Harken and Fay
Group 1: Accurate and Fluent
Chris
Rickie
Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim
Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle
Instructional Sort
Why is Lainie performing below the benchmark? Find root cause.1. Based on the data, we can hypothesize that Lainie is a word-for word reader. Her lack of automaticity is a having an impact on her comprehension.
Group 2- LainieSample Instructional Plan:• Instruction on automaticity at Lainie’s
appropriate level: data indicates Lainie is at the sentence level
• Do not ignore making meaning of text• Repeated and assisted reading >move to
passage level as data indicates• Instruction on grouping words to make
meaning, adjust pacing, and attention to punctuation
• Use both narrative and informational texts
• Instruct using a comprehension focus.Howell, cited by Harken and Fay
Why is Tim performing below the screening benchmark? Find root cause.
1. We can hypothesize Tim is not comprehending text because he is not able to decode words with automaticity. What are the prerequisite skills that are preventing Tim from reading fluently and accurately ?
2. May need additional information/assessments to identify specific needs such as: Running Records with Miscue(Error) Analysis - Gather miscue samples at student instructional level and look for common themes
Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim
Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle
Instructional Sort
Digging Deeper: Group 3 - Tim
Word Recognition
Phonological
Basic Decoding
Multi-syllabication
Howell, cited by Harken and Fay
Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim
Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle
Instructional Sort
Digging Even Deeper - Match Instruction to Student Need
• Instruction on missing decoding skills.
• Instruction on word recognition.
• Work on applying skills to connected text at instructional level.
• Work on fluent reading at independent level.
Sample Instructional Plan:
Group 3-Tim
Howell, cited by Harken and Fay
Group 4 - Inaccurate but High Rate - JanelleFind Root Cause - Could be due to Multiple Reasons
• May need instructional emphasis on monitoring for meaning
• May need to teach student to adjust rate of reading to type of text and purpose for reading
• May be inserting or deleting words (particularly function words such as: a, the), dropping endings, etc.
• May need to cue student when she makes an error to create awareness of the inaccuracy: assisted self-monitoring
Group 1: Accurate and FluentChris
Group 3:Inaccurate and Slow RateTim
Group 4:Inaccurate but High RateJanelle
Instructional Sort
Organizing Your Data to Match Student Need Group 4- Janelle
Sample Instructional Plan:• Cue student when student
makes an error to create awareness of the inaccurate error: assisted self-monitoring
• Teach student to apply self- monitoring strategies
• Set goal: Challenge student to read a portion of the text with 2 or fewer errors
• Teach student to adjust rate of reading to type of text and purpose for reading
Howell, cited by Harken and Fay
Need to Consider Both
Quantitative Changes Smaller group size More time Longer duration Greater frequency
Qualitative Changes Specific instructional foci More practice
opportunities Type of adult feedback Arrangement of setting to
reduce distractions
Be Mindful of the Stages in the Skill Development Model of Learning
Newly Taught Skill or
Strategy
Learn it With
Accuracy
Practice for
Fluency/Automatic
ity
Keep Practicing
for Maintena
nceNow Can
Make Generaliza
tions
Adapt/ Apply to
New Situations
Adapted from : Haring and Eaton Instructional Hierarchy-(1978) David Howe (2006)
A Systemic and Systematic Digging Deeper Instructional Sort Process Works Across CCSS Standards
* For another example, see Phonological Instructional Sort PPT
Concept of Print
*Phonological Awareness
Letter Recognition
Letter/Sounds
Phonics