1 Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008 Response to...
-
Upload
anthony-barker -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008 Response to...
1
Oregon Branch of theInternational Dyslexia Association
Lecture Series 2007-2008
Response to Intervention And
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses:Specific Learning Disabilities 2008
Jim Hanson, M.Ed.
2
Goals of the Presentation
Response to Intervention
Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses
Complimentary, not exclusive approaches
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 readersChildren who were found to be difficult (and easy) to remediateRTI 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)
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.
16
Options (either – or both)
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
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).
22
Shaywitz, Fletcher, and McGrew1. Phonologic
Weakness
2. Memory
3. Rapid Word Retrieval
1. Phonologic Awareness
2. Working Memory
3. Rapid Naming
1. Phonological Awareness (Ga, PC)
2. Working Memory (WM) & Associative Memory (MA)
3. Processing Speed (Gs), & Naming Facility (NA)
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
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 memory poor)
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 poorReal word reading and comprehension
improvements, but they are not significant. Increases in left and right hemisphere functioningEden (2005)
43
Just the associations
PAL Alphabet Retrieval GamesRewards (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)
53
President’s Message
“I would hope that the goal here is to expand the methods of assessment available to the practitioner and not to limit them. It seems possible that these two very valuable approaches can be utilized along a continuum of collecting information about a child that would culminate in a very clear and comprehensive evaluation that would be of value to all.” Huff, L. (2005, February). President’s Message. NASP Communique, 33, 2-3.
55
Sources and Acknowledgements
Portland Public Schools LD Integration Committee Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as
inadequate response to instruction: the promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 137-146.
Fletcher, J., Morris, R., & Lyon, G.R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: an integrative perspective. In H. Swanson, K.
Harris, & S. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp 30-56). New York, NY: The Guilford Press
Geary, D. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: problem solving differences and cognitive deficits. In H. Swanson, K. Harris, & S.
Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp 199-212). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Eden, G. (2005, October 8). Understanding the reading brain: Functional brain imaging studies of reading and reading disabilities. Powerpoint presented
at the 2005 OHSU Fall Science Partnership.
56
More Sources and Acknowledgments
Fletcher, J. (2004). Neuropsychology of reading & learning disabilities.Powerpoint presentation.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New
York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Flanagan, D., and Ortiz, S. (2004). CHC cross-battery
assessment and LD determination: Theoretical and empirical advances in the evaluation and identification of learning disabilities. Powerpoint presentation.
Floyd, R., Bergeron, B., et. al. (2005). Are Cattell-Horn-Carroll broad ability composite scores exchangeable across batteries?
School Psychology Review, 34 (3), 329-357. McGrew, K. (2005). from http://www.iapsych.com/