Web viewNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ... reading practice or word-level instruction...

Standard Operating Procedure: Proven Practices

March, 2013

The Oregon Department of Education (DOE) is committed to continuously improving the quality and equity of educational opportunities for children and their families. Toward this end ODE promotes efforts to identify, understand, demonstrate and disseminate evidence-based educational practices that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Oregon’s schools. The present document describes:

(a) The core outcomes guiding the mission of education in Oregon,(b) Recommended criteria for identifying educational practices for adoption

Identification of emerging, promising and proven practices is intended to assist state, district, building and classroom investment in educational improvement. When considering selection or adoption of new educational practices, consideration of the following criteria is encouraged.

Core Educational Goals

All educational practices will be assessed in part by the extent to which they advance core educational goals. The Oregon Department of Education exists to enhance the (a) academic achievement, (b) social development and (c) health & safety of all children in the state. Adoption of any new practice should include consideration of how that practices will facilitate these goals.

Categories of Educational Practices

Education is a complex endeavor with ever improving curriculum, instructional practices, assessments, evaluations and support strategies. Every classroom, school, district and region in the state has an obligation to promote continuous improvement in the education provided to students. It is useful, however, to consider educational practices as fitting into four categories: Standard practices, Emerging practices, Promising practices, and Proven practices.

Standard Practices are those used regularly as part of on-going educational efforts and cycles. These practices represent our current best perception of how to provide an effective education. They represent practices that have been historically helpful and effective.

Emerging Practices are ideas, curricula, programs and procedures that have reasonable likelihood to improve the core outcomes of education in Oregon’s schools, but have not yet been validated through research and model demonstrations to be effective, practical, and scalable. Emerging practices have sufficient documentation to encourage further research, development, and/or investment in model demonstrations on a small scale, but not large-scale dissemination.

Promising Practices are ideas, curricula, programs and/or procedures that address a core educational outcome, have clearly defined procedures and training materials, are documented via peer reviewed research to produce valued outcomes, but (a) do not meet a current ODE need, (b) are too similar to existing practices, (c) require substantial infrastructure investment, or (d) have not been validated via implementation across at least 50 schools in Oregon.

Promoting Educational Effectiveness in Oregon: Standard Operating Procedure for Identifying and Implementing Educational Innovation


Proven Practices are practices that address at least one core educational outcome, have clearly defined procedures and training materials, are scientifically validated through peer reviewed research to be effective, socially valued, are sufficiently practical and efficient to fit with existing educational practice, and have been validated as effective across at least 50 schools in Oregon.

To be considered “Emerging” practices meet the following criteria:

1. The practice is of sufficient scope to affect one or more core educational outcomes.

a. Smaller strategies or programs may be of high value, but need to be bundled with additional practices or administrative systems to produce impact on core outcomes.

2. The practice is defined with sufficient precision that there is a reasonable expectation that others may use the manuals, materials, or training content to implement the practice accurately.

3. The practice includes the professional development and administrative support procedures needed for high quality, sustained implementation.

4. The practice includes procedures for continuous improvement and sustainability.

To be considered “Promising” practices meet the criteria noted above plus the following, additional criteria:

1. The practice includes procedures for measuring fidelity of implementation

2. The practice has been validated as effective through peer reviewed research documenting

a. At least one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) demonstrating a positive effect, or 5 single subject studies that document improved student outcomes.

b. No studies documenting negative effects

To be considered “Proven” the ODE requires that practices meet all the criteria noted above plus the following, additional criteria:

1. The practice has been proven feasible, socially acceptable, and effective within Oregon via demonstration across at least 50 schools.

a. Documented evidence of the fidelity, social validity and impact of the practice when implemented in Oregon.

b. Documented evidence that the practice is feasible and cost-effective within Oregon.c. The practice is more effective and/or feasible and/or cost-effective than alternatives available for

implementation in Oregon.d. The practice incorporates active family and community involvement where appropriate.e. The practice addresses Oregon’s commitment to equity in education.

2. The practice is assessed as more effective and/or efficient than current alternatives.



Example:

Consideration/ Criterion School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports (SWPBIS)

Tiered Model for Literacy Instruction

Practice addresses a core educational goal

Social behavior of students Increased reading scores

Reductions in:

Special education referrals Disproportional rate at which

ethnic minority and male students were referred for special education evaluations

Amount of financial resources dedicated to unnecessary special education evaluations.

Practice is defined with precision Core features defined with precision at all three tiers

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a suite of evidence-based activities. For each element, core features are defined.

a) Universal screening for all students to determine their status against academic and social benchmarks;

d) Monitoring student progress;

b) Scientifically based CORE instruction for all students (Tier 1);

c) Secondary prevention interventions (Tier 2) for students not responding adequately to Tier 1 instruction; and

e) Tertiary prevention instruction (Tier 3) for students making insufficient progress in response to Tier 2 instruction.

Practice includes a clear professional development plan/ protocol

Training curriculum exists, but there are multiple approaches for achieving the core features

Training curriculum exists for each of the five features, but there are multiple approaches for ensuring understanding and implementation of each.



Practice includes a process for continuous improvement/ sustainability

Team self-assessment and action planning used to improve, sustain SWPBIS

Team self-assessment and action planning to improve implementation of RTI (i.e., NASDE Blueprints for State, District and School Level Implementation; RTI for Success) are available for free on-line

Practice includes efficient measures of fidelity to guide implementation

Both research-quality and practical user fidelity tools are available online, and free

Treatment (i.e., fidelity tools associated with a specific curriculum) and process (i.e., DIBELS analysis; NASDE self-assessment) are available for each element, though not all are standardized

Peer reviewed research is available that documents the efficacy of the practice

Five peer reviewed RCTs document efficacy of SWPBIS. Specific studies are listed in Appendix A.

The research base for establishing the impact of various models or approaches to RTI is emerging.

Much research has been conducted on the model as well as the components of the model in isolation. Specific studies are listed in Appendix B.

Model:

Policy Analyses

Demonstrated Effectiveness

Scaling

Learning Disabilities Identification

Use with Special Populations

Efficacy of Core Features:

Formative Assessment

Universal screening Progress monitoring

Scientifically based CORE instruction for all students (Tier 1)

Secondary prevention interventions (Tier 2)

Tertiary prevention instruction (Tier 3)



The practices has been field-test successfully across at least 50 schools in Oregon

Over 600 schools in Oregon are using SWPBIS

Over 55 school districts in Oregon have adopted the Response to Intervention Framework

The practice is more efficient (time/money/personnel) than alternatives

Tier I very efficient.

Tiers II and III more challenging, but appear more efficient and effective than alternatives.

Documented evidence of efficiency does not exist.



APPENDIX A: Random Control Trails for SWPBIS

Bradshaw, C., Koth, C., Thornton, L., & Leaf, P. (2009). Altering school climate through School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a Group-Randomized Effectiveness Trial. Prevention Science, 10, 100-115.

Bradshaw C., Leaf, P., et al. (in progress). Randomized control trial of secondary and tertiary interventions added to schools already using primary prevention efforts.

Cheney, D., Stage, S. Hawken, L., Lynass, L., Mielenz, C., Waugh, M. (2009). A 2-year outcome study of the check, connect, and expect intervention for students at risk for severe behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 226-243.

Richter, M., Lewis, T., & Hagar, J. (2012). The relationship between principal leadership skills and school-wide positive behavior support: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 14 (2) 69-77.

Walker, H., Seeley, J., Small, J., Severson, H., Graham, B., Feil, E., Serna, L., Golly A., Forness, S. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of the first step to success early intervention: Demonstration of program efficacy outcomes in a diverse, urban school district. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 17, 197-212.



APPENDIX B: Studies on the Response to Intervention Model

Major Policy Analyses Supporting Movement Toward RtI

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108–446 (2004).

Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., R. A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Executive Summary of Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. http://www.nctm.org/standards/12752_exec_pssm.pdf

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching students to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families.

Rand Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

RtI Models That Have Demonstrated Effectiveness

Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B., & Gibbons, K. A. (2007). The St. Croix River education district model: Incorporating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K.

Callender, W. A. (2007). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to intervention statewide. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 331–342). New York: Springer.

Ikeda, M. J., Tilly, W. D., Stumme, J., Volmer, L., & Allison, R. (1996). Agency-wide implementation of problem solving consultation: Foundation, current implementation, and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 228–243.

Kovaleski, J. F., Tucker, J. A., & Stevens, L. J. (1996). Bridging special and regular education: The Pennsylvania initiative. Educational Leadership, 53, 44–47.

Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., Vankeuren, B., & Marston, D. (2006). Perspectives on the use of



the Problem-Solving Model from the viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator, and teacher from a large Midwest urban school district. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 117–127.

Simmons, D. C., Kuykendall, K., King, K., Cornachione, C., & Kameenui, E. J. (2000). Implementation of a schoolwide reading improvement model: “No one ever told us it would be this hard!” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 92–100.

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. The School Psychology Review, 29, 443–461.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S. G., Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney, J. (2007). Preventing early reading difficulties through kindergarten and first grade intervention: A variant of the three-tier model. In D. Haager, S. Vaughn, & J. K. Klinger (Eds.), Validated practices for three tiers of reading intervention (pp. 186). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Scaling RtI at the Systems Level

Burns, M., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to- intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.

Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities, 18, 201–211.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57–61.

Glover, T. A., & DiPerna, J. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36, 526–540.

Heartland (2005). Heartland AEA 11 annual progress report. Retrieved on 7/01/06 from www.aea11.k12.ia.us/downloads/2005apr.pdf.

Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, H. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170–183.

Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187–200.

McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. (2003). Intervention-based assessment: Evaluation rates and eligibility findings. Exceptional Children, 69, 181–194.

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443–461.

Accuracy of Learning Disability Identification Using RtI



Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.

Boardman, A. G., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Response to intervention as a framework for the prevention and identification of learning disabilities: Which comes first, identification or intervention? In J. B. Crockett, M. M. Gerber, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman (pp. 15–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. K. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393–406.

Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557–582.

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108

Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 172–186.

Speece, D., & Case, L. (2001). Classification in context: an alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 735–749.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Naquin, G. (2003). Development of validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204–227.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391– 409.

Using RtI with Special Populations

Baker, S. K., & Baker, D. L. (2008). English learners and response to intervention: Improving quality of instruction in general and special education. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond. New York: Springer.

Baker, S., Gersten R., Haager, D., & Dingle, M. (2006). Teaching practice and the reading growth of first-grade English learners: Validation of an observation instrument. Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 199–219.

Gerber, M., Jimenez, T., Leafstedt, J., Villaruz, J., Richards, C., & English, J. (2004). English reading effects of small-group intensive intervention in Spanish for K-1 English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 239–251.



Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield, S. A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 42– 51.

Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103.

Gresham, F. (2001, August). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hllahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research in practice (pp.467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A., & Black, C. (2002). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: a follow-up. The Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 69–79.

Healy, K., Vanderwood, M., & Edelston, D. (2005). Early literacy interventions for English language learners: Support for an RtI model. The California School Psychologist, 10, 55– 63.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 70, 185–199.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2005). Quantifying context in assessment: Capturing the effect of base rates on teacher referral and a problem-solving model of identification. School Psychology Review, 34, 161–183.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 58–67.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Du- rodola, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Fran- cis, D. (2006). Effectiveness of an Eng- lish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153–180.

Formative Assessment

Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Suldo, S. M., Connell, J. E., Koenig, J. L., Resetar, J. L., et al. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218–233.

Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., III, Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E., Jr. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically-based special service decisions from increasing and decreasing intensity single case designs. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.

Burns, M. K. (in press). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response–to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly.

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early identification: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational



Psychology, 98, 394–409.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 7–21.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.

Glover, T. A., & Albers, C. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 117–135.

Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.

Improving Core Instruction for All Students: Tier I Application

American Institutes for Research. (1999). An educator’s guide to schoolwide reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J. M. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O’Connor, R. (2001b). Is reading impor- tant in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 251–267.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report to the National reading panel, teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: author.

Improving Instruction in Schools Using Supplemental Instruction: Tier II Application

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: a two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394–409.

Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., Underwood, P., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction pre- cisely: Effects of child by instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77–100.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Hope, S. K., Hollenbeck, K. N., Capizzi, A. M., Craddock, C. F., & Brothers, R. L. (2006). Extending responsiveness-to-intervention to math problem-solving at third grade. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 59–63.

Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Rob- erts, G. (2008). Intensifying instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 115–125.

Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(1), 53–85.



Lennon, J. E., & Slesinski, C. (1999). Early intervention in reading: Results of a screening and intervention program for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 28, 353–364.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.

Speece, D. L. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some thoughts on screening children for secondary interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 487-493.

Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7– 26.

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or word-level instruction in supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 364–380.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to- remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ- achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.

Intensive Instruction: Tier III Application

Daly, E. J., III, Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554–574.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model of decision-making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326–336.

Gresham, F. M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18, 37–50.

Lentz, F. E., & Shapiro, E. S. (1986). Functional assessment of the academic environment. School Psychology Review, 15, 346–357.

Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187–200.

Mortenson, B. P., & Witt, J. C. (1998). The use of weekly performance feedback to increase teacher implementation of a prereferral academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 27, 613–628.

Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., Koenig, J. L., Resetar, J. L., & Duhon, G. J. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34, 87–106.

Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 147–156.

Witt, J. C., Noell, G. H., LaFleur, L. H., & Mortenson, B. P. (1997). Teacher usage of interventions in general education: Measurement and analysis of the independent variable. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,



693–696.


Web viewNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ... reading practice or word-level instruction...

Documents

Transcript of Web viewNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ... reading practice or word-level instruction...