Data-Based Individualization

What Is IntensiveInstruction andWhy Is It Important?Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, and Sharon Vaughn

We begin with this little noticed butimportant and uncontestable fact:Many students with disabihties areperforming abysmally in America'sschools. In the past decade, the Officeof Special Education Programs in theU.S. Department of Educationcommissioned two nationallyrepresentative, longitudinal studies ofthe academic achievement of studentswith disabilities in elementary and highschools—the Special EducationElementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS)and the National LongitudinalTransition Study-2 (NLTS-2). In 2008,the SEELS data indicated that 64% ofthe elementary school children withlearning disabilities (LD) were scoringbelow the 20th percentile on theWoodcock-Johnson PassageComprehension Test (Schiller, Sanford,& Blackorby, 2008). High schoolstudents with LD, according to theNLTS-2 data, were on average 3.4 yearsbehind grade level in reading; 3.2 yearsbehind in math. One quarter of thestudents with LD dropped out of schooland only 46% of students with LDhad paid employment 2 years later(Wagner, Marder et al , 2003; Wagner,Newman et al , 2003).

Response toIntervention (RTI)

Tiers 1 and 2

RTI was designed to improve theacademic performance of strugglingstudents with and without disabilities

and to provide practitioners with amore vahd means of disabilityidentification. Toward these ends, RTIapproaches require service delivery tobe reorganized, or restructured, intomultiple tiers of increasingly intensiveinstruction. The first tier (Tier 1) refersto the general instruction that allstudents receive in mainstreamclassrooms. This instruction shouldinclude providing virtually all studentswith the core instructional program,classroom routines meant to provideopportunity for instructionaldifferentiation, and accommodationsthat in principle permit access to tbeprimary prevention programs as wellas problem-solving strategies foraddressing students' motivation andbehavior.

Whereas highly effectiveTier 1 programs are designed usinginstructional principles derived fromresearch, they are not typicallyvalidated by research. Tier 2programs, by contrast, often involvesmall group instruction that relies onempirically validated instructionalpractices typically involving smallgroup interventions. "Vahdation"means that experimental orquasiexperimental studies havedemonstrated that the interventionprograms are effective for the studentsfor whom they were developed. Suchinstruction specifies procedures,duration of the instruction (typically10 to 20 weeks of 20- to 45-minutesessions), and its frequency (three or

four times per week). The interventionprograms are often led by an adultwith special training. Assessment atTier 2 determines whether studentshave responded adequately to theinterventions. This assessment isusually based on progress monitoring,testing following tutoring, or acombination of the two. Schools aresupposed to use these data to decidewhether students should return to Tier1 without additional Tier 2 support orwhether more intensive intervention isnecessary.

Students who do notbenefít adequately fromRTI's first two tiers of

instniction...signal a needfor even more intensive

educational care.

Need for Intensive Intervention

Research shows that many strugglingstudents in the primary grades respondsuccessfully to Tier 1 and Tier 2instruction (e.g., McMaster, Fuchs,Fuchs, & Compton, 2005; O'Connor,2000; Vadasy, Sanders, Peyton, &Jenkins, 2002; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Yetthese same researchers (as well asadditional researchers) indicate thatthese interventions—even whenimplemented with fidelity—do notdramatically decrease the rate of

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MARCH/APRIL 2014 13

inadequate responders to reading andmathematics programs. Further, thesuccess rate of older students (Grades 4and older] participating in Tier 2 typeinterventions is less than that ofprimary-grade students (e.g., Gilbertet al., 2013; O'Connor & Fuchs, 2013;Vaughn et al., 2010; Wanzek et a l ,2013). Before discussing what oftenhappens to the nonresponders to RTI'sprevention efforts, let's considerprevention in the context of health care.

Those who contribute to effective andefficient health care systems know theimportance of minimizing the use ofintensive (and expensive) levels of theprevention system. Efforts are made toensure high-quality primary care, withregular screenings to facilitate earlyaccess to lower cost interventions asnecessary. Despite the high regard givento primary care doctors and nurses,hospital administrators and policymakersappreciate that a most intensive level ofthe health care, including its high-cost

specialists and hospitals, is necessary toprevent the negative consequences ofvery serious medical conditions. That is,the existence of effective primary caredoes not negate the importance of andneed for intensive care. A key challengefor health care systems is to movepatients in and out of intensive servicesas quickly as possible while recognizingthat long-term intensive treatment maybe necessary for some. In short,successful health care preventionsystems incorporate a full spectrum ofservices to address a broad array ofhealth issues.

Returning to the students who donot beneflt adequately from RTI's flrsttwo tiers of instruction, assuming thisinstruction was selected appropriatelyand implemented accurately for anadequate duration, these students'nonresponsiveness signals a need foreven more intensive educational care.As practitioners, however, thesestudents do not routinely get more

When students are notsufficiently responsive toresearch-validated Tier 2tutoring programs, what

can teachers do tointensify instruction to

make it heneficial?

intensive instruction, and thatproviding typical special educationservices does not ensure an appropriateeducation. If a student is unresponsiveto Tiers 1 and 2, one of two thingsusually happens. In one scenario, thestudent lingers indeñnitely at Tier 2,participating in instruction of similarinadequate intensity despite continuedpoor performance. Special education isnot considered.

In a second scenario, the student isidentified as "special needs" and isgiven a form of special educationthat is meant to provide instructionin the general classroom whereaccommodations to curricula andco-teaching are to be provided. In fact,according to Wagner, Marder et al.(2003) and Wagner, Newman et al.(2003), most students with LD receiveno substantial modiflcations to generaleducation curriculum or instruction.So, in this scenario, children with LD(and children with other disabilities),who have shown a poor initialresponse to general educationinstruction followed by an inadequateresponse at Tier 2, are returned togeneral education without any form ofintensive interventions. We cannot helpbut observe that the popularity of thisapproach to special education suggestsmany schools have given up onteaching its most academicallyvulnerable students with much-neededintensive interventions.

Contributing to this unacceptablesituation for students who are strugglingis the unfounded and naïve belief thatvirtually all children and youth withdisabilities, including those with veryserious learning problems, are helpedsufficiently by the core curriculum withco-teaching, modiflcations to the coreinstructional program, or other suchsupports. Our impression is that more

14 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

than a few college and university facultyresponsible for the preparation ofspecial educators share this view. Thatis, they assume that teaching preserviceprofessionals to work alongside ageneral educator in a class of 25-35students will provide sufflcientacademic support to all strugglingstudents with and without a disabilitylabel. We observe too few preservicespecial educators with appropriatecourse work in reading, math, writinginstruction and assessment thatincludes progress monitoring. Too fewwould-be special educators work forextended periods with students whosevery signiflcant learning problemschallenge their knowledge of instructionand curricula while they are under theguidance of experts in instruction,curricula, and data collection andanalysis.

Regardless of the vahdity of theseimpressions, we know from our ownwork in schools that few educatorsknow how to develop and deliverintensive intervention distinctive fromTier 2 small group tutoring. Manyschools do not have the know-how toprovide specialized intensiveintervention and, therefore, cannotoffer "full-spectrum" instruction to allits students. For these very importantreasons, the Ofñce of Special EducationPrograms created the NationalCenter on Intensive Intervention (NCII,www.ncii.org). The NCII's goals are toprovide schools with a research-backedvision of what intensive interventionlooks like for students with severelearning needs, and with the assistanceto build capacity to provide suchintervention so all students will achieveacceptable postschool outcomes. In theremainder of this article, we presenttwo models of intensive instruction andsome of the evidentiary basesupporting them.

Two Models of IntensiveInstruction

Model 1 : Intensified Tier 2Instruction

When students are not sufficientlyresponsive to research-validated Tier 2tutoring programs, what can teachers

do to intensify instruction to make itbeneflcial? A first question may be this:Is this student progressing, butprogressing too slowly? If so, additionalinstructional time may be anappropriate intensiflcation for thestudent. With additional time, teachersmay plan for a greater amount ofpractice with feedback to solidify andexpand proficiency on foundation skills,offer more explicit systematic (step-by-step) itistruction, focus on teaching newskills and strategies, and use studentperformance as feedback for adjustinginstruction. There are at least twostrategies for intensifying Instructionand accelerating the learning ofstudents progressing too slowly.

Data-basedindividualization (DBI)is an empirically provenmethod for individuallytailoring instruction forstudents with signifícant

learning problems.

Is the size of the group suitable forspecialized Instruction and practicewith feedback, considering theexpertise of the teacher and theseverity of the students ' learningproblems?

Researchers who focus on group size(e.g., Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, &Moody, 1999, 2000) suggest whatteachers have known all along—smallergroups allow teachers to provide morespecialized instruction. How small? Theanswer depends on the age of thestudents and the content they arelearning. Generally, small groups andone-on-one instruction are associatedwith better outcomes for students withlearning problems than larger groups(Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007, 2008).

Important to the decision aboutgroup size are two issues: Who isproviding the instruction and howserious is the learning problem?Teachers who are knowledgeable aboutworking with students with seriouslearning difflculties (e.g., specialeducation teachers) may be able to

provide appropriate instruction in smallgroups, whereas less experiencedteachers may need to provide one-on-one instruction with supervision. Also,students with serious learning problemsare likely to require the inherentadvantages of smaller group size.

Is the duration of the instructionadequate?

Duration of instruction refers tothe amount of time each day theinstruction is provided (e.g., 20minutes, 30 minutes, or 50 minutes),the frequency with which instructionalsessions are delivered (e.g., 3 times perweek or daily), and the number ofweeks the intervention lasts (e.g., 12weeks or 20 weeks). So strategies forincreasing the duration of interventionare to increase (a) the amount of timefor each session, (b) the number oftimes per week the sessions arescheduled, and/or (c) the number ofweeks the intervention lasts. Studentresponses to each of these adjustmentsshould he quantified by collectingprogress-monitoring data. These datawill help teachers interpret theeffectiveness of such adjustments,which we discuss in Model 2.

Decreasing group size, increasingintervention time, and engagingwell-prepared (knowledgeable andexperienced) personnel to provideinterventions are expensive. However,the cost of not providing intensiveinterventions (i.e., students exitingschools without the necessary skills tosucceed) is more expensive. And notethat not all students require very smallgroups or one-on-one instruction. Ifstudents are succeeding in largergroups (6-8 students), there is littleneed to change group size. Yet whentheir progress is inadequate, teachersare advised to adjust the program byrelying on smaller groups, increasingtime for intervention, and involvinghighly trained personnel to deliverinterventions.

Model 2: Data-BasedIndividualization (DBI)

For some students, the intensity ofinstruction described in Model 1—increasing instructional opportunities

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MARCH/APRIL 2014 15

and practice but staying with an off-the-shelf, validated Tier 2 program—isinsufficient. These students requireindividualized instruction. By"individualized," we mean one-to-oneinstruction designed to meet astudent's learning needs. DBI is anempirically proven method forindividually tailoring instruction forstudents with significant learningproblems. Eor detailed descriptions ofDBI, see D. Euchs, Euchs, and Stecker(2010), L. S. Euchs and Euchs (1998),and Stecker (2005). For discussion ofrandomized control studies of DBI, seeStecker, Euchs, and Euchs (;2005). Thefollowing is an outline of the process ateacher would likely follow whenimplementing DBI. It starts whereModel 1 left off.

Research on the efficacy ofDBI shows that it helpsteachers plan stronger,

more strategic programsand accelerate the

academic growth ofstruggling students withand without disabilities.

• The teacher begins with a validatedoff-the-shelf program (i.e., theinstructional platform) that hasbeen intensified by increasinginstructional opportunities andpractice, as described in Model 1.To find appropriate Tier 2instructional programs, she goes towww.intensiveintervention.org andnavigates to the "Instructional ToolsChart. " Einding a Tier 2 program onthe Tools Chart does not mean that ithas strong evidence of working well.One has to inspect the "bubbles" onthe chart to determine the quality ofthe evidence associated with theprogram and look at its effect sizesto determine the size of its effects.

• To monitor her student's responseto an intensified instructionalprogram, the teacher selects avalidated form of ongoing progressmonitoring (for examples, go towww. intensiveintervention. org;

navigate to the "Progress MonitoringTools Chart"). As with theInstructional Tools Chart,representation in the ProgressMonitoring Tools Chart does notmean the progress-monitoringmeasure is valid. Again, one mustcarefully inspect the bubbles in thechart to know whether the toolmeets technical criteria for a strongprogress-monitoring system.

• As the teacher begins implementingthe intensified instructionalprogram, she uses the progress-monitoring measure to collect threeinitial scores on 3 consecutive days.She uses the median (middle) scoreto characterize the student's initiallevel of performance [i.e., thebaseline score, before DBI begins).She plots the baseline score on thedate corresponding one day beforeDBI begins and draws a dottedvertical line on the graph on thisdate to indicate the setting ofbaseline performance.

• She then determines a goal (i.e., theexpected year-end score). Variousmethods exist for goal setting. Eorexample, the teacher can usenormative information, indicatinghow much progress is made bytypically developing students at thatgrade level without intervention.(See the Progress Monitoring ToolsChart to determine which systemsprovide normative data.) The teachercan then multiply the baseline scoreby 1.5, a degree or amount ofexpected growth used in somerandomized control studies. (Go towww.intensiveintervention.org andnavigate to "Summer Institutes: RTI"for additional options and specificdirections on goal setting.)

• The teacher plots the goal on thegraph on the date corresponding tothe last instructional day of theschool year. She then draws astraight line from the baselinescore/date to the year-end goal/date. This "goal line" is thestudent's "moving target."It represents the score the studentneeds to achieve on any given dateto be on target for achieving theyear-end goal.

• Then, the teacher implements theintensified instructional programand continues collecting progress-monitoring data. She collects andgraphs one data point each week.

• When four consecutive scores fallabove the goal line, the teacherincreases the goal and redraws thegoal line. When four consecutivescores fall below the goal line, theteacher revises a component of theintensified instructional program. Ineither case, the teacher draws avertical line on the student's graphto indicate a goal change (in whichcase, the vertical line is dotted tosignify a goal increase) or to indicatea program revision (in which case,the vertical line is solid).

• If eight data points have beencollected since the last verticalline and four consecutive scores donot fall above or below the goalline, the teacher draws a lineof best fit through the eight datapoints. (Eor information ondrawing a hne of best fit, go tohttp://www.rti4sucess.org/ andnavigate to "RTI Implementer SeriesModule 2: Progress Monitoring.")If the line of best fit is steeper thanthe goal line, the teacher increasesthe goal. If the une of best fit is lesssteep than the goal line, the teacherrevises a component of theinstructional program.

• To determine the effectiveness of arevision to the instructionalprogram, the teacher pursues one ormore of the following strategies:o Inspects the progress-monitoring

data already collected to identifyweaknesses that may provideappropriate targets of additionalinstruction.

o Administers an additionalprogress-monitoring probe andobserve the student completingthe test to search for informationabout strategies the studentuses when making key errors.Eor example, the teacher mayconduct a miscue analysis asthe student reads aloud or shemay question the student abouthis thinking when completing amathematics assessment.

16 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

o Administers a diagnosticassessment to gather informationabout skill strengths andweaknesses.

o Thinks about the effects ofprevious program modificationsto identify the types of changesassociated with strong and weakstudent response,

o Considers the student'sperformance during interventionsessions to generate ideas aboutpotentially productive strategiesfor revising the program. Forexample, motivation to workhard or attend carefully may bean issue, which can be addressedby introducing or changing thebehavior management system.Alternatively or additionally, theteacher may observe that thestudent produces many correctresponses, but the laboriousnessof the responses detracts fromcomprehending reading materialor focusing on a complexsequence of steps involved inmath problem solving. Thiswould suggest that fluencybuilding on reading word typesor on component steps of amath task may represent aproductive program revision. Goto www,intensiveintervention,organd navigate to the Resources tabfor other potentially productiveprogram revisions, dependingon the nature of the student'sproblem.

This DBI process continues throughoutthe school year. The teacher uses herclinical experience and judgment todesign an intensive interventionprogram over time for the student.In other words, she follows a processof program building we call "informedtrial and error," One doesn't knowwhat program components willaccelerate growth before beginning towork with the student who has beenchronically unresponsive to priorinstructional tiers. Programdevelopment is informed by progress-monitoring data that quantify thestudent's response to the instructionalchanges and help the teacher

understand what works for a specificstudent. Research on the efficacy ofDBI shows that it helps teachers planstronger, more strategic programs andaccelerate the academic growth ofstrugghng students with and withoutdisabilities.

Final Thoughts

Although we have tried to be emphaticin stating the need for intensiveinstruction and DBI, we have beendeliberately vague about who shouldprovide it. With appropriate training,reading and math specialists could,speech/language clinicians might, andsome number of school psychologistsno doubt would have interest. Ourpreference would be special educators,partly because special education'shistorical raison d'etre has been to helpthe students most difficult to teach.Regardless of whether it is provided byspecial educators or professionals froman allied field who make intensiveinstruction their responsibility, theclinician-teachers who conductintensive interventions effectively willbe a very special group, Ellen Ulman(2013), a former software engineer,recently wrote about what it takes tobecome a successful computerprogrammer. She said:

The first requirement forprogramming is a passion for thework, a deep need to probe themysterious space between humanthoughts and what a machine canunderstand; between human desiresand how machines might satisfythem. The second requirement is ahigh tolerance for failure.Programming is the art of algorithmdesign and the craft of debuggingerrant code. In the words of thegreat John Backus, inventor of theFortran programming language:"You need the willingness to fail allthe time. You have to generate manyideas and then you have to workvery hard only to discover that theydon't work. And you keep doingthat over and over until you findone that does work. (p. 5}

This statement describes preciselywhat's in store for those with sufficient

ambition, passion, knowledge,creativity, and stubbornness whoaspire to meaningfully improveoutcomes for our most academicallyvulnerable students.

References

Elbaum, B,, Vaughn, S,, Hughes, M, T,, &Moody, S, W, (1999), Grouping practicesand reading outcomes for students withdisabilities. Exceptional Children, 65,

399-415,

Elbaum, B,, Vaughn, S,, Hughes, M, T,, &Moody, S, W, (2000), How effective areone-to-one tutoring programs in readingfor elementary students at risk forreading failure? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 92, 605-619, http://dx,doi,org/10,1037//0022-0663,92,4,605

Fuchs, D,, Fuchs, L, S,, & Stecker, P, M,(2010), The "blurring" of specialeducation in a new continuum of generaleducation placements and services.Exceptional Children, 76, 301-322,

Fuchs, L, S,, & Fuchs, D, (1998), Treatmentvalidity: A unifying concept forreconceptualizing the identification oflearning disabilities. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 13, 204-219,

Gilbert, J, K,, Compton, D, L,, Fuchs, D,,Fuchs, L, S,, Bouton, B,, Barquero,L, A,, & Cho, E, [2013), Efficacyof a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model forstruggling readers, Reading Research

Quarterly, 48, 135-154, http://dx,doi,org/10,1002/rrq,45

McMaster, K, L,, Fuchs, D,, Fuchs, L, S,, &Compton, D, L, (2005), Responding tononresponders: An experimental fieldtrial of identification and interventionmethods. Exceptional Children, 71,

445-463,

O'Connor, R, (2000), Increasing theintensity of interventions in kindergartenand first grade. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 15, 43-54, http://dx,doi,org/10,1207/SLDRP1501_5

O'Connor, R,, & Fuchs, L, S, (2013),Responsiveness to intervention in theelementary grades: Implications for earlychildhood education. In V, Buysse,E, Peisner-Feinberg, & J, Cantler, (Eds,),Handbook of response to intervention

(RTI) in early childhood education

(pp, 41-56), Baltimore: Brookes,

Schiller, E,, Sanford, C , & Blackorby,J, (2008), A national profile ofthe

classroom experiences and academic

performance of students with LD: A

special topic repori from the Special

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN I MARCH/APRIL 2014 17

Education Elementary Longitudinal.

Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Retrieved from http://www.seels.net/info_reports/national_profile_students_learning_disabilities.htm

Stecker, P. M. (2005). Tertiary intervention:Using progress monitoring with intensiveservices. TEACHING Exceptional

Children, 39(5), 50-57.

Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs,D. (2005). Using curdcuium-basedmeasurement to improve studentachievement: Review of research.Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795-820.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20113

Ulman, E. (2013, May 19). How to be a"woman programmer." The New York

Times, p. 5.

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., Peyton,J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (2002). Timingand intensity of tutoring: A closer look atthe conditions for effective early literacytutoring. Learning Disabilities Research

and Practice, 17, 227-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00048

Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J.,Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Dentón,C. A., . . . Francis, D. J. [2010).Response to intervention for middleschool students with readingdifficulties: Effects of a primaryand secondary intervention. School

Psychology Review, 39, 3-21.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., &Hickman, P. (2003). Response toinstruction as a means of identifying

students with reading/learningdisabilities. Exceptional Children, 69,

391-409.

Wagner, M., Marder, C , Blackorby, J.,Cameto, R., Newman, L., Levine, P., &Davies-Mercier, E. (2003).The achievements of youth with

disabilities during secondary school. A

report from the National Longitudinal

Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park,CA: SRI International. Retrieved fromwww.nlts2.org/reports/2003_ll/nlts2_report_2003_l l_complete.pdf

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R.,Levine, P., & Marder, C. (2003). Going to

school: Instructional contexts, programs,

and participation of secondary school

students with disabilities. A report from

the National Longitudinal Transition

Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA:SRI International. Retrieved fromwww.nlts2.org/reports/2003_12/nlts2_report_2003_12_complete.pdf

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive earlyreading interventions. School Psychology

Review, 36, 541-561.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Responseto varying amounts of time in readingintervention for students demonstratinginsufficient response to intervention.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41,

126-142.

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N.K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts,G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive

reading interventions for students

with reading difficulties after grade

3. Review of Educational Research,

83(2), 163-195. http://dx.doi.

org/10.3102/0034654313477212

Douglas Fuchs (Tennessee CECj, Professor of

Special Education; Lynn S. Fuchs (Tennessee

CEC), Professor of Special Education,

Vanderbilt University; Sharon Vaughn(Texas CEC), Professor of Special Education,

University of Texas at Austin.

Address correspondence regarding this

article to Douglas Fuchs, Vanderbilt

University, 228 Peabody, Nashville,

TN 37220 (email; doug.fuchs®

vanderbilt.edu).

This work was supported in pan by the

National Center on Intensive Intervention

(Grant No. H326Q110005), which was

awarded to the American Institutes for

Research by the Office of Special Education

Programs (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of

Education. The views expressed do not

necessarily represent the positions of policies

of the U.S. Department of Education. No

official endorsement by the U.S. Department

of Education of any product, commodity,

service, or enterprise mentioned in this

publication is intended or should be

inferred.

TEACHING Exceptional Children,Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 13-18.

Copyright 2014 The Author(s).

18 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for ExceptionalChildren and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.