oregon branch of the international dyslexia association lecture series 2007 2008 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 57

Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on

Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008. Response to Intervention And Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses: Specific Learning Disabilities 2008. Jim Hanson, M.Ed. JaBrHanson@yahoo.com. Goals of the Presentation. Response to Intervention

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008' - vesna


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
oregon branch of the international dyslexia association lecture series 2007 2008
Oregon Branch of theInternational Dyslexia AssociationLecture Series 2007-2008

Response to Intervention

And

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses:

Specific Learning Disabilities 2008

Jim Hanson, M.Ed.

JaBrHanson@yahoo.com

goals of the presentation
Goals of the Presentation
  • Response to Intervention
  • Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses
  • Complimentary, not exclusive approaches
what parents want to know
What Parents Want to Know
  • Why doesn’t my child read well?
  • What can we do about it?
orbida position statement
ORBIDA Position Statement
  • RTI-Response to Intervention or Problem Solving Model
  • Strengths and Weaknesses
  • Parent’s right to both
let s be perfectly clear
Let’s Be Perfectly Clear

Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

Model

IS NOT

Ability/Achievement

Discrepancy Model

iq achievement discrepancy doesn t discriminate
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Doesn’t Discriminate
  • Disabled and non-disabled readers
  • Children who were found to be difficult (and easy) to remediate
  • RTI and PSW are new to the law and schools, not new to research

Vellutino et al. (2000) p. 235

what is response to intervention
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
rti definition
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)
research findings
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

oregon experience
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
rti risks integrity
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
challenges
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
response to intervention
Response to Intervention
  • Dual Discrepancy:
  • First, below their peers on group screening and
  • Second, did not respond adequately to interventions.
from rti

From RtI

to PSW and Neurological Theory

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

Options (either – or both)
main idea of psw
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
dyslexia improving the science
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).

the sea of strengths neurological models shaywitz
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).

not just phonological weakness
Not just phonological weakness?

“Rote memorization and rapid word retrieval are particularly difficult for dyslexics” Shaywitz (2003).

wolf s double deficit model
Wolf’s Double Deficit Model
  • Phonological Processing
  • Rapid Automatized Naming
shaywitz fletcher and mcgrew
Shaywitz, Fletcher, and McGrew

Phonological Awareness (Ga, PC)

Working Memory (WM) & Associative Memory (MA)

Processing Speed (Gs), & Naming Facility (NA)

  • Phonologic Weakness
  • Memory
  • Rapid Word Retrieval
  • Phonologic Awareness
  • Working Memory
  • Rapid Naming
what is chc intelligence theory
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
regression coefficients
Regression Coefficients
  • > .3 = strong relation
  • .1-.3 = moderate relation
  • <.1 = non-sign
comprehensive evaluation conclusions for reading
Comprehensive Evaluation: Conclusions for Reading
  • Phonological Deficit?
  • Vocabulary Deficit?
  • RAN Deficit?
  • Working Memory Deficit?
  • Processing Speed Deficit?
  • Associative Memory Deficit?
doesn t that make sense
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!
flanagan ortiz
Flanagan & Ortiz:
  • Aptitude-Achievement Consistency:
  • Achievement low, deficit in at least one relative cognitive ability, most abilities average or above.
consistency discrepancy naglieri and concordance discordance fiorello hale
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)
another approach academics only
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 memorypoor)

Fletcher et. al. (2007)

Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention

just the sounds
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
just the sights eight weeks of intervention in georgetown
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 poor
  • Real word reading and comprehension improvements, but they are not significant.
  • Increases in left and right hemisphere functioning
  • Eden (2005)
just the pictures
Just the pictures
  • PAL Looking Games
just the associations
Just the associations
  • PAL Alphabet Retrieval Games
  • Rewards (Archer)
  • Phonics for Reading (Archer)
  • Corrective Reading (SRA)
just the meaning
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.

more comprehension
More comprehension
  • Collaborative Strategic Reading (Vaughn)
  • Reading in the Content Area (Kinsella)
just what was that
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)
just my speed
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)
just about everything
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)
the first and last question
The first and last question

How do we improve the educational outcome for this student?

president s message
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.

sources and acknowledgements
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.
more sources and acknowledgments
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/
more sources
More Sources
  • www.w-w-c.org What works
  • http://www.ldonline.org/njcld/operationalizing.html