Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
For Each
Student
Assessment Goals
For All
Students
Instruction
IBR Foundational Features:
Translating Research into Practice
w i d e : Res
h oo l Foc ults
Sc & A l l use
E ac h d
Prev
Orie ention ll y
nted t i fic a
n
Scie ed
Bas
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003.
A School-Wide Reading
Improvement Model
For Each
Student
Assessment Goals
For All
Students
Instruction
Phonological
Awareness Phonics
Reading
Comprehensio
n
Vocabulary Fluency
Intensive 5%
15%
Strategi
c
Benchmar 80%
k
Student Score %ile Status Score %ile Status Score %ile Status Instructional
Recommendation
80% 15%
Vaughn et al, 2001. 5%
CORE, 2003. Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 11
Core Reading Program
A Core Instructional Program of Validated
Efficacy Adopted and Implemented School-
wide.
A core program is the “base” reading
program designed to provide instruction
on the essential areas of reading for the
majority of students schoolwide.
In general, the core program should
enable 80% or more of students to
attain schoolwide reading goals.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004
Simmons, Kame'enui, Harn, & Coyne © 2003. 12
Benchmark
Level of Instructional Support
INSTRUCTIONAL PLACEMENT
Level of Support ASSESSMENT PLAN
Period!
We may need to supplement
or modify, but we must do it
judiciously.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004
Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne. 2003. 14
Core Reading Programs
However,
“one size” may
work effectively
for most.
INSTRUCTIONAL PLACEMENT
Level of Support ASSESSMENT PLAN
INSTRUCTIONAL PLACEMENT
Level of Support ASSESSMENT PLAN
Guidelines
One instructional support map per grade level.
Each grade level map addresses benchmark, strategic and
intensive student levels of support.
All teachers/specialists should work from the same map.
Data will direct changes as necessary.
Each map is a work in progress.
Use alterable variables to assist in increasing/decreasing
intensity for varying levels of support.
Alter the fewest number of variables that impact reading
progress.
When: When:
__ w/in 90 minutes HowO ften:
__ outside of9 0 min
Activities:
Ti me :
Criteria:
When: When:
__ w/in 90 minutes HowO ften:
__ outside of9 0 min
Activities:
Ti me :
Criteria:
When: When:
__ w/in 90 minutes HowO ften:
__ outside of9 0 min
Activities:
Ti me :
Criteria:
Supplemental Frequency of
Instr. Supplemental and Determining
Participation in and Intervention DIBELS
Recommen- Intervention Instructional
Core Programs/ Progress
dation Program Delivery Effectiveness
Strategies Monitoring
intensive: Who: Early Reading Who: Every Two Who:
All intensive Intervention Certified teacher (i.e. Weeks Classroom teacher
students* title I, special ed, with assistance from
classroom teacher, reading coach,
When: speech pathologist) possibly early
M-F, 9:00-9:30 *Enhance literacy teams or
vocabulary When: grade level teams as
Activities: sections of HM XX w/in 90 minutes discussed in team
Learning to Read using IBR2 (ERI) meetings
and Word Work strategies. XX outside of 90 min
sections from HM (double dose) How Often:
(emphasis on red * Provide Monthly
checked items) additional practice Time:
opportunities on 30 minutes daily for Criteria:
Group Size: letter-sound ERI 3 points at or above
Whole (30 minutes) correspondences goal line on Dibels,
and word continue program
blending. Group Size:
Small (< 4 students) 3 points below goal
line, change
instruction
Core Program:
Open Court
Supplemental Programs:
Open Court Booster
Horizons
Read Naturally
Intervention Programs:
• Early Reading Intervention
Reading Mastery
Sounding Out
(saying the
sound of each letter)
School B:
Core Program: Middle tier
Benchmark Status on PSF at End of
Kindergarten 2003-2004:
n = 51
Deficit: 22%
Emerging: 37%
Established: 41%
School C:
Core Program: Top tier - high intensity
Benchmark Status on PSF at End of
Kindergarten 2003-2004:
n = 67
Deficit: 6%
Emerging: 15%
Established: 79%
School D:
Core Program: Top tier - high intensity
Benchmark Status on PSF at End of
Kindergarten 2003-2004:
n = 102
Deficit: 1%
Emerging: 5%
Established: 94%
Example 1: ERI
Designed for at-risk kindergarten students
Essential Components: PA, Phonics
Outcomes: • Initial Sound Isolation (25+ sounds per min)
• Phoneme Segmentation (35+ sounds per min)
• Alphabetic Understanding (as measured by NWF - 50+ sounds per min)
• Oral Reading Fluency - Students exiting the program typically do not
read 40-60 cwpm on first grade
passages. Text is very controlled in ERI. Students need
additional instruction to reach that oral reading fluency
benchmark.
Language for Learning K-2 Vocab No This program only teaches 1 of the
essential components. If resources
are limited and must choose between
Read Aloud from core vs. Lang. for
Learning, will want to choose more
intensive instruction for the students
who are struggling.
Grade Level of Students
If the students are in grades 2 or 3 . . .
It is difficult to catch students up. May need to focus on decoding
and fluency. Allocate the majority of instructional time to these
areas.
Supplant with intervention program from week 1 of instruction.
Accelerate students’ progress by providing double dose of the
intervention program in the afternoon.
Sample interventions include:
Corrective Reading: Decoding
Reading Mastery I, II, Fast Cycle, and III
For example: School E has placed 15 intensive second grade students in Reading
Mastery Classic Fast Cycle. The students all placed in the program at lesson 1 at the
beginning of the year. (Groups started the third week in September.) If students
complete one lesson a day, they will be approximately at lesson 63 upon returning from
Winter Break. Fast Cycle has 170 lessons. Students enter in to beginning second grade
material at lesson 81 so should be at least that far in the program mid-year. If the goal is
for these second graders to finish Fast Cycle by the end of the school year, School E will
need to adjust instructional time to allow for more lesson completion.
What can School E do to increase instructional time for these intensive second graders?
Fluency practice - Students take turns going around the table each reading one sentence from
the morning’s passage. Emphasis is on accuracy. Once the group meets goal for accuracy
(e.g., no more than 3 total errors for whole story), then students pair up for timed readings.
Reading Olympics -
Warm-up
Sprints
Increasing Intensity
program & exten sions of core wi th current co re spec ially
Program explicitl y the core reteach ing or program wi th designed
Em phas is teach p riority program interven tion interven tion program
skills. (e.g., add componen ts program.
examp les) of core.
Schedu le & Increase Schedu le Schedu le
deliv er 90 oppo rtunities core + two
minute s of to respond supp lemen tal interven tion
Time
daily read ing during core period daily. sessions
(Op portunities to
instruction instruction. (90 + 30 or daily (no less
Learn)
(minimum 30 60 + 30) than 90
minute s minute s
sma ll group ). tota l)
Check group Schedu le Reduce Provide
placemen t & sma ll group group size indivi dua l
provide oppo rtunity instruction
Grouping for
comb ination for spec ifi c
Instruction
of whole & practice
sma ll group
instruction.
Increasing Intensity
Effectiveness of Effectiveness of
Effectiveness Of
Strategic Support Intensive Support
Core Curriculum
Program Program
K 731/791 554/771 243/595
92% 72% 41%
Grade 1 647/692 263/716 28/778
94% 37% 4%
Grade 2 775/843 75/292 9/994
92% 26% 1%
Grade 3 622/725 114/517 17/879
86% 22% 2%
The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b)
effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system
of additional instructional support.
Oregon Reading First Center © 2004 93
Evaluating Levels of Instructional
Support
Strategic:
Benchmark: Intensive:
Effectiveness of
Effectiveness of Effectiveness of
Supplemental
Core Curriculum Intervention Program
Program
K 731/791 554/771 243/595
92% 72% 41%
Grade 1 647/692 263/716 28/778
94% 37% 4%
Grade 2 775/843 75/292 9/994
92% 26% 1%
Grade 3 622/725 114/517 17/879
86% 22% 2%
50
40
Aimline
30
20
10