1 Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association Lecture Series 2007-2008 Response to Intervention And Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses: Specific.

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.

[email protected]

2

Goals of the Presentation

Response to Intervention

Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses

Complimentary, not exclusive approaches

3

What Parents Want to Know

Why doesn’t my child read well?

What can we do about it?

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)

9

Progress Monitoring

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.

15

From RtI

to PSW and Neurological Theory

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).

21

Wolf’s Double Deficit Model

Phonological Processing

Rapid Automatized Naming

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)

23

Neurology and CHC converge

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

25

26

Regression Coefficients

> .3 = strong relation

.1-.3 = moderate relation

<.1 = non-sign

27

Phonemic Awareness 3

QuickTime™ and aGraphics decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

28

Comprehension-Knowledge

QuickTime™ and aGraphics decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

29

Oral Language

QuickTime™ and aGraphics decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

30

Working Memory

31

Long-term Retrieval

32

Processing Speed

33

Fluid Reasoning

34

Visual-Spatial Thinking

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)

42

Just the pictures

PAL Looking Games

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)

49

When fluency training doesn’t matter…

50

When Slingerland goes awry…

51

When even research-based phonemic awareness instruction is ineffective…

52

The first and last question

How do we improve the educational outcome for this student?

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.

54

Thanks!

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/

57

More Sources

www.w-w-c.org What workshttp://www.ldonline.org/njcld/

operationalizing.html