Week 5: Administering QRI-5

In the Assignment 1 video clip, the third grade student, Mary, read twenty words from the Level 2 Word List. She read confidently and independently through the majority of the words.  I scored her reading 16 words correctly for an 80% score for word identification which places her on the Instructional level.  Of these 16 words, I noted 14 were identified automatically and two were identified.  Mary did not correctly identify four words (though, begins, breathe and noticed).

In the Assignment 2 video clip, Mary had considerably more difficulty identifying words in the Level 3 Word List.  I scored her reading 4 of the 20 words correctly for a 20% score for word identification. This clearly places her at the Frustration level for this Word List and supports the decision that Level 2 is the appropriate reading level for Mary.

In the video clips for Assignment 3, Mary indicates some prior knowledge about the topic of whales and fish.  In her reading of the 197 word expository passage, I recorded 10 errors and 5 self-corrections.  Mary's error rate was 1:20, her accuracy rate was 95% and her self-correction rate was 1:3.  This assessment indicates the reading passage was easy enough for Mary to read independently and that she is self-monitoring her reading.  In the Assessment of Comprehension, Mary was able to summarize the passage and recall several facts accurately.  She recalled differences (method of birth, size and how babies get food) and similarities (presence and location of fins and flippers).  Mary demonstrated good comprehension of the expository passage.

Using the examiner's scoring sheets in Assignment 4, Mary's accuracy rate of ten miscues for this reading passage places her on the Instructional level.  Her Words Per Minute (WPM) was 46 and her Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM) was 44. Of the 49 ideas listed in the Retelling Scoring Sheet, I noted that Mary recalled 22 ideas.  Combining all the measures, Mary appears to be at Level Two reading level with strengths in word identification, self-correction, comprehension and recall.  During her reading, she had a few instances of omission and insertion but most of the errors came from mispronouncing "live" and "must" which may be corrected through repetitive use of word pairs.

Week 4, Assignments 1 and 2

Assignment 1:  Response to Intervention (RtI)

Response to Intervention (RtI), a tiered framework to provide school wide instruction, that:

• ·    identifies students who are at risk for poor outcomes in academic and behavioral areas
• ·    provides them with systematically applied strategies and targeted instruction at varying levels of evidence-based intervention
• ·    adjusts the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness 

RtI represents an important educational strategy to close achievement gaps for all students, including students at risk, students with disabilities and English language learners, by preventing smaller learning problems from becoming insurmountable gaps. The philosophy of RtI is to replace remediation, which goes into effect after a student falls behind, with intervention, which is designed to prevent academic failure. One of its underlying premises is the possibility that a child’s struggles may be due to inadequacies in instruction or in the curriculum either in use at the moment or in the child’s past.

The federal mandate is for states to have RtI in place for identifying students with disabilities in literacy K-4 by July 1, 2012.  New York State has recently established regulations to conform with IDEA that not only address the use of RTI for learning disability determinations but also introduces the RtI process as a general education initiative.  Regulations have included RtI as a methodology for addressing students’ behavioral needs as well, understanding that academic frustration may be the cause and/or the result of a student’s ability to self-monitor his or her behavior. The goals of RtI have expanded beyond the narrow scope of the federal mandate to include all subject areas at all grade levels. 

History of RtI

The 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included a new concept regarding the identification of students with specific learning disabilities. The provisions of IDEA allows a school district to consider a student's response to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the evaluation process in determining whether a student has a specific learning disability. This approach is commonly referred to as the Response to Intervention (RtI) process.

While RtI began as a response to addressing student outcomes for special education students, it quickly emerged as a general education initiative, as obtaining successful outcomes for students requires an integrated education system that does not operate as two distinct entities. Finding, identifying, and placing students "in" a special education program was no longer sufficient. Successful academic outcomes meant implementing RtI beginning very early in general education.

Essential Elements of RTI

Although there is no specific definition of RTI, essential elements can be found when we take a look at how states, schools, and districts fit RTI into their work. In general, RTI includes:

•   screening children within the general curriculum,
•   tiered instruction of increasing intensity,
•   evidence-based instruction,
•   close monitoring of student progress
•    informed decision making regarding next steps for individual students. 

Universal screening means all students are involved in an initial assessment of knowledge and skills. From this universal screening, it’s possible to identify which students appear to be struggling or lacking specific knowledge or skills in a given area.

Tiered instruction.  Students identified through the universal screening as “at risk” or “struggling” then move through the general education curriculum with adapted and individualized interventions that increase in intensity.  An RtI Process most often consists of a three tier delivery model that incorporates a problem solving process to make informed decisions regarding student improvement.

·         Tier 1:  All students receive evidence-based, high quality, and differentiated instruction by the general education teacher that incorporates ongoing universal screening, progress monitoring and prescriptive assessment to design instruction.  This instruction should satisfy the needs of 80-85% of all students. At-risk children who have been identified through close monitoring and a screening process receive research-based instruction, sometimes in small groups, sometimes as part of a class wide intervention. 

·         Tier 2:  If, however, the child does not respond to the first level of group-oriented interventions, he or she typically moves to the next RtI level.  The length of time in Tier 2 is generally a bit longer than in Tier 1, and the level of intensity of the interventions is greater along with more systematic instruction.  Working with small groups of students in the classroom, the general education teacher or another trained educator is able to target the areas in which each child is having difficulty. Again, each child's progress is closely monitored during this supplemental intervention.

·         Tier 3:  For the small percentage of students who still lag significantly behind their peers in academic progress, a third level of intervention is conducted with more evidence-based intensive intervention. This supplemental instruction is typically more individualized as well with individual students or very small groups for more opportunities for direct instruction.  This is taught by an intervention specialist or special education teacher.

Evidenced-based interventions are a cornerstone of instruction within an RTI process. Within an RTI process, instructional strategies and interventions are based on what research has shown to be effective with students

Progress monitoring is constant checking of a student’s progress with whatever evidence-based instruction is being used. Progress monitoring keeps track of children’s academic development and helps pinpoint where each individual student is having difficulties.  

Informed decision making for individual students. When used as part of a tiered instructional process, progress monitoring can provide the information by which informed judgments can be made about the student’s development. This includes the need to move to the next tier of instructional intensity, or perhaps be referred for a comprehensive and individualized evaluation under IDEA.

Questions about RtI

• In which grades is RtI most effective?
• Can RtI be applied in higher grades?
• What are the drawbacks for students who have supplemental intervention in this tiered system?
• Are teachers properly trained and do schools have sufficient resources? 

Assignment 2:  Reading Intervention Programs Powerpoint
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0xmjr0u7mTJWkRWd2FiZldPZmM/edit?usp=sharing

Week 3, Assignment 3: Introduction to QRI-5

What is QRI?

What is the purpose of using QRI5?

Have you seen similar assessment activities like QRI5? What are they?

What is your impression of QRI5?
 

  

QRi-5 is an individualized, informal reading assessment that teachers can use to determine students' reading abilities and instructional needs in grades P through 12.  This comprehensive, non-standardized instrument is useful to determine each student’s reading level, word identification skills, comprehension skills, strengths and developmental opportunities.  Results will also aid teachers in matching appropriately-leveled materials for each student. 

In one-on-one conferences, students will read narrative and expository passages starting at two levels below their current grade.  Teachers use graded word lists to assess each student’s oral reading, silent reading, or listening comprehension. Additionally, teachers can assess comprehension through inquiry with implicit and explicit questions, retelling, look-backs and think-alouds.

While the process of administering a QRI-5 is similar to that of a Running Record and Miscue Analysis, this assessment measures literacy abilities and skills with a structured approach with multiple methods.  It appears to be a richer format for educators to assess their students’ needs and identify area for intervention.

Week 3, Assignment 2: Assessments

Discuss what assessments are needed to measure students' learning outcomes and how teachers can address these common core learning standards if you have students of various reading levels.

A critical element of any set of educational standards is the ability to effectively assess student understanding.  Without such measurement, teachers, educational leaders, parents and other interested parties would not have data to determine the level of performance that students and schools are expected to meet.  Assessment data can also drive instructional strategy allowing educators to learn, improve and share. 

Assessments should be designed with the specific goal of measuring understanding in relation to the learning objective or standard. As outlined in backward design principles like the Understanding by Design framework, created by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, assessment development should immediately follow the creation of the goal of the lesson.  Such alignment ensures measurement of the proper data that shows progress towards the learning objective.  With a focus on higher order thinking skills in the Common Core State Standards, assessments should be designed to emphasize real world problems, encourage inquiry and exploration, and give students opportunities to demonstrate understanding in meaningful ways.  Adding such relevance throughout instruction, including assessments, will engage students in an increasingly rigorous curriculum.  Using these guiding principles, educators can now exercise creativity and careful consideration to create effective assessments before they even plan the associated classroom activities. 

Additional attention is required to measure the understanding of students of various abilities.  By designing assessments with flexibility, educators can meet students’ needs in similar ways that they differentiate instruction.  For example, students can be given several ways to demonstrate their reading comprehension.  By giving such options, students of varying abilities and preferences can choose the method that will give them the best chance to demonstrate their understanding and skill.  Options for performance-based assessments could include a written essay, journal writing, one-on-one conference, class discussion, online presentation, or some form of art.  Not only will the results provide teachers with information about each student’s progress towards the learning objective, strengths and developmental opportunities, it can drive instruction, scaffolding and intervention.