RTI & Differentiated Reading in the K-8 Classroom by Solution Tree

Copyright ÂŠ 2011 by Solution Tree Press All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction of this book in whole or in part in any form. 555 North Morton Street Bloomington, IN 47404 800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700 FAX: 812.336.7790 email: info@solution-tree.com solution-tree.com Printed in the United States of America 15 14 13 12 11 12345

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bender, William N. RTI & differentiated reading in the Kâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;8 classroom / William N. Bender, Laura Waller. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-935249-68-9 (perfect bound) -- ISBN 978-1-935249-69-6 (library edition) 1. Reading--Remedial teaching--United States. 2. Reading (Elementary)--United States. 3. Reading (Middle School)--United States. 4. Learning disabled children--Education-United States. 5. Individualized instruction--United States. 6. Response to intervention (Learning disabled children) I. Waller, Laura. II. Title. LB1050.5.B455 2011 372.43--dc22 2010048968 Solution Tree Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO & President Solution Tree Press President: Douglas M. Rife Publisher: Robert D. Clouse Vice President of Production: Gretchen Knapp Managing Production Editor: Caroline Wise Senior Production Editor: Edward Levy Copy Editor: Rachel Rosolina Proofreader: Elisabeth Abrams Text and Cover Designer: Orlando Angel

Table of Contents About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 1

Dramatic Changes in Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 RTI in Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 What Is RTI? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Why Do RTI? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A Format for RTI in Elementary Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Differentiated Instruction in Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Learning Styles and Brain Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Three Areas of Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Brain-Compatible Instruction as a Basis for Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A Differentiated Instructional Lesson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Chapter 2

Structuring the Primary Class for RTI and Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Guided Reading in the Differentiated Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Formation of the Instructional Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Techniques for Differentiated Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Allocation of Instructional Time Using Literacy Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring in Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Running Records in Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 e-Assessments: mCLASS Software Running Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 DIBELS: A Commonly Used Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 v

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8 C lassr o o m

Words Their Way: A Spelling/Phonics Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Use of Various Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Chapter 3

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Teaching Emergent Literacy Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Phonemic and Phonics Instruction: Understanding the Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Research on Phonemic Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 New Literacy Skills Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Teaching Phonological Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Syllable Decoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 New Tools for Differentiated Instruction in Early Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Get Ready to Read! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Read Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 RTI Case Study: Early Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Ms. Higginsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Second-Grade Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Tier 2 Intervention Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Tier 3 Intervention Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Chapter 4

RTI and Brain-Compatible Differentiation Strategies for Mid-Elementary Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Differentiated Reading Instruction for 21st Century Brains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Effects of Environment on Brain Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Changing Curricular Emphases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Gender Differences in Reading Skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Brain-Compatible Reading Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Songs, Chants, and Rhythms for Learning Essential Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Humor to Teach Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Emotional Ties to the Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Movement-Based Content Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Daily Repetition of Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Repeated Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Content Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Graphic Organizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Software-Based Content Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Student-Developed Content Enhancements: Kidspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Curricula for Differentiation and RTI in Elementary Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 SuccessMaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 The Academy of READING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Fast ForWord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Read Naturally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Accelerated Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Study Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 RTI Case Study: Reading Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Tier 2 Intervention Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Tier 3 Intervention Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Issues Presented Within This Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Chapter 5

Differentiated Reading Instruction in the Elementary Content Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Cognitive Strategy Instruction for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Text Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Cognitive Mapping for Reading Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Paraphrasing and Retelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Prediction and Summarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Self-Questioning as a Comprehension Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Problem-Based Learning in Content-Area Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Steps in Problem-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Differentiation Ideas for Problem-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Research on Problem-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Information and Media Technologies for Reading Comprehension in Subject-Area Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Instructional Hardware and Software for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 WebQuests to Increase Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Blogging as a Teaching Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Podcasts as a Teaching Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Nearly Endless Technologies for Teaching Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Supplemental Reading Curricula: Differentiation and RTI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 LANGUAGE! A Literacy Curriculum for All Grade Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

v ii

v iii

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8 C lassr o o m

Learning Strategies Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 RTI Case Study: Learning Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 1. Committing to the Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 2. Describing the Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 3. Modeling the Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 4. Performing a Verbal Rehearsal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5. Practicing With Controlled Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 6. Practicing on Grade-Level Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 7. Committing to Generalize the Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Other Learning Strategies for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Research on Learning Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Differentiation and RTI Implementation for Reading Comprehension in Content Areas 167 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Chapter 6

Guiding the Transition in Reading Instruction: Activities for Professional Learning Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 What Can Be Done Right Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Get on Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Team Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Stress Differentiated Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Develop Rigorous RTI Implementation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Plan for Increased Technology Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Train Teachers in Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Become a Change Agent Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Keep Your Eyes on the Prize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

About the Authors William N. Bender, PhD, is an international leader in instructional tactics with an emphasis on differentiated instruction, response to intervention, brain-compatible instruction, and classroom discipline. An accomplished author and presenter, he consistently receives accolades for his workshops from educators at every level. William began his career in education teaching in a junior high school resource classroom, working with adolescents with behavioral disorders and learning disabilities. He earned his doctorate in special education from the University of North Carolina. He has taught at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey and Bluefield State College in West Virginia. Most recently, he served as a professor of education at the University of Georgia. He consults full time, writes on professional development, and presents workshops for educators throughout North America. He has written over sixty research articles and twenty books on education. His numerous bestsellers include Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide for Every Teacher; Beyond the RTI Pyramid: Solutions for the First Years of Implementation; Differentiating Instruction for Students With Learning Disabilities (second edition); Learning Disabilities: Characteristics, Identification, and Teaching Strategies (sixth edition); Relational Discipline: Strategies for In-Your-Face Kids (second edition); and Reading Strategies for Elementary Students With Learning Difficulties (second edition).

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Laura Waller is an author and presenter with a strong focus on technology, differentiated instruction, and thematic teaching. A graduate of Appalachian State University in North Carolina, Laura earned a bachelor’s degree in Spanish and a second bachelor’s degree in communications. Her master’s degree in elementary education is from Johns Hopkins University. With this background in linguistics and ESL, she serves K–6 underprivileged children and Title I students who struggle in reading, math, and writing. After starting her career as a reading specialist in the District of Columbia Public Schools, Laura moved to rural North Carolina and began teaching second grade in another Title I school. She is a member of the Jones County World View Team and Delta Kappa Gamma. Laura is also featured as a master teacher for differentiating instruction in mathematics in a professional development video, and has received grants for her innovative work bringing differentiation into the classroom.

Introduction RTI & Differentiated Reading in the K–8 Classroom is unlike other books on reading instruction. We believe it may also be one of the most important books on reading instruction published recently. We base this rather bold statement on the integrated impact of three dramatic innovations that are changing the face of reading instruction in the primary and elementary grades: (1) response to intervention (RTI), which continues to affect how teachers teach reading and monitor reading progress; (2) differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2001; 1999); and (3) emerging technologies, sometimes referred to as the “new literacy,” for reading instruction— technologies that have an increasing impact on classrooms each year (List & Bryant, 2009; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Each of these innovations is critical to 21st century classrooms; together, they are the basis for modern reading instruction. RTI & Differentiated Reading in the K–8 Classroom focuses on innovative methods of RTI and differentiating reading—many of them employing technology— from kindergarten through the upper elementary grades. Because RTI is so new, this book could not have been written previously, and in that sense, it is relatively unique. Our emphasis on modern technology for reading instruction is also critical. The term new literacy has been utilized to represent the fact that reading alone does not constitute literacy in the 21st century; students need not only to read fluently, with comprehension, they must be able to apply those skills within the context of the emerging computer-based and online technologies for writing, presentation communications, and networking (List & Bryant, 2009). In looking at technologies for the new literacy, we include commercially available modern technologies and commonly used software for reading and literacy instruction in highly differentiated general education classrooms. While we mention a number of specific computer or online programs, neither author has any personal financial interest in them. Rather, our intent is to show how these tools can be 1

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

woven into comprehensive reading and literacy programs for the primary and elementary grades. We do not try to present a compendium of the most cutting-edge technologies, as that effort would alone require several volumes. However, we do describe applications of technologies currently available for reading instruction. Based on these three interactive factors—RTI, differentiated instruction, and technologies for the new literacy—we advocate in this text that whole-group reading instruction in general education classes should quickly come to an end. Further, we believe that primary and elementary reading classes Because of the interface of as recently as 2004 have not been appropriate learning differentiation, RTI, and techenvironments for 21st century students. Again, because nology, the classrooms of today of the interface of differentiation, RTI, and technology, and tomorrow should look very different from the reading classthe classrooms of today and tomorrow should look very rooms of 2004. different from the reading classrooms of 2004. Educators should not be surprised if they find that some or many teachers in a particular building are already on board with many of these innovations. Instructional technology for reading, to take one example, has been emphasized since the 1980s, and the concept of differentiated instruction dates to 1999 (Tomlinson, 1999). Still, technologies for the new literacy are very recent, and RTI clearly represents a very fresh innovation (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). These instructional innovations are having and will continue to have a profound impact on education and require systematic change. For that reason, we strongly encourage educators to approach them within the context of a professional learning community (PLC) (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008). No single teacher can fully implement RTI or determine exactly how to invest in modern technologies. Moreover, implementation of RTI, differentiation, and technology-based instruction for the 21st century will be a three- to five-year process at best (Bender, 2009a; Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2009). Professional learning communities seem to provide the best option for the types of systematic change that will move schools forward into application of these instructional innovations at the school level (DuFour et al., 2008; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). With that emphasis in mind, we anticipate that this book will be of particular benefit to the following educators: •

General education teachers—Both new and veteran teachers will find a vision of what reading instruction should be, as well as multiple methods to differentiate and conduct progress monitoring.

Introduction

•

Special education teachers—Special ed teachers will play a significant role in all of these innovations, particularly in RTI and differentiated instruction in general education classes.

•

Department heads and team leaders—As RTI, differentiation, and technology exert an influence on classrooms over the next five to ten years, these educational leaders will play a role in many decisions regarding allocation of resources.

•

Administrators—As instructional leaders, administrators need a grasp of education trends and a sense of how to steer their faculties toward these innovative instructional practices.

•

Media specialists—More than almost any other educator, the media specialist will be involved in leading teachers toward more modern approaches to reading using technologies that move education toward the new literacy.

Throughout, we include supplementary information, such as sample schedules, case study RTIs, guidelines or lists of instructional procedures, forms, and suggestions for planning learning centers and creating lesson plans and thematic units. We’ve also listed helpful websites and types of software useful for planning and implementing differentiated reading, response to intervention procedures, and assessments and curricula. Chapter 1 presents an overview of RTI in primary and elementary reading, along with background information on differentiated instructional models for reading. We also adapt a traditional lesson plan to suggest how teachers can differentiate within their own classrooms. In chapter 2, we present a second differentiated classroom model based on small-group learning center activities that facilitate highly intensive, guided reading instruction for the primary and elementary grades, including classes with highly diverse populations, and we discuss several of the new literacy technologies for the organization of universal screening data, including e-assessments. In chapter 3, we present differentiated instructional techniques for early literacy. We discuss the emergent reading, phonemic, and phonological skills, as well as one emergent reading screening instrument, Get Ready to Read! and one early literacy curriculum, Read Well. We also present a case-study RTI procedure for a primary student based on the assessments and differentiated instructional approach described in chapter 2.

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8 C lassr o o m

Chapter 4 describes the emerging research on brain functioning as a basis for differentiated instruction. We discuss various brain-compatible instructional techniques, including music, humor, emotion, movement, role-play, and repetition, along with content enhancements such as graphic organizers and study guides. We also point out several software or web-based reading instructional programs founded on this emerging research and conclude with a case-study RTI in reading for a fourth-grade student based on application of one of the brain-compatible intervention systems. In chapter 5, we describe differentiated instructional tactics for reading in grades 4 through 6. We describe various applications of technology for intermediate and upper-elementary literacy instruction, as well as several instructional curricula using RTI, including a literacy program appropriate for English learners (ELs). Finally, we present a case-study RTI for a fifth grader with difficulty reading in history. Chapter 6 provides specifics on the types of activities that can be undertaken to immediately facilitate a systematic and schoolwide shift to this new reading instructional approach, using the PLC as a basis for schoolwide change in the best interests of our students. Books on reading instruction have been available for many decades, and good books on RTI, differentiated instruction in reading, and software applications for reading instruction are widely available. However, as we have pointed out, only now can the innovations of RTI, differentiated instruction, and technologies for the new literacy be considered together in the formulation of a modern, effective reading instructional program for all primary and elementary students. For the last decade, schools have struggled to meet and exceed their goals for making adequate yearly progress toward educational standards in reading. In the United States, with the Obama administration launching the Race to the Top educational initiative (Clark, 2009), it is quite likely that teachers will continue to implement RTI and differentiated instruction, utilizing high-quality software and technological applications that assist all learners in reading. This book focuses that effort by integrating these three important catalysts for educational change into a synergistic, cohesive whole, while presenting a vision for reading instruction and the new literacy for a new century.

Chapter 3

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy As discussed in chapter 1, instructional practices in the area of reading and literacy for elementary students have undergone something of a revolution (Abbott et al., 2002; Bhat et al., 2003; Podhajski et al., 2009). A recently as 1990, initial reading instruction emphasized either phonics or sight word instruction, while instruction today focuses on topics such as emergent literacy skills, phonemic instruction, and phonological instruction, as well as phonics and subsequent decoding skills. Understanding this instructional transition in early reading, and how these newer emphases relate to more traditional phonics instruction, is critical for every teacher (Podhajski et al., 2009). This chapter presents the background and some instructional guidelines for these newly developed areas, which provide the basis for both RTI and differentiated instruction in reading during kindergarten and the primary grades. Because almost all teachers today are well versed in phonics instruction, we will not emphasize that area here. Rather, the primary focus will be on the latest instructional tactics in emergent literacy skills, phonemic instruction, and phonological instruction. Finally, we present a case study of RTI in reading.

Teaching Emergent Literacy Skills Prior to school, most young children develop a sense of what letters are through exposure to various letters in the environment (Sousa, 2005). The K on a Kellogg’s box comes to mean breakfast, and the big yellow M at McDonald’s means burgers and fries. As a result, children understand the concept that squiggly lines hold meaning before they enter kindergarten. The term alphabetic principle has been used to denote the way in which speech sounds in our language are represented by letters and combinations of letters, and how those lines on the page form the basis of successful reading (Bender & Larkin, 2009; Sousa, 2005). Because a few of

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Other young children, however, do not seem to recognize or conceptually understand the uses and applications of letters, printed matter, or words (Davis et al., 2007; Gately, 2004; Podhajski et al., 2009). These children may not be aware of print at all, or they may not be aware that books contain printed letters and words hold secret meanings. For them, the process of building words from phonemes—or the potential uses of letters, words, print, or reading—are generally difficult to grasp. This is particularly true for students from home environments in which the adults have not exposed them to reading or emphasized its importance. Such children are at a significant disadvantage when they begin formal instruction during kindergarten.

Emergent Literacy Skills in Which Some Young Children Are Deficient Concept of Letters •

Discriminates letters and symbols from each other

•

Writes letters correctly

•

Begins to name letters correctly

•

Sings and says alphabet correctly

Concept of Words •

Knows what a word is

•

Can point to words on a page

•

Finger points correctly at memorized text while reading it

•

Demonstrates one-to-one correspondence between spoken and printed word

•

Correctly reads his or her own name

Gately (2004) refers to the development of these emergent literacy skills as the development of the concept of words (that is, what letters are, and what a word is). Furthermore, he describes these as skills that may be undeveloped even among older students who seem to be struggling with reading overall. For example, some students who struggle in reading may be trying to read the white space that letters enclose, rather than the lines of the letters themselves. Other children, perhaps as old as thirteen or fourteen, are perfectly capable of using phonemic, phonological,

those letters are recognized and can be correctly interpreted by very young children, most children can accurately be described as beginning to read, at least in a fairly minimal way, prior to formal schooling (Sousa, 2005). In fact, most children grasp the alphabetic principle by the age of three or four.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

or phonics skills to decode unknown words, but may instead guess at a word, or pronounce the word impulsively, based on a similar word with the same onset sound. Still other students do not seem to grasp the necessity to decode words at all in order to interpret written material. Gately believes that even these older students may not have conceptually grasped various concepts about the use of words or printed matter during the reading process.

The early set of emergent literacy skills that research has now identified provides a basis for teachers and parents to provide assistance to young children in early literacy. These emergent literacy skills may be taught in the home environment, as well as in preschool, kindergarten, or primary school reading classes. Teaching tip 3.1 (pages 61–63) presents a list of informal instructional The early set of emergent literideas. Teachers should used these instructional activiacy skills that research has now ties and share these ideas with parents, and both difidentified may be taught in the ferentiated instructional efforts in the early grades as home environment, as well as well as RTI procedures at the lower grade levels should in preschool, kindergarten, or now focus on these recently identified literacy skills for primary school reading classes. students who struggle in early reading. In some cases, for very young students, formal instruction in kindergarten and grade 1 on these emergent literacy skills may be the necessary first step in their instruction.

Guidelines for Emergent Readers (typically younger children from two to six years old) • Ask children to hold books correctly and turn pages as the teacher or parent reads to them. •

Show that the words start at the top left of the page and are read left to right.

•

Point to the text while reading aloud in order to show that print, not pictures, tells the story.

• Ask children to retell or act out stories with puppets, costumes, and other props. •

Point out letters and print in the environment (signs or letters—the M for McDonald’s, for example—on the way to school).

• Ask children to predict story outcomes, or reread stories to children, having them predict the outcome. •

Read nursery rhymes for children, and point out the rhymes.

•

Play rhyming games.

continued 

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Guidelines for Students Previously Exposed to Letters and Letter Sounds (typically for children in kindergarten and grade 1) Create opportunities for practicing letter sounds during read-aloud sessions.

•

Identify the initial sounds in words (for example, m in Monday or d in door), and ask students to name another word that begins with the same sound.

•

Help children practice blending phonemes or syllables together (for example, /c/a/t/ or /Fri/day/).

•

Provide practice on segmenting words into individual phonemes (for example, /b/a/l/).

•

Encourage play with alphabet puzzles and magnetic letters.

•

Use flannel boards on which children place letters or words.

•

Help children make collages using letters (for example, pictures of things that all start with the letter b).

•

Systematically introduce new letters.

Guidelines to Foster Reading in the Classroom or Home (typically for children in grades 1–3) •

Have children practice name writing.

•

Post a written task list in the classroom (for example, “Pass out the cups during snacktime” or “Lead everyone in line”).

•

Encourage children in the dramatic play area to use literacy-related props that include print (for example, address books, magazines, empty food containers with labels, phone books, restaurant menus).

•

Play games that teach letter/word recognition. For example, create bingo boards with pictures. Call out letters, and ask students to cover up a picture that has the same beginning sound (if the teacher calls out “b,” they cover the picture of a ball). This game can be modified in numerous ways to practice beginning sounds, ending sounds, vowel sounds, rhymes, and so on.

•

Label everything in the classroom or the child’s room at home using common nouns such as door, window, desk, wall, and bed.

Guidelines for Emergent Writing Skills (typically for children in grades 1–3) •

Use templates to assist children in forming letters.

•

Present opportunities to try out various writing tools (pencils, pens, markers, crayons, whiteboard).

• Take dictation from children, and show how the written words preserve their ideas over time. •

Encourage journal writing.

•

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Have children practice invented spelling by providing an opportunity for them to make educated guesses about the particular spelling of a word (wuz for was and smil for smile).

•

Practice tracing letters and words.

•

Help children make books out of their own stories.

•

Create opportunities for children to write and receive letters or postcards.

•

Create a class-to-class email exchange with a friend who is teaching across the state or country.

Teaching Tip 3.1: Informal teaching for emergent literacy.

Phonemic and Phonics Instruction: Understanding the Relationship Phonics instruction—pairing speech sounds with specific written letters—has been a staple in early reading for many decades. In fact, phonics provides the very basis of a child’s grasp of the alphabetic principle, making phonics the basis of reading itself. Furthermore, a child’s ability to see a letter such as the consonant t and know that it represents a specific sound within a word on the written page, as well as that child’s ability to decode that sound, has served as the first step in reading instruction for many decades (Bender & Larkin, 2009; Bhat et al., 2003). In fact, author Bender was specifically taught that the very first step in reading instruction for nonreaders was teaching phonics, specifically the skill of initial consonant recognition. However, teachers quickly recognized that even after receiving high-quality phonics instruction, many students continued to demonstrate considerable difficulty in learning to decode words (Abbott et al., 2002; Bhat et al., 2003). As educational outcomes in general, and reading skills in particular, became national priorities in the United States in the 1990s and during the first decade of the new century, researchers began to seek the reason for so many difficulties in early reading. By the mid-1990s, researchers had documented the basis for many of these early reading difficulties. They found that many students who struggle in reading are deficient at detecting, interpreting, and manipulating speech sounds in English, and their reading deficits have little to do with instruction in phonics. In fact, if students cannot hear, or do not attend to specific speech sounds, there is little reason to expect them to succeed in phonics (NRP, 2000). Around 1995, this body of research reached a critical mass and led to a refocusing of instruction in early reading, resulting in a drastically increased emphasis on phonemic instruction.

•

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Research on Phonemic Instruction

For many young students with reading disabilities, this deficit in phoneme detection is quite pronounced. Consider the following examples. /t/o/p/

/m/o/p/

/d/o/me/

/c/o/me/

A child’s inability to distinguish the differences between the initial sounds of these paired words when spoken would probably preclude any possibility of that child pronouncing them correctly when seeing them written (Abbott et al., 2002; Chard & Dickson, 1999; Edelen-Smith, 1997; Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon, & Simmons, 2002). Deficits of this nature result in a need to specifically teach sound differences, and this emphasis on detection and manipulation of discrete speech sounds is referred to as phonemic instruction. Note that phonemes should not be considered merely “letter sounds.” Of course, in many cases individual letters may be considered phonemes (for example, the letter a in the word ahead affects the meaning considerably, and is thus a phoneme). Also, the s used to make a word plural changes the meaning of the word (cat versus cats). There are other cases when multiple letters make a single speech sound (for

Phonemic instruction may be defined as a child’s ability to detect and manipulate speech sounds that change meaning in our language (Abbott et al., 2002; Bhat et al., 2003). A phoneme is the shortest discrete sound that communicates meaning (Sousa, 2005). Teachers now understand that phonemic problems can exist independently of problems in phonics, and that phonemic deficits—rather than phonics deficits— appear to be the basis for many reading problems among young children (Abbott et al., 2002; Bhat et al., 2003). This is because it is quite difficult to teach sounds that are represented by particular letters until and unless A phoneme is the shortest dissome prerequisite phoneme discrimination skills are crete sound that has meaning or present. No child will learn to recognize and correctly communicates meaning. Phoneread the letters b and t until he or she can hear and mic instruction is a prerequisite distinguish between the sounds associated with each to phonics instruction. of these two letters. Note that those specific letters sound a great deal alike, as do many other problematic letter pairs (for example, b and d, or p and t). The ability to detect the distinctions among these speech sounds is the basis of success in phonemic skill. Success in phonics is, to a large degree, dependent upon prior mastery of these phonemic detection and manipulation skills. Today’s reading curricula reflect that relatively recent knowledge (Bender & Larkin, 2009).

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

A variety of different phonemic skills undergirds early reading. For example, part of the basis for successful reading is not only detecting different speech sounds, but also blending them. The phonemes /c/a/t/ blend together to make the word cat, and a student’s ability to interpret those marks on the page (that is, the letters in the word cat), identify a phoneme associated with each, and then blend them will determine his or her success in reading. In this case, both phonemic and phonics skills were involved. Phonemic segmentation (“taking apart” words to isolate specific phonemes) and phonemic substitution (isolating a phonemic sound and substituting another sound for it) are all components of more advanced phonemic instruction. The term phonemic manipulation has also been used to represent this array of phonemic skills, which are frequently presented in terms of a hierarchy.

Hierarchy of Phonemic Manipulation Skills 1. Detecting individual phonemes 2. Detecting rhyming phonemes 3. Recognition of the same initial phoneme in different words (this is sometimes referred to as onset) 4. Isolating individual phonemes 5. Blending phonemes 6. Segmenting words into phonemes 7. Phonemic deletion and substitution

The ongoing research on phonemic skill has documented many complex relationships between these recently studied early literacy skills and success in early reading. For example, research has suggested that the sound-blending tasks are more accurate determinants of literacy skills in younger children, whereas deletion and substitution tasks (for example, eliminating the final consonant sound from a word and substituting another) are better predictors of reading success in older children (Schatschneider, Francis, Foorman, Fletcher, & Mehta, 1999). In addition, research on phonemes since 1999 has shown that a child’s ability to recognize and name letters quickly (often referred to as RAN, or rapid automatized naming) is a

example, the th sound), so phonemic skill is not synonymous with letter recognition skill. All languages in the world together contain approximately 150 phonemes, while the English language contains 41 (NRP, 2000), although some authorities suggest it contains as many as 44 (see Sousa, 2005).

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

The report of the National Reading Panel (2000) cautioned teachers against attempting to offer instruction in all of these phonemic skills at once. Rather, it stated that differentiated instruction that focuses on only one or two of the skills in the hierarchy is more effective. Of course, in the typical primary reading class, many students will have mastered all or most of these phonemic skills prior to school, and those students may be expected to move directly into phonics instruction, such as letter recognition, initial consonant sounds, and the like. For every individual child struggling in reading, however, teachers should carefully consider the student’s phonemic skills. Some will need help in all of these areas, and teachers should begin with the relatively simple activities found in teaching tip 3.2, which address the lower-level skills in the phonemic skill hierarchy.

Questions to Ask During Class to Stress Phonemic Instruction • “Did you hear a rhyme in the last sentence I just read?” • “What was the onset phoneme in the following word?” • “What is the final phoneme in the following word?” • “Which two words in the following sentence begin (or end) with the same phoneme?” • “When I say a word, can you say a word beginning with the same sound?” • “Who can say all of the phonemes in the word window, in order?” A Game Format for Differentiated Phonemic Instruction Many games and activities can be used to teach phonemes for students in the primary and elementary grades, and various suggestions are available in the literature (Bender & Larkin, 2009; Chard & Dickson, 1999; EdelenSmith, 1997). As an example, the teacher might divide the class into two

critical reading skill that is highly correlated with oral reading fluency in later years (Bailet, Repper, Piasta, & Murphy, 2009; Schatschneider, et al., 1999). Furthermore, many of these phonemic and phonics skills interact to foster either success or difficulties in early reading. For example, phonemic skills such as rhyming and initial letter naming have an impact on a child’s readiness for preliminary exposure to printed materials and his or her concept of word (Bailet, et al., 2009). At this point, a consensus has been reached suggesting that a combination of phonologically based instruction and alphabet knowledge (that is, phonics instruction) provides the strongest basis for early reading instruction (Bailet et al., 2009; NRP, 2000; Podhajski et al., 2009).

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Teaching Tip 3.2: Activities and games for phonemic instruction. In contrast, other students may have mastered only the early phonemic skills found in the first levels of the phonemic hierarchy (for example, phonemic detection or onset sounds). These students may need instruction on skills that develop later (for example, phonemic deletion or substitution). Teachers should aim the differentiated instructional activities at the specific phonemic deficits of the individual child. In addition to the activities presented here, most modern reading curricula include a wide variety of instructional activities directed toward these phonemic skills.

New Literacy Skills Terminology

teams and provide each team with a copy of the same paragraph written at the grade reading level. The first student on one team picks a word in the first sentence of the paragraph and tells the first student in the other team to listen and identify a particular phoneme from that word. For example, the first student might say, “Listen for the last sound in the fifth word in this sentence.” The student then reads the sentence, and the student on the other team has to correctly identify the phoneme. The student who correctly identifies the phoneme scores a point; if the phoneme is not identified correctly, the other team scores a point. If a student doesn’t know the answer, he or she is allowed to confer with the entire team.

As both chapter 1 and the previous discussion indicate, reading instruction is changing dramatically, and many primary and elementary teachers are having to work very hard to keep up with ongoing developments The latest research on emer(Podhajski et al., 2009). The latest research on emergent gent literacy skills and phoneliteracy skills and phonemic instruction has changed mic instruction has changed the landscape in primary reading, and it is fair to say the landscape in primary that primary teachers who received their training prior reading, and it is fair to say that primary teachers who to 2000 or so are having to unlearn the assumption received their training prior to that reading instruction begins with phonics and learn 2000 or so are having to unlearn many new aspects of reading development. In fact, 21st many assumptions about readcentury teachers need an entirely new terminology ing instruction and to learn that didn’t exist when they started teaching, as well many new aspects of reading as a new focus on targeted, systematic instruction of development. these emerging literacy skills (Davis et al., 2007; Gately, 2004; Johnston et al., 2008). Research has consistently demonstrated that these skills not only relate to later reading success, but that interventions to improve these skills result in improved reading overall (Good & Kaminski, 2002; NRP, 2000; Ritchey, 2008).

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Initial sound fluency—This skill measures a child’s ability to pick out pictures of words that begin with the same initial sound presented by the teacher. Those sounds are typically consonant sounds. In most assessments, a student is presented with a “target” picture, and the teacher says the name of that item. The student is then shown four possible “answer” pictures and is asked to point to the picture that begins with the same sound as the target picture. This is a timed exercise, thus addressing fluency in this skill. As the example indicates, this is a phonemic matching skill and is independent of phonics skills, since no recognition of letters is involved. Onset—This is another term used for the initial sound of a word. Like initial sound fluency, this term implies only the recognition of the letter sound and not necessarily the initial letter making that sound. Typically this is a consonant sound and one of the first types of sounds that students recognize. Rhyming—Like the phonemic matching skill, this skill requires the child to pick out a picture that rhymes with the target picture being named by the teacher. This emergent phonological skill is assessed on several preschool literacy assessments (for example, Get It, Got It, Go!; McConnell et al., 1998). Phonemic segmentation—This skill involves a student’s ability to break words into actual phonemes. While instruction on decoding words has traditionally required students to break words into syllables, phonemic instruction now involves students’ isolating individual phonemes. Rapid letter naming—This term (often referred to as simply letter naming fluency) represents a child’s ability to recognize and name letters quickly. The exercise is typically done in a forty-five-second to one-minute period. On the DIBELS assessment (Good & Kaminski, 2002), it is abbreviated as LNF, which stands for letter naming fluency. Nonsense word fluency—This skill, sometimes abbreviated NSF, represents a student’s skill at correctly decoding nonsense words that follow the typical decoding rules for English. Since the use of actual words a child had learned previously could skew results of the assessment, nonsense words are used to assess this skill. Research has shown this skill to be particularly predictive of reading success (Ritchey, 2008). Oral reading fluency—Abbreviated as ORF (Good & Kaminski, 2002), this is a measure of how many words a child can correctly read in a given period of time. This measure is also referred to as “words per minute” or WPM and may involve having a child read words either in a word list or text passage.

Emerging Literacy Skills

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Teaching Phonological Skills

Among young children, phonological skills, coupled with emergent print knowledge, are the strongest early predictors of success in reading (Davis et al., 2007). In order to develop reading skills, students must be senUnlike phonemic instruction, sitive to the wide variety of speech sounds and sound phonological instruction segments. Further, once students recognize and iden- can involve rhyming sounds, tify speech sounds, they must partner those under- alliteration, blending of standings with letters and words on the printed page. syllables, blending of other A variety of additional suggestions for activities for speech sounds, and skills in teaching phonological skills is available in the litera- working with prefixes and suffixes. ture (Bender & Larkin, 2009; Chard & Dickson, 1999; Edelen-Smith, 1997). Given the recent development of many of these terms and concepts, one can see that reading instruction is clearly in transition, and teachers must make every effort to keep abreast of these developing concepts. Instruction in these skills and activities should be provided for students demonstrating phonological deficits; these skills can become the basis for many differentiation activities in the differentiated reading class.

Syllable Decoding Teaching about syllables is typically done from the latter part of the first grade through the second grade. As students move into second and third grade, they become exposed to multisyllabic words, which involve more complex phonological

In contrast to phonemic instruction and phonics instruction, phonological instruction is a much broader concept. Phonological skills represent the manipulation of all sounds in language and thus include both phonics and phonemic skills. Unlike phonemic instruction, however, phonological instruction may also deal with speech sounds, such as syllables, that are made up of several phonemes (Bender & Larkin, 2009)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;and can involve rhyming sounds, alliteration, blending of syllables, blending of other speech sounds, and skills in working with prefixes and suffixes. Phonological activities might include asking students to search through magazines for pictures of rhyming words to cut out (a picture of a cat and a hat, for example) or pictures of things that all start with the /t/ sound. To practice blending syllables, a teacher may stretch out a two-syllable word and have students blend the syllables to discover the word (base . . . ball = baseball). The activities that can accompany phonological instruction are endless, and it provides an opportunity for the teacher to get creative in instruction!

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

1. Closed—This type of syllable typically occurs in one-syllable words, and the vowel sound is surrounded by an initial consonant and a final consonant (for example, CVC pattern words such as cab or bat). 2. Open—In these syllables, the vowel sound is left open, with no consonant sound at the end of the word (for example, go or be). 3. Silent e—These syllables are one-syllable words in which a silent e at the end controls the vowel sound in the middle of the word, usually resulting in a long vowel sound for that middle vowel (for example, bike or ride). Teachers often say, “Silent e makes the first vowel say its name!” 4. Double vowel—This type involves syllables that have two vowels beside each other, and in most cases the first vowel sound is long and the second vowel is silent (for example, fear). Teachers often say, “When two vowels are walking, the first one does the talking!” 5. r-controlled vowel—This syllable involves vowels followed by the letter r, resulting in a vowel sound where the vowel is neither long nor short. Thus, the r controls the vowel sound, making it rather unusual (for example, car or for). 6. Ending vowel sounds—These syllables involve common word endings that involve a predictable consonant/vowel combination. These word endings are often syllables themselves and include many common endings such as -le (for example, table or uncle), -el (for example, rebel or chapel), and -al (for example, medal). Multiletter endings are also predictable and often represent a separate syllable in the word. These include -sion (for example, tension), -tion (for example, suction), -ture (for example, culture), or -age (for example, mortgage). In teaching about these syllable types, teachers can use a wide variety of activities. For example, a teacher might provide students with a set of words with each word written on a separate card. The teacher could then ask the students to sort the words into syllable types. Alternatively, the teacher might provide a list of words and ask students to circle all of the syllables of one type, or divide the words into syllables using the common syllabication rules—for example, between two consonants in the middle of the word or prior to the ending vowel syllable (Knight-McKenna, 2008). Over the years teachers have developed an array of activities of this nature for syllable instruction, and many reading software programs likewise present a number of instructional activities on syllables. An understanding of syllables and

instruction than merely phonemic work or letter sounds. Generally, reading experts recognize six types of syllables in English (Knight-McKenna, 2008):

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

New Tools for Differentiated Instruction in Early Literacy Given these fundamental changes in reading instruction, it should come as no surprise that many commercially available reading assessments and curricula have been developed that incorporate these new instructional innovations for reading instruction for struggling readers. These can facilitate differentiated instruction at the Tier 1 level and assessment or targeted intervention for the Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels during the RTI process. We mention more assessments and curricula in later chapters. Here we look at two of them: Get Ready to Read! and Read Well.

Get Ready to Read! Get Ready to Read! is an early reading screening instrument from the National Center for Learning Disabilities (getreadytoread.org; Whitehurst, 2001) intended to assist teachers in developing instructional programs for students aged four to five who struggle with emergent reading readiness skills. This tool was developed in 2001 and has not been widely utilized to date, but it warrants some mention in this context, because it was developed in conjunction with the National Center for Learning Disabilities and is therefore likely to receive more attention in the near future. Get Ready to Read! is a twenty-indicator assessment that takes approximately fifteen minutes to administer and is therefore quite useful as a universal screening instrument for students from four years old on and for students struggling in kindergarten and the early grades. The questions include visual and auditory items that enable students to show their skill level in print and book knowledge, phonological awareness, and phonics. An initial research report indicated the technical adequacy of this instrument as a predictive indicator of students who are likely to have problems in various areas of reading (Phillips, Lonigan, & Wyatt, 2009; Wilson & Lonigan, 2010). While this measure has not yet received widespread usage, we expect increased application of this assessment as a universal screening measure in the RTI process.

Read Well Read Well (Sprick, Howard, & Fidanque, 1998), a research-proven curriculum that stresses phonemic instruction at every level, is designed for young students from

syllabication does result in improved decoding skills, particularly for multisyllabic words, and is related to later success in reading overall (Bender & Larkin, 2009; Knight-McKenna, 2008).

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

These programs all allow for great flexibility of use. For example, Bear Elementary School, while serving as one of the RTI pilot schools in Montana, used Read Well as the supplemental curriculum for both Tier 2 and 3 in its RTI implementation efforts (Mahdavi & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2009). This was possible because the program is not tied directly to specific grade levels. For example, high-performing kindergarten students may complete Read Well K well before the end of the kindergarten year, and those students can then proceed into Read Well 1. Students in Read Well 1 who need extra practice can cross over to Read Well K, since the two programs have a parallel sequence of skills, which makes them an excellent choice for differentiation of instruction in the kindergarten and primary grades. When students successfully complete Read Well Plus, they are reading at approximately a second-grade, fifthmonth reading level. Instruction in the program is highly differentiated and driven by individual, ongoing assessment. Students are grouped for specific instruction in targeted areas, and groups are frequently adjusted based on each student’s performance. The builtin assessments also enable teachers to evaluate the ongoing needs of each student in order to determine whether or not immediate, more intensive intervention is warranted. Thus, this program provides an excellent basis not only for differentiated instruction, but also for RTI procedures in early reading. In a typical Read Well lesson, teachers work with small groups of students daily for thirty minutes or so. First, fifteen minutes of decoding instruction practice are provided, followed by fifteen minutes of story reading. Read Well units are thematically based, with sounds and words used in decoding instructions linked to the unit’s stories, further empowering students to establish meaningful connections. Each unit usually begins with a new letter sound that provides the stimulus for the activities that ensue and is related to a word linked to the theme students will read about later in the lesson. For instance, students may be introduced to the /a/ sound, which is linked to the word ant and then discuss the fact that an ant is an insect; their text would also be about insects. Then, skills that have been previously introduced and mastered by the students are put into immediate practice through the reading of connected text. The Read Well curriculum is well developed, with appropriate supportive material. The built-in assessment manuals contain assessments for student

kindergarten through grade 3. This curriculum is grounded in the latest research on reading and early literacy, and stresses phonemic, phonics, and phonological reading skills. It is comprised of three separate programs, Read Well K, Read Well 1, and Read Well Plus, each of which emphasizes these early literacy skills.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

placement within groups, appropriate lessons, and specific information pertaining to assessment administration. Teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guides, blackline masters for activities, story books, sound and word cards, and lesson plans with specific steps for lesson implementation are included. Other supplementary materials include sound blending cards, CDs of songs and poems, and various manipulatives.

The What Works Clearinghouse (2009a) and the Florida Center for Reading Research (2007) have both documented the efficacy of Read Well. Unlike many curricula currently available, this one has been shown Because many English learners to be effective for English learners (Denton, Anthony, struggle to meet reading goals, Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004), and this is critically a curriculum that is proven to important in numerous schools today. Because many work with that population can be a real advantage as schools English learners struggle to meet reading goals, a strive to meet rigorous reading curriculum that is proven to work with that population standards. can be a real advantage as schools strive to meet rigorous reading standards. Based on these strengths, many educators around the world are using Read Well as one curricular component of the RTI process.

RTI Case Study: Early Literacy

As we have noted, most general education teachers have the responsibility for both Tier 1 instruction and Tier 2 intervention; thus, it is important that they provide a balanced literacy program at Tier 1, such as the Differentiated instruction guided reading program described in chapter 2 (page provides a critically important 27) for all emergent readers in the class. Furthermore, basis for all RTI efforts, and any such differentiated instruction must be founded on the Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions reading areas also described previously. Such differen- should flow seamlessly from tiated instruction provides a critically important basis the differentiated instruction for all RTI efforts, and any Tier 2 or Tier 3 interven- provided at the Tier 1 level in the general education class. tions that may be required should flow seamlessly from the differentiated instruction provided in Tier 1. This section presents a case study in RTI for early literacy skills based on both the reading areas described herein and the Tier 1 differentiated instructional program for guided reading that was described in chapter 2. Our major reason for presenting it is to show how all components of the RTI process should work together to benefit students who may be struggling in early reading.

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Ms. Higgins’s Second-Grade Class

However, Ms. Higgins noticed that DJ was having difficulty completing decoding activities during the guided reading instruction. She also noted that he had difficulty completing various activities in the literacy centers set up around the room. In some cases, he was unable to read the directions found at the centers and could not complete several activities that others in the class successfully completed. She believed that this was related to his inability to decode words independently. As is common in most primary classrooms, Ms. Higgins administered several universal screening assessments three times each year, including one early in the academic year. These included the mCLASS assessment described previously and an information phonics assessment Ms. Higgins developed. Specifically, the mCLASS assessment measured DJ’s ability to decode, Typically, universal screening read fluently, retell important content, and answer assessments are completed a comprehension questions on a brief reading passage. minimum of three times each Ms. Higgins used the informal phonics inventory year by each general education to determine which specific phonics errors each of teacher for every student in her students made. This level of specificity can help the class. determine the types of instructional activities DJ and the other struggling students might need. Ms. Higgins used the data from these two universal screenings and then noted these problems in an RTI documentation form, as shown in figure 3.1 (pages 75–80). The universal screening data demonstrated some type of reading problem for DJ. For example, the mCLASS results, presented in figure 3.2 (page 80), revealed that his reading level was at least one year behind the recommended starting level for grade 2. Ms. Higgins began the mCLASS assessment with a book at level 8 (Porter the Pig, fig. 3.2). As the student results show, DJ was able to read this book with only 87 percent accuracy. Ms. Higgins decided to try a level 7 book (Dinnertime, fig. 3.2), which DJ was able to read with 96 percent accuracy. At that level, DJ was also able to successfully retell the story and answer the comprehension questions.

DJ, a second-grade student, is having difficulty reading. His teacher, Ms. Higgins, provided direct, systematic phonics instruction for DJ in a small group while students in other groups worked in various literacy stations. Thus, DJ received guided reading instruction from Ms. Higgins in a homogenous guided reading group for several weeks at the beginning of the second-grade year.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Age: 6

Date: 10/12/2008

Initiating Teacher: Ms. Higgins

School: Apex Elementary

Grade: 2

Principal: Reginald Williams 1. Statement of student difficulty and summary of Tier 1 instruction (add supporting evidence): DJ consistently has trouble reading and writing high-frequency words in our second-grade class. When reading aloud, I have observed that DJ uses only his basic understanding of initial sounds as well as short vowel sounds to decode words. He is unable to apply any irregular vowel rules to decode words (for example, oi, and silent-e- and r-controlled vowels), and this hinders him from being able to blend words and decode unknown words on a second-grade level. His scores on a universal screening assessment conducted five weeks into the second grade likewise documented a problem. In my instruction at the Tier 1 level, I use a story-based reading instructional series, coupled with a running record computerized program called mCLASS, which presents many reading selections in various levels. At the beginning of the secondgrade year, students should be able to score a 93 percent or higher in reading accuracy on an mCLASS level 12 story. As shown in figure 3.2 (page 80), DJ was able to complete only a level 8 book with 87 percent fluency, indicating a reading skill level somewhere around the beginning to middle of first grade. I did not administer the retelling and comprehension assessment, but dropped back to a level 7 book, which he completed with 96 percent accuracy in fluency. He also succeeded in retelling the story and answering comprehension questions at that level (see fig. 3.2). I developed an informal phonics inventory that I use as a universal screener and progress-monitoring tool. These words come from our second-grade spelling list, and I selected this list to show eight common phonics errors. This informal assessment indicated that DJ had difficulty with digraphs, consonant blends, double vowel sounds, e-controlled vowels, and multisyllabic words. These data suggest that if DJ can decode words in a story enough to read fluently, then his comprehension is not a problem. Also, after noticing DJ’s trouble with fluency and decoding, I spoke with his first-grade teacher, who reported similar findings from the previous year. Although DJ knew all letter sounds, including short vowels, he was unable to apply any other phonetic rules when reading. DJ also had significant trouble on his K–1 sight word list, again suggesting a problem in decoding. Ms. Angela Higgins, 10/12/2008 continued 

Student name: DJ Siers

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

2. Tier 2 intervention plan:

We will work on two tasks each day. First, we will work on a differentiated spelling list from second grade spelling curriculum. The results in DJ’s group indicate that they understand initial consonants and short vowels, but struggle in decoding digraphs and blends. We will concentrate on those specific decoding and phonics exercises involving sounding out vowel sounds using governing rules. The activities will include word sorts, based on specific spelling patterns, vowel sounds, and digraphs and blends from our basal reading series. Next, each week we will work through an instructional book at their instructional level, focusing on both utilizing spelling patterns to decode fluently and comprehension. Students will also be asked to read this book in class and as a part of their nightly homework. Because these students are bodily/kinesthetic learners, one activity done at least every other day will be a role-play, in which they act out their reading passage. Comprehension and retelling activities will take place during the week to accompany the decoding work. For progress monitoring purposes, I will use the informal phonics inventory that is based on DJ’s spelling words every two weeks, and I will analyze his errors and chart his spelling and phonics performance. I will specifically delineate his progress on skills in which he has shown weaknesses, including digraphs, consonant blends, double vowel sounds, e-controlled vowels, and multisyllabic words. I plan on continuing this intervention for a minimum of six to eight weeks. I shared my notes on DJ’s progress monitoring data from Tier 1 instruction and this Tier 2 intervention plan with Mr. Williams, who also serves as cochair of our Student Support Team. He indicated that a meeting of the full team would not be necessary in this instance. He said I should share this plan with DJ’s parents and then proceed with the Tier 2 intervention, as described above. I then sent a letter to DJ’s parents, including a copy of the description of the reading intervention plan. I will begin the intervention next week. Ms. Angela Higgins, 10/15/2008

As a Tier 2 intervention, I will meet with DJ in a small guided reading group that includes three other students, all of whom are physically active with both spatial and bodily/kinesthetic learning style preferences. I will meet with this group each day for thirty minutes during our guided reading instruction (I typically meet with each guided reading group for only fifteen minutes, so DJ’s group will be receiving extra supplemental guided reading instruction for fifteen minutes daily).

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

3. Observation of student in Tier 2 intervention:

The group also read from a Reading A–Z book that correlated with their reading level. The teacher closely followed the lesson plan in that curriculum, and DJ was able to sound out the CVC words and words that fit his spelling pattern. However, he still struggled with many other words and lacked fluency in the reading passage. His desire to succeed was evident. Some progress was evident, since DJ was able to sort and read his spelling words and was able to apply these spelling patterns when reading. Given that DJ is retaining at least some of the phonics rules, I believe this intervention should be continued, but the Student Support Team should review these data with Ms. Higgins at the end of the current grading period. Mr. Reginald Williams, principal, 11/13/2008 4. Tier 2 intervention summary and recommendations (add performancemonitoring data chart): The Student Support Team met on 12/11/2008 and reviewed the progressmonitoring data for DJ from the Tier 2 intervention conducted by Ms. Higgins. The team consisted of Ms. Higgins, DJ’s general education teacher; Ms. Coleman, reading specialist; Mr. Williams, principal; Ms. Penny, lead teacher for the second grade; and Ms. Drewry, cochair of the Student Support Team. The team noted that the Tier 2 intervention described previously was implemented by Ms. Higgins with DJ and three other students for eight weeks beginning on 10/18/2008. The mCLASS chart [fig. 3.5, page 86] shows DJ’s growth from the beginning of implementation until the end. It is apparent that DJ has made some progress moving from an mCLASS level 8 story to a level 10 story. On both levels he read at an appropriate instructional level and was able to correctly answer questions from the story. However, on the level 10 story, he was correct on only two of four inferential comprehension questions. continued 

While observing the Tier 2 intervention, I noticed that DJ was focused and participating in the small-group lesson. DJ worked with his spelling words from the second-grade spelling list and was able to sort and sound out some of the words based on the spelling pattern, though he also missed some of those words. Students used dry-erase markers and individual whiteboards to practice spelling their words, and DJ completed several simple sight words in the CVC pattern and several words involving consonant blends, but he was not successful on digraphs.

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

These data suggest that DJ will need more intensive intervention in order to succeed in second grade. The Student Support Team therefore recommends that DJ receive supplemental instruction at the Tier 3 level to focus on his decoding and fluency and comprehension skills. Ms. Barbara Drewry, cochair, Student Support Team, 12/18/2008 5. Tier 3 intervention plan: After reviewing the data presented by Ms. Higgins, the team agreed that DJ would need Tier 3 intervention in order to succeed in reading in the second grade. Based on the data presented by Ms. Higgins, the Student Support Team created a Tier 3 intervention plan involving several related areas, including instructional activities during both Tier 1 and Tier 2. Finally, the team delineated several intensive instructional components for a Tier 3 intervention plan. First, it was agreed that DJ’s instruction would be further enhanced in several ways. He needs a high level of differentiated instruction, including some additional one-on-one tutoring to assist in decoding skills. Ms. Higgins and other teachers conduct such tutoring three afternoons each week. DJ’s parents have agreed that he can remain after school and participate in that tutoring program. That will consist of tutoring for thirty minutes, Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday. This instruction will be devoted exclusively to work on decoding skills using the reading curriculum from Ms. Higgins’s class. During that time each day, Ms. Higgins will preread the guided reading story with DJ to boost his confidence and help him decode unknown words. Ms. Higgins also agreed to modify the Tier 1 instruction by creating several differentiated activities on decoding pattern words which DJ will complete in his work in the various literacy stations. His wild card activities [see chapter 2] and literacy station requirements will vary based on the needs highlighted by the continued progress monitoring. In guided reading, Ms. Higgins is also going to implement more tactile, movement-based activities.

Ms. Higgins created a data chart [fig. 3.3, page 81] to summarize data on the specific phonics and spelling problems demonstrated by DJ. Data from the second-grade spelling list indicate that DJ was learning but was still having difficulty with digraphs, double vowels, and multisyllabic words. These data, taken together, indicate that DJ was making some progress but was still decoding and reading at a level that is significantly below the recommended reading level for the middle of second grade. Although progress is being made, DJ is not moving quickly enough to succeed on the required second-grade literacy standards. The phonics patterns that Ms. Higgins is teaching appear to help DJ when decoding, but he will need to acquire more rapid decoding skill.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Ms. Coleman will conduct the intervention daily and print weekly reports for DJ to show areas of improvement and areas of sustained weakness. For progress-monitoring purposes, the informal phonics inventory that Ms. Higgins uses will continue to be administered every other week by Ms. Higgins, along with periodic mCLASS assessments. The Student Support Team specifically wishes to avoid changing progress monitoring measures between the Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions for DJ. Ms. Coleman, reading specialist, 12/18/2008 6. Observation of Tier 3 intervention: (No observation made during the Tier 3 intervention) 7. Tier 3 intervention summary and recommendations: DJ has worked in Tier 3 intervention for the past eight weeks, at the end of which the Student Support Team met again to discuss his progress (meeting held on 02/16/2009). All members were present. Each teacher reported that he or she had implemented the intervention as described, but both noted that during that timeframe, DJ missed two days of school due to illness. Ms. Coleman stated that DJ was making very good progress in the Read Well curriculum and that the progress was evident on the Words Their Way assessments and recent mCLASS assessments. The mCLASS data document that DJ continues to make progress in reading fluency, retelling, and general comprehension, moving from a level 10 book to a level 14 book, placing him in the early second-grade range. While he is not yet caught up with his peers, he is making progress toward that end. On the informal phonics inventory, DJ has shown progress in several skills [fig 3.4, page 81]. As these data indicate, DJ has mastered consonant blends, digraphs, double vowels, and silent-e- controlled vowel sounds, and is showing some progress on multisyllabic words as well. Based on these data, demonstrating progress in an intensive Tier 3 intervention, the committee does not believe that DJ exhibits a learning disability at this time. Further, the Student Support Team believes that DJ is making sufficient progress with the Tier 3 intervention, and the team continued 

For the Tier 3 intervention, DJ will be placed in a small-group instructional curriculum, Read Well, that emphasizes phonemic manipulation and phonics. That program will be used with DJ to develop early phonological and decoding skills. DJ will work on Read Well each day immediately after recess for thirty minutes in Ms. Coleman’s reading lab with two other students. Those students, including DJ, will go to Ms. Coleman’s reading lab at 2:10 each day, when general education teachers are not typically teaching reading, so that none of the students miss their Tier 1 reading instruction.

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Ms. Coleman and Ms. Higgins agreed to continue his work in the Read Well curriculum in the reading lab, as well as the afternoon tutoring. The team will review DJ’s progress at the end of each grading period, should Ms. Drewry, the Student Support Team cochair, determine that it’s necessary. Otherwise, the team will review the collected data at the end of the current academic year. Ms. Barbara Drewry, cochair, Student Support Team, 03/04/2009

Figure 3.1: Response to intervention documentation in reading for DJ. 8 Porter the Pig (F) Accuracy: 87%

Statements: N/A

SC Rate: 1:14

Analysis:

Reading >

N/A

L Literal:

N/A

Inferential: N/A

Retelling >

Comprehension >

7 Dinnertime (F) Accuracy: 96%

Statements: 8/8

Literal:

SC Rate: 1:1.3

Analysis:

Inferential: 4/4

Reading >

13/14

Retelling >

3/3

Comprehension >

Figure 3.2: Universal screening data from mCLASS Courtesy of Wireless Generation, Inc., www.wgen.net. E-Assessment is a registered trademark of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

In addition, Ms. Higgins used words from the school’s spelling curriculum and constructed an informal phonics and spelling measure to assess eight common phonics problems. These included initial consonants, final consonants, short vowel CVC words, digraphs, consonant blends, long-vowel/double vowel words, silent-econtrolled vowel sounds, and multisyllabic words. Using this informal assessment, Ms. Higgins could call out between twelve and fifteen of these words to assess DJ and her other students on specific phonics and spelling difficulties. The words she selected are shown in figure 3.3.

decided to continue that level of intensive instruction for the remainder of the academic year. There is a consensus among the team that DJ should be able to catch up with most of his classmates by the end of the year, and begin grade 3 reading approximately on grade level.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Words

Used to Assess Initial consonant, final consonant, short vowel in a CVC pattern

ship, church, throw, shout

Digraphs

dream, try, flock, street

Initial consonant blends

gate, hope, rate, cape, cute

Silent-e- controlled long vowel (CVC silent e pattern), initial consonant

wait, deal, gain, lean

Long-vowel/double vowel (first vowel is long, second silent), final consonant, initial consonant

about, butter, cannot, taller

Multisyllabic words

Figure 3.3: Ms. Higgins’s informal word lists for checking phonics understandings. To use this assessment, Ms. Higgins called out selected spelling words to DJ, and by scoring his spelling as an overall percentage, she could generate an overall spelling score as a repeated assessment of his progress. Also, she always included at least two examples of each of the eight main types of phonics errors in the words she selected. Therefore, by using this type of informal assessment and error analysis, Ms. Higgins could informally assess how her instruction was working for him in each of the seven main phonics areas emphasized by her school’s curriculum. As an informal universal screening measure, she presented the following words to DJ and other students in the class. Figure 3.4 shows DJ’s responses. Words Called Out

DJ’s Written Response

pin dream butter deal hope about church top gate wait fit ship try throw bat

pin dem butar del happ ate surh top git wat fit sip tri thrg bat

Figure 3.4: DJ’s spelling/phonics inventory.

pin, top, hat, fit, bat, dog

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Tier 2 Intervention Plan With these data in hand, Ms. Higgins spoke with DJ’s previous teachers, both of whom reported similar concerns with DJ’s reading performance. As noted in the first section of the RTI documentation form in figure 3.1 (pages 75–80), Ms. Higgins used the universal screening data, her observations, and her discussions with previous teachers to determine that DJ would need supplemental instruction. One issue we should discuss at this point is when a general education teacher should implement a Tier 2 intervention or merely conduct some less formal tutoring or small-group instruction. While RTI procedures are clearly intended to foster increased assistance for struggling children, not every reading difficulty warrants RTI Tier 2 intervention. Our recommendation is that teachers use the universal screening data to estimate student academic growth, coupled with consultations with other knowledgeable professionals, and then make a determination concerning whether current academic growth will allow the Not every reading difficulty student to catch up with his or her peers in a reasonwarrants RTI implementation. able timeframe. In this example, the universal screenThe guiding principle must be ing data suggest, as noted, that DJ may be as much as a what would be most effective year behind his classmates in reading, and the several for the struggling student. specific reading skill deficits suggest that he will only fall further behind. Those deficits could easily be targeted for a formal Tier 2 intervention. However, had those data documented merely a two- or three-month deficit, perhaps a different decision would have been made concerning the necessity of a Tier 2 intervention. As always, good judgment on the part of the teachers involved is critical. They must consider what would be most effective for the struggling student and what is likely to allow that student to catch up with the others in the class.

These data indicated an overall spelling score of only 27 percent (four correct out of fifteen). Most importantly, the analysis of the errors shows much more information on exactly which skills he missed. These data show that he had a good grasp of initial and final consonant sounds (for example, pin, deal, top, wait, fit) and understood CVC words (for example, pin, top, fit). He had difficulty with digraphs (church, ship), consonant blends (dream, try), double vowel sounds (deal, wait), e-controlled vowels (hope, gate), and multisyllabic words (butter, about). In this type of informal assessment, even if a spelling word is incorrect, it can still provide an indication of a phonics strength. For example, the error on the word wait in figure 3.4 (page 81) resulted from a poor understanding of double vowel sounds, but that word nevertheless indicated DJ’s strength in recognition of initial and final consonant sounds.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Note the level of detail in the first two sections of figure 3.1 (pages 75–80). Ms. Higgins documented DJ’s reading struggles in multiple ways, described at some length the universal screening data, and then presented data charts showing DJ’s performance in Tier 1 instruction. In section 2, the Tier 2 intervention plan, she continued to describe in detail exactly what she planned for the Tier 2 intervention, including how progress would be monitored. By stating explicitly how many students would participate in the Tier 2 intervention (which in this case would be provided via an additional fifteen minutes of time in the guided reading group), and what the timeframe was for that intervention each day, Ms. Higgins documented the level of intensity of the Tier 2 intervention. All RTI procedures should be described in considerable detail, as shown in figure 3.1 (pages 75–80), so that educators reviewing those interventions will have a complete understanding of the intervention and the charted data that result from that intervention. In this example, Ms. Higgins used her experience with DJ in the Tier 1 instruction, coupled with consideration of the data available on his performance, and then reflectively considered possible difficulties that might have led to DJ’s reading problems. She noted that she believed decoding was the problem, since he showed no difficulty in comprehension on the mCLASS reading. The importance of such diagnostic, reflective thought cannot be overemphasized, and we encourage such careful reflection by all educators at every step throughout the RTI process. This is one advantage of data-based documentation of the efficacy of instruction at every tier in

We do urge consultation in some form on decisions such as these. The second section of figure 3.1 (pages 75–80) indicates that in this instance, Ms. Higgins did approach Mr. Williams, the principal, who also cochairs the Student Support Team for Apex Elemen- The chair or cochair of the Student Support Team might be tary. In some schools, a professional learning commuempowered to determine that nity might be used as the basis for making determinations an individual teacher may proregarding RTI implementation for specific students ceed with a Tier 2 intervention. (Buffum et al., 2009). In others, as we have noted, This option can save considerteachers are required to consult with a Student Support able time. Team prior to implementing a Tier 2 intervention, while in still other situations, such as in the example shown here, a less formal procedure may be in place. This example suggests that perhaps the chair or cochair of the Student Support Team might be empowered to determine that an individual teacher may proceed with a Tier 2 intervention. This option can save considerable time in cases where a full team meeting may not be needed to discuss the child’s problem and possible interventions.

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

In planning the intervention, Ms. Higgins decided that DJ would need to begin the Tier 2 intervention immediately in order to succeed in second grade. As this “immediacy” indicates, the RTI process fosters the quick delivery of assistance for struggling students, one of the strengths of this process. In fact, general education teachers often feel empowered because of this aspect of RTI implementation. In workshops we often hear general education teachers lament the fact that after seeking assistance for a particular student, their requests fall into a “black hole” either at the Student Support Team level or in the office of an overextended school psychologist. This sometimes leaves general education teachers feeling like little help is forthcoming. In the RTI process, the provision of help for a student is more immediate, since the general education teacher not only refers a child or requests assistance but actually initiates the Tier 2 intervention plan. In short, the intervention assistance generally begins immediately under RTI procedures, and this effectively empowers general education teachers in this process. The supplemental Tier 2 instruction plan developed here called for more intensive assessment of DJ’s reading skill. In 21st century education, we expect data-driven decisions, and Ms. Higgins clearly stated The provision of immediher plan for repeated progress monitoring. She ate assistance is one of the planned to utilize the second-grade phonics inventory strengths of the RTI process she created every other week to check for growth in and effectively empowers gendecoding skills, along with mCLASS to periodically eral education teachers. assess decoding in a reading selection, story retelling, and comprehension. This combination of assessments would provide a more complete basis for monitoring progress during the Tier 2 intervention than would either assessment alone, and teachers should be prepared to use multiple progressmonitoring assessments, as needed, in the RTI process. Finally, we should note that Ms. Higgins sent a letter home explaining the Tier 2 supplemental instruction. While parental consent is not required prior to implementing a Tier 2 intervention in the RTI process, we strongly encourage parental notification. Involvement of parents is always an excellent idea in education, and this notification can become very important later in the process if a referral to special education is indicated.

Tier 2 Intervention Review As shown in section three of figure 3.1 (pages 75–80), this RTI documentation form suggests an observation of DJ’s instruction in the Tier 2 intervention. Bender

the RTI process; such detailed documentation provides a fertile basis for in-depth reflection on each student’s learning problem.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

To understand the importance of instructional fidelity, we must consider the RTI process ultimately as one basis for placement in special education. Specifically, should a child progress through Tiers 1, 2, and 3 and still demonstrate difficulties, that student might be referred to the child eligibility team, who could then consider the possibility of a learning disability (Bender & Shores, 2007). In such a case, the following question might be asked: “Was the child provided an appropriate opportunity to respond to high-quality, research-based instruction?” If not, the existence of a disability, based in part on the documentation of an appropriate RTI procedure, could be in question.

and Shores (2007) were the first to recommend such an observation during the various RTI tiers, in order to address any questions relative to the appropriateness of the intervention or the degree to which the intervention was carefully conducted. In that sense, this observation can constitute one informal measure addressing how well DJ is responding to the intervention. However, this observation during the various tiers in the RTI process serves one additional function. In the RTI literature, the question concerning how closely teachers follow the established instructional procedures for a particular intervention during the RTI procedure constantly arises. This issue is generally referred to as instructional fidelity (Bender, 2009a).

Bender and Shores (2007) argued for robust RTI procedures in which a second qualified educator would be required to conduct at least one actual observation of each student who is receiving a Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention to address the instructional fidelity question. While observation during each instructional tier is not a requirement in the RTI pro- Instructional fidelity addresses issues concerning how closely cess, we feel it is the most robust way to address issues teachers followed the estabwith instructional fidelity. In the case of DJ, Mr. Willished instructional procedures liams conducted the observation and noted several for a particular intervention in things about his performance. This will help prepare the RTI procedure. him to later discuss DJ’s progress with the Student Support Team. Mr. Williams also made careful notation of the fact that Ms. Higgins followed the prescribed lesson plan in a research-supported curricula. This type of note in the observational data should alleviate most concerns relative to instructional fidelity. At the end of the Tier 2 intervention, Ms. Higgins presented its results to the Student Support Team, as shown in section 4 of figure 3.1 (pages 75–80). Further, Ms. Higgins included actual charted data from the two progress-monitoring assessments, as presented in figures 3.5 (page 86) and 3.6 (page 87).

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

Level 17 Level 16 Level 15 Level 14 Level 13 Level 12 Level 11

Level 10

Level 9

Level 8

Level 7 Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

10 The Lonely Frog (F) Accuracy: 94%

Statements: 6/9

L Literal:

SC Rate:

Analysis:

Reading >

9/14

Retelling >

4/4

Inferential: 2/4 Comprehension >

Figure 3.5: Tier 2 mCLASS data chart for DJ. Courtesy of Wireless Generation, Inc., www.wgen.net. E-Assessment is a registered trademark of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

An endless variety of data charts can be used for progress monitoring. Although most teachers have chosen to use various assessments and data charts that come with their curricula or their assessment instruments for progress-monitoring purposes in RTI (Mellard, McKnight, & Woods, 2009), in this example we wanted to demonstrate that teachers are free to develop informal assessments and data charts to summarize those assessments, as Ms. Higgins did in this example. While figure 3.5 was generated from the mCLASS e-assessment, Ms. Higgins developed the data chart for the informal phonics inventory herself, to show DJ’s progress in his specific problem areas. As indicated previously, she could then total the number of words spelled correctly and divide that by the total number of words called out, to generate a score on the percentage of correct answers in spelling. However, she could also summarize specific phonics errors at the bottom of the chart (fig. 3.6).

The mCLASS was administered monthly during Tier 2, and these results showed that DJ moved from a level 7 book to a level 10 and is making some progress. He was able to read and comprehend the level 10 book with 94 percent accuracy. However, this was not enough progress to ensure that DJ would attain grade level status by the end of the second grade.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

60 50

% correct

40 30 20 10 0 10/20/2008 11/02/2008 11/21/2008 12/10/2008 Number of Correct Answers

10/20/2008

11/02/2008

11/21/2008

12/10/2008

Digraphs

1/3

2/3

1/3

2/3

Consonant blends

3/4

4/4

5/5

4/4

Double vowels

1/3

0/4

1/3

e-controlled vowels

1/3

2/3

3/4

4/4

Multisyllabic words

0/2

0/3

1/3

1/4

Figure 3.6: Data chart for informal phonics intervention at beginning of Tier 2. When teachers do choose to develop their own data chart for progress monitoring, they have the additional responsibility of making certain that the chart accurately reflects the student’s performance and that it is interpretable by other professionals and parents. Using these data, the team concluded that DJ was not progressing quickly enough to achieve grade-level status by the end of the year, given the intensity of

For each data point at the bottom of the chart, the fraction shown represents the number of items correct over the number of items presented that measure any particular skill. For example, on October 20, 2008, DJ’s score of ⅓ indicated that he was presented with three words that day that included consonant digraphs, and he got only one of them correct.

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

In this case study, the Student Support Team did “mine” the data, seeking any additional information that might be relevant to DJ’s subsequent instruction. Again, such careful reflection is a powerful instructional planning tool and should be encouraged. In this case, the team pointed to various It is often the case that more concerns, such as digraphs, double vowels, and multisylintensive interventions doculabic words. Although Ms. Higgins had determined ment problems that might have that no work in reading comprehension was necessary, been hidden or simply not it is often the case that more intensive interventions observed on the universal document additional problems that might have been screening measure. hidden or simply not observed on the initial universal screening measures. When such concerns are shown by the data, they should be highlighted in the RTI documentation, as they were here.

Tier 3 Intervention Plan Working together, the Student Support Team devised a Tier 3 intervention that was much more intensive and involved than the Tier 2 intervention, as shown in section five of figure 3.1 (pages 75–80). In this case study, the Tier 3 intervention was developed and conducted by members of the Student Support Team, rather than by the individual general education teacher; this is very often the case, since time constraints generally prohibit general education teachers from conducting Tier 3 interventions. In fact, general education teachers across North America are finding that, with the number of different Tier 2 interventions required in a “typical” primary or elementary class, their hands are full merely conducting the Tier 1 differentiated instruction for all students in the class, as well as the required Tier 2 interventions for selected students (Bender, 2009a). Anecdotally, we have worked with literally hundreds of schools on RTI implementation, and we have not found a single instance in which general education teachers were expected to conduct Tier 3 interventions. In this example, Ms. Coleman, the reading specialist, used the Read Well curriculum and conducted the Tier 3 intervention for DJ in her reading lab. This case study illustrates another subtlety in RTI implementation—interventions at Tier 2

the Tier 2 intervention that had been implemented. Note that the team did not attempt at this point to draw any conclusions about the possibility that DJ might have a learning disability. Instead, it noted only that he had responded to instruction, but just minimally, and that his current level of progress would not allow him to catch up with his peers by the end of the year. Consequently, the team recommended that a more intensive, Tier 3 intervention be conducted to address DJ’s problems in reading.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

With that broad guideline stated, there are some exceptions, such as in the highly differentiated instructional program we have presented (pages 75–80). In this case, Ms. Higgins was able to modify DJ’s daily work a bit so that he received more teacherguided reading instruction than others in the class; such additional intensive instruction is appropriate as a Tier 2 intervention. However, when the Tier 3 intervention was planned, note that the Student Support Team arranged a time that would not deduct time from DJ’s Tier 1 reading instruction with Ms. Higgins.

and Tier 3 should be supplemental to Tier 1 instruction (that is, those interventions should not replace Tier 1 instruction). While Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions are ongoing, the student should continue to fully participate in Tier 1 instruction; in fact, in almost all of the RTI literature, the higher tiers in the pyramid are specifically described as supplementary instruction and should not result in a loss of reading instruction in Tier 1 (Bender, 2009a; Bradley et al., 2007; Buffum et al., 2009). Thus, in general, if students are moved to a reading or computer lab for Tier 2 or 3 interventions, they should not be taken from the general education class during reading instruction itself (Bender, 2009a).

Furthermore, as shown here, Tier 1 instruction can, and in many cases should, be modified as one component of the Tier 3 intervention plan. This aspect of RTI planning is sometimes neglected. As the RTI procedures move forward, a greater understanding of a stu- The higher tiers in the pyramid are intended as supplemendent’s learning will emerge, and that new information tary instruction and should should result in modifications of the differentiated not result in a loss of reading instruction that the student receives at the Tier 1 level. instruction in Tier 1. In this case, the Student Support Team recommended that Ms. Higgins include DJ in an afternoon tutoring session three times per week to provide more decoding instruction. While this may sound difficult to manage, we have noticed after-school programs for RTI interventions in a number of schools across the United States that provide such supplemental instruction. Afternoon tutoring programs using appropriate, research-proven curricula can certainly serve as components of the RTI process, and in a surprising number of cases, afternoon programs are being used as Tier 2 or Tier 3 RTI interventions (Bender, 2009a). In this example, Ms. Higgins agreed to arrange more decoding activities on pattern words in her literacy stations for DJ to use. Certainly, each of these modifications is likely to help DJ move forward in his reading. Finally, note the reluctance at the very end of section five (page 78) of the Student Support Team to change the progress-monitoring assessments for DJ as he moved into the Tier 3 intervention. One frequently overlooked issue in RTI procedures is

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K – 8 C lassr o o m

In this example, the Read Well curriculum has a wide array of progressmonitoring measures that were perfectly acceptable as progress-monitoring tools in Tier 3, and the case study indicates that those Avoid changing assessments assessments were used in conjunction with that midstream in the RTI process. curriculum. However, the team felt that Ms. Higgins’s informal phonics inventory and mCLASS should remain the progress-monitoring tools for DJ, since those were the assessment instruments utilized in Tier 2.

Tier 3 Intervention Review After implementing the Tier 3 intervention, the Student Support Team met again to review the progress-monitoring data and generally discuss DJ’s progress. Their recommendations may be found in section seven of figure 3.1 (pages 75–80). Ms. Higgins again presented progress-monitoring data from mCLASS and Ms. Higgins’s informal phonics inventory (fig. 3.7 and fig. 3.8, page 92). DJ’s results at the end of the intervention showed he had moved from a level 10 book to a level 14, where he was reading on an instructional level. Although his comprehension scores were somewhat lower than Ms. Higgins had hoped, she was confident that, as he grew in fluency, these scores would continue to increase as well. As these data indicate, DJ was still not performing on grade level, but he had made significant progress overall. His performance on mCLASS placed him in the second-grade range, and his biweekly informal phonics inventory data also showed steady improvement. The team agreed that the intervention should continue and set some parameters for further review. If progress continued, the team believed that it was possible that DJ could be working on or near grade level by the end of second grade. Therefore, Ms. Coleman agreed to continue using the Read Well program with DJ, and Ms. Higgins said she would continue the afternoon tutoring.

the importance of maintaining, to the degree possible, the same progress-monitoring tools across the entire RTI process. In schools that use one tool (for example, mCLASS or DIBELS) for reading in all the interventions, this concern is less of a problem, but in other schools, different assessments may be used at various tiers in the RTI process. In fact, this is likely to occur if curricula implemented at various tiers include their own progress monitoring assessments. While there is nothing inherently wrong in using different assessments in Tiers 1, 2, or 3, it is a fact that different assessment tools do measure different things, even if they purport to measure the same skill. For this reason, we urge educators to avoid changing assessments midstream within the RTI process.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Level 17

Level 15

Level 14 Level 13

Level 12

Level 11

Level 10

Level 9 Level 8

Level 7

7 Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

14 Mr. Sun and Mr. Sea (F) Accuracy: 92%

Statements: 6/9

L Literal:

SC Rate: 0

Analysis:

Reading >

9/14

Retelling >

2/4

Inferential: 5/6 Comprehension >

Figure 3.7: Tier 3 mCLASS data chart for DJ. Courtesy of Wireless Generation, Inc., www.wgen.net. E-Assessment is a registered trademark of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Several other items should be mentioned. As shown in section seven, the team did determine that DJ had responded to the intensive Tier 3 intervention, and for that reason, these data document that, while DJ does have a developmental delay in reading skill, he does not have a learning disability (Bradley et al., 2007; Buffum et al., 2009). In this case, the data show that the student responded to appropriate instruction. Of course, should his progress not continue over time, that question may be raised again in future years. Another important point illustrated by this case study is the extended involvement of the Student Support Team. Prior to RTI implementation, the Student Support Team might review a child’s intervention progress for a grading period, but if the child did not respond to a general education intervention at that point, he or she would typically have been referred to the child eligibility team to consider the possibility of a learning disability. In fact, prior to RTI implementation, most Student Support Teams interacted with any given child for only one grading period, and in some cases for only one meeting. However, under the new RTI procedures, those Student Support Teams often find that they are managing cases of students like DJ

Level 16

R T I & D iffere n tiated R eadi n g i n t h e K â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8 C lassr o o m

% correct

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 12/28/2008 11/05/2009 11/18/2009 02/02/2009

Number of Correct Answers

12/28/2008

11/05/2009

11/18/2009

02/02/2009

Digraphs

1/3

2/4

3/3

4/4

Consonant blends

3/3

Double vowels

0/3

1/3

3/4

3/3

e-controlled vowels

2/3

1/3

2/3

3/3

Multisyllabic vowels

0/4

1/3

2/4

3/4

Figure 3.8: Data chart for informal phonics inventory after Tier 3 intervention. over two or more grading periods or, in some cases, until the end of the school year. Schools have thus reported that the workload of their Student Support Team has increased under RTI, because they are managing cases much longer. In planning for the schoolwide RTI efforts, educators should carefully consider this increase in workload, and make assignments accordingly. The workload can be modified in any number of ways. Perhaps the workload of the Student Support Team could be subdivided into grade-level subgroups of the overall team for some deliberations on particular Under RTI procedures, the students, while discussions on other students might Student Support Team may involve the entire team. In this case study, we left the manage cases of various stuchair or cochair of the Student Support Team with the dents for extended periods of option of determining the necessity of a meeting, at time over two or more grading least in some cases. periods, or in some cases until the end of the school year.

RTI and Differentiated Instruction for Early Literacy

Conclusion

The next chapter presents a discussion of differentiated instructional tactics for an upper elementary class. We will also present an RTI aimed at increased reading comprehension in the upper elementary grades.

As shown in this chapter, research in reading has drastically changed reading instruction since the 1990s, and some teachers are struggling to keep abreast of these changes (Podhajski et al., 2009). Although high-quality differentiated instruction remains a challenge, many schools are implementing innovations in early reading that didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t exist as recently as 1995, providing high-quality instruction and conducting RTI procedures for students who need additional assistance. A variety of instructional tactics for phonemic and phonological instruction can also bolster the activities included in the core reading curricula.