gary l. cates, ph.d. mark e. swerdlik, ph.d illinois state university

Improving Outcomes for ALL Students Through the Flexible Student Services

Model (FSSM) : Building the Infrastructure--Introduction to Data-based

Decision Making

Gary L. Cates, Ph.D.Mark E. Swerdlik, Ph.DIllinois State University

Kirkwood, Mehlville, Special School District, Webster Groves (KMSW) Cooperative

“Expect the Best”

Responses to Parking Lot: Questions from Yesterday

A Brief Review of FSSM

“Expect the Best”

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5%

Tier 3: Intensive, Individual InterventionsIndividual StudentsAssessment-basedHigh IntensityOf longer durationAssessment:, CBA/CBE,

1-5%Tier 3: Intensive, Individual InterventionsIndividual StudentsAssessment-basedIntense, durable proceduresAssessment: FBA,

5-10%Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsSome students (at-risk)High efficiencyRapid responseAssessment: e.g., CBM, DIBELS

5-10%Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsSome students (at-risk)High efficiencyRapid responseAssessment: Group behavior data,

80-90%Tier 1: Universal InterventionsAll studentsPreventive, proactiveAssessment: e.g., DIBELS, CBM, Tungsten

80-90% Tier 1: Universal InterventionsAll settings, all studentsPreventive, proactiveAssessment:e.g., Office Discipline Referrals

Three Tiered Model of School Supports

Students

Implementing Flexible Student Services

• Three Phases of Implementation–Consensus Building (Commitment)-80% buy-in

–Infrastructure Development–Implementation

Infrastructure Development• Problem-Solving Model• Decision-making criteria for service delivery options• Data monitoring and management system• Technology to manage data• Building-level needs assessment• Standard protocol interventions that address high

probability hypotheses about academic and social development: Tier 1 and 2 interventions

Building the Infrastructure: Universal Assessment/Benchmarking

• CBM/DIBELS • Reading• Mathematics• Written Language

Monitoring Frequency

• Benchmark Monitoring– Assessing All students at Critical Times (e.g.,

Fall, Winter, Spring), about 5 minutes per child (R-CBM) and 10 minutes (DIBELS)

– Tracking progress in learning core curriculum– Compare to local and/or national standards– Which students may require supplemental

and intensive interventions?

Monitoring Frequency• Strategic (Targeted) Monitoring

– Assessing At-Risk Students (4/5 per class) Monthly

– Measuring impact of supplemental intervention; tracking progress in core curriculum

• Intensive Monitoring– Assessing student needing intensive intervention

(1/2 per class) weekly.– Measuring impact of intensive intervention;

tracking progress in core curriculum

Integrated Data System

Nine Characteristics:• Directly assess the specific skills within state and local

academic standards.• Assess marker variables that lead to the ultimate

instructional target.• Are sensitive to small increments of growth over time.• Can be administered efficiently over short periods.

Integrated Data System• May be administered repeatedly.• Can readily be summarized in teacher-friendly

formats/displays.• Can be used to make comparisons across students.• Can be used to monitor an IEP over time.• Have direct relevance to the development of instructional

strategies related to need.

Integrated Data System

Nine Characteristics:• Directly assess the specific skills within state and local

academic standards.• Assess marker variables that lead to the ultimate

instructional target.• Are sensitive to small increments of growth over time.• Can be administered efficiently over short periods.

Integrated Data System• May be administered repeatedly.• Can readily be summarized in teacher-friendly

formats/displays.• Can be used to make comparisons across students.• Can be used to monitor an IEP over time.• Have direct relevance to the development of instructional

strategies related to need.

Curriculum-Based MeasuresAcademic Area

Test/ Administration Time

Scoring Units

Reading Oral reading from reading passages/ 1 minute

• # of Words Read Correctly (WRC)

• # of errors

Math Completion of computational problems/ 2-5 minutes

• # of Correct Digits (CD) • # of Correct Problems

(CP)

Written Expression

Writing a story given a story starter/ 1 minutes to think 3 minutes to write

• # of Total Words Written (TWW)

• # of Words Spelled Correctly (WSC)

• # of Correct Writing Sequences (CWS)

Spelling Writing spelling words dictated every (5, 7, 10 seconds)/ 2 min.

• # of Correct Letter Sequences

• # of Words Spelled Correctly

Technically Adequate

from Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell,L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.

ComprehensionMeasures

Criterion Measures Correlation

ORF SAT Word StudySAT Comprehension

.80

.91Question Answering SAT Word Study

SAT Comprehension.66.82

Recall SAT Word StudySAT Comprehension

.58

.70Cloze SAT Word Study

SAT Comprehension.71.72

Problem Solving

• A process that uses the skills of professionals from different disciplines to develop and evaluate intervention plans that improve significantly the school performance of students

Problem-Solving:What It Is and Is Not

• What it is….– A process designed to maximize student achievement– A method focused on outcomes– A method to ensure accountability and intervention

evaluation– It is all about student progress, regardless of where or

who that student is• What it is not…

– A way to avoid special education placements– A less expensive way of schooling

What Are the Barriers?

• It’s a different way of doing business for some.• It requires an expanded set of skills.• Interventions are integrated, not done by team

members or special educators only• Requires frequent data collection and analysis--

different culture• Focus is on HOW and student is doing, not

WHERE the student is going

Problem Solving: Potential Weakness Areas

• Applied consistently across students• Relies on infrastructure of authentic

assessment opportunities• Intervention Integrity• Interpretation of data/graphs

Problem Solving: Intervention Integrity

• Strategies that improve integrity– Follow-up by a consultant/support staff– Presentation of student data illustrating response to

intervention– Review of treatment implementation– Frequency--range from daily to weekly initially

Teacher responsiveness to implementing interventions– Understands the “need” for intervention– Perceives self as possessing skills to implement OR has the

social support to implement while acquiring skills

What Are the Benefits of Problem-Solving?

• Enhanced Student Performance• Accountability• Greater staff involvement• Greater parent involvement• Greater student involvement

Problem Solving: Strengths• Can be applied to the student, classroom, building,

district, and problem levels– Student- academic and/or behavior problem– Classroom- discipline, returning homework– Building- bullying, attendance– District- over-/under-representation, increasing

percentage of students reaching AYP– Problem- problem common to students in building

Problem Solving: Strengths• Systematic• Focused on outcomes• Tailored to specific situations

– “unlimited” range of hypotheses• Evidence-based

Problem-Solving Can Be Used For Anything!

• Direct Academic Behaviors:– Reading– Mathematics– Written Language

• Academic Supporting Behaviors:– Task/Homework Completion– Academic Engaged Time

• Social Behaviors– Social Skills– Disruptive Behaviors

Needs Assessment: Anticipating WHAT You Will Problem-Solve

• 85% of students are referred for the same 5-8 problems, regardless of age/grade

• Past behavior predicts future behavior• We can make data-based decisions to

determine needed Tier II interventions• We can make data-based decision to determine

modifications to Tier I, core academic and behavioral curricula

Needs Assessment• Aggregated teacher referrals indicate areas of professional

development needs to strengthen the impact of Tier I core programs

• Codifying and aggregating referrals for the past two years will predict referrals in the future, by rate and type--implications for Tiers II and III

• Aggregating data on current interventions by the following will inform Tier II, standard protocol needs:– Type of intervention– Average time/day of implementation– Staff currently implementing

Team ExerciseBased on your experiences in your building

over the past two years,1) What are the types and rate

(approximate percentage) of referral problems to your team?

2) What are the types of interventions typically being implemented and who are implementing them?

Steps of Problem-Solving

1. Problem IdentificationWhat is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?

2. Problem AnalysisWhy is the problem occurring?

3. Plan DevelopmentWhat is the goal?What is the intervention plan?How will progress be monitored?

4. Plan ImplementationHow will implementation integrity be ensured?

5. Plan EvaluationWas the intervention plan successful?

Problem Solving and RtI

• I really just want to be able to use RtI without all of that problem-solving stuff--can I do that?

Some General Problem Solving Components

• RIOT• ICEL

Assessment:How Do We Confirm Hypothesis?

• Review• Interview• Observe-progress monitoring• Test-progress monitoring, self-

monitoring, rating scales

Review Existing RIOT Data, Think about Why the Problem is

Occurring, & Collect Additional RIOT Data

• Teams should…– Review existing data – Brainstorm hypotheses predictions for why

the problem may be occurring– Plan for the collection of additional data

needed to narrow down and/or support hypotheses.

Review Existing Data

• Consider discrepancy data collected during Problem Identification

• Permanent Products• Records• CBM/DIBELS information

• Consider multiple domains for hypotheses• Remember: many problems have “typical”

hypotheses• Focus on changeable variables• Write the hypotheses

Brainstorm Hypotheses/ Predictions for Why a Problem is

Occurring

Consider Multiple Domains: ICEL

Instruction Curriculum

Environment

Learner

Problem Analysis: ICEL

• Instruction: Includes selection and use of materials, placement of individual materials, clarity of instructions, communication of expectations, criteria for success, direct instruction with explanation and cues, sequencing of lessons designed to promote success, variety of practice activities, and pace of presentation of new content.


• Curriculum: Includes the long-range direction of instruction, instructional philosophy/approaches, instructional materials, stated outcomes for the course of study, standards and benchmarks, content of the course of study, arrangement of the content, and pace of the curriculum sequence leading to outcomes.


• Environment: Includes the physical arrangement of the room, furniture/equipment, classroom/school rules, management issues, routines, expectations, peer context, peer and family influence, and task pressure


• Learner: Last area to consider when planning interventions. At this point should be known that the curriculum and instruction are appropriate and the environment is positive. Includes individual academic and performance data and individual social/behavioral data.

CURRICULUM

• Content of materials• Difficulty level of materials• Sequencing• Organization• Perceived relevance

INSTRUCTION

• Instructional philosophy• Instructional approach or

method(s)• Expectations/objectives• Clarity & organization• Pace• Opportunities for practice• Duration of continuous

instruction• Nature & frequency of

feedback• Academic engaged time• Classroom Management

Content of Domains

ENVIRONMENT

• Arrangement of the room• Furniture/equipment• Rules• Management plans• Routines• Expectations• Peer context• Peer (e.g., attention) and

family influence (e.g., cultural beliefs)

• Task pressure

LEARNER

• Appropriateness of curriculum and instruction

• Perception of learning environment• Academic skills• Social/behavioral skills• Adaptive behavior skills (e.g., self-

help, )• Motivation• Organization• Medical Issues

Example of Data-Based Problem Solving at Tier I

Types of Systems-Level Data• Direct Academic Behaviors:

– Curriculum-Based Measurement– Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills– Other Norm/Criterion-Referenced Local Assessments

• Academic Supporting & Social Behaviors:– Permanent Products– Observations– Office Discipline Referrals– Suspensions/Expulsions– # of Assignments Turned In On-Time/Late

Tier 1:Universal / Systems

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

Levels of Problem-Solving

Step 1: Problem Identification

Question: What is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?

North Glen had 23 students not meet the 2005 Missouri Standards for Communication Arts.

Use of RIOT Data For Tier I Example: Writing

• Review-MAP Communication Arts Scores, writing curriculum

• Interview-classroom teacher input• Observe • Test

ICEL Domains For Tier I Example: Writing

• Instruction-Review instructional practices • Curriculum-Review the Writing Curriculum

(curriculum lacking in explicit instruction in writing structure and mechanics)

• Environment• Learner

Step 2: Problem AnalysisQuestion: Why is the problem occurring?

Students did not have enough explicit instruction (i.e. universal instruction) about the requirements of the writing structure and mechanics.

Step 3: Plan DevelopmentQuestion: What is the goal?

All 23 students would meet Missouri State Standards in the area of Communication Arts.

Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal?See Instructional Planning Form (IPF).

Question: How will progress be monitored?A practice MAP Communication Arts test will be

administered in the winter to determine whether students are acquiring the necessary writing skills.

Step 4: Plan Implementation

Question: How will implementationintegrity be ensured?

The teacher was provided with MAP practice tests and materials to teach the writing structure and mechanics.

Plan Evaluation Data1

139

20

30

1

13

9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

September February

ExceedsMeetsDoes not meet

Step 5: Plan EvaluationQuestion: Is the intervention plan effective?

A. Are the students making progress toward the goal?• Yes, 22/23 students met the goal.

B. Is the student decreasing the discrepancy between him/her and the general education peers?• Yes, 22/23 students completely decreased the

discrepancy between themselves and their peers.C. Is the plan able to be maintained in the general

education setting?• Yes, the targeted group intervention can be

maintained for 22/23 students. The 23rd student was provided Tier 2 interventions (increased academic engaged time)

Another Example of Tier I Problem Solving

Tier 1:Universal / Systems

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%


A Systems-Level Problem

A team at‘Cardinal School’ noticed that approximately twice the number of referrals for Special Education consideration for difficulty in reading had come from the 3rd grade during the first four months of school than in the prior three years.

Step 1: Problem IdentificationQuestion: What is the discrepancy between what is

expected and what is occurring?A. List problem behavior(s) and prioritize.B. Collect baseline data on primary area of concern (target

student and peer). • Record Review• Interview• Observation• Testing

C. State discrepancy between target student performance and peer performance.

sam

plin

g of

stud

ents

all s

tude

nts i

nclu

ded

Student TeacherFall WRC

Winter WRC

Winter Percentile

Rank ClassificationRate of Progress

Average Rate of Progress

S, A Smith 209 208 1.00 Well Above Average -0.1 1.3K, D Jones 159 170 0.93 Well Above Average 0.6 1.3F, M Smith 134 156 0.90 Above Average 1.2 1.3H, A Smith 130 148 0.81 Above Average 1.0 1.3E, S Smith 115 145 0.75 Average 1.7 1.3P, A Jones 96 133 0.68 Average 2.1 1.3K, C Jones 109 114 0.51 Average 0.3 1.3S, D Armstrong 66 112 0.46 Average 2.6 1.3B, C Armstrong 92 94 0.36 Average 0.1 1.3E, A Armstrong 61 80 0.25 Average 1.1 1.3A, B Smith 39 65 0.24 Below Average 1.4 1.3R, P Armstrong 42 63 0.22 Below Average 1.2 1.3M, W Jones 50 60 0.20 Below Average 0.6 1.3G, S Jones 28 58 0.19 Below Average 1.7 1.3J, J Smith 20 54 0.17 Below Average 1.9 1.3M, A Smith 38 51 0.15 Below Average 0.7 1.3B, J Jones 47 48 0.14 Below Average 0.1 1.3P, M Smith 47 45 0.10 Below Average -0.1 1.3A, D Armstrong 38 45 0.10 Below Average 0.4 1.3M, T Jones 42 41 0.08 Well Below Average -0.1 1.3D, Z Armstrong 31 39 0.07 Well Below Average 0.4 1.3M, M Smith 30 38 0.03 Well Below Average 0.4 1.3D, A Jones 18 38 0.03 Well Below Average 1.1 1.3K, A Armstrong 8 21 0.02 Well Below Average 0.7 1.3A, J Jones 7 18 0.00 Well Below Average 0.6 1.3

Interpreting Percentile Rank• Above 90th percentile = Well Above Average

– Consider need for differentiated instruction (Gifted)

• 75th-90th percentile = Above Average– Consider need for differentiated instruction

• 25th-75th percentile = Average– Current educational program appears to be meeting the needs of

these students.

• 10th-25th percentile = Below Average– Consider problem solving/Tier Process.

• Below 10th percentile = Well Below Average– Begin immediate problem solving/Tier Process.

Reading a Box Plot

10th 25th 50th 75th 90thPercentile

50th

25th

10th

75th

90th

Percentile

Problem Identification Data

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

THIRD

SECOND

FIRST

Box PlotSplit By: Grade

Winter WRC Grade 1

Winter WRC Grade 2

Winter WRC Grade 3

Problem Identification

Statement of Discrepancy: 15 of the 3rd grade students fall below the 25th percentile in reading fluency. Of those, 12 are also not making adequate rates of progress.


A. Review the RIOT data collected, think about why the problem is occurring, and determine appropriate additional RIOT data you need to collect to:B. Differentiate between skill problem and

performance problem (e.g., can’t do vs. won’t do).C. Determine situations in which the problem behavior

is most likely and least likely to occur.D. Examine hypotheses for why a problem is occurring.E. Narrow down to the most validated and alterable

hypothesis.

Use of RIOT Data at Tier I Example: Reading

• Review- CBM Data from Kindergarten, first and second grade, K-2 curriculum

• Interview-Teachers at different grade levels

• Observe-• Test-

Problem AnalysisThrough the Years: Class of 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

THIRD

SECOND

FIRST


Winter WRC Grade 1

Winter WRC Grade 2

Winter WRC Grade 3

Problem AnalysisCurrent Grade Level Data

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

THIRD

SECOND

FIRST


Winter WRC Grade 1

Winter WRC Grade 2

Winter WRC Grade 3

Investigate WHY the problem exists:

- Did the referred students exhibit reading difficulties before the 3rd-grade?- Yes, review of CBM data indicate that the

referred students were roughly the same lowest performing group in 1st and 2nd grade.

- Do the current 1st and 2nd graders show a similar pattern?- Yes, CBM data from the current year

indicate groups of 1st and 2nd grade students not making adequate rates of progress.

Problem Analysis

A significant portion of 3rd grade students are not making adequate rates of progress in reading BECAUSE…..

Not all students established satisfactory reading trajectories during Kindergarten and 1st grade BECAUSE?

Kindergarten Instructional Planning Form

Activity Materials Arrangement Time MotivationalStrategy

•Language Exposure

•Books•Whole Group

•Teacher Led

•50 min / wk

•Praise for attention

•Letter Naming

•Manipulatives•Books

•Worksheets

•Whole Group

•Small Group•Independent

•30 min / wk

•Reminding

•Independent Reading

•Books •Individual•20 min /

wk

•Praise for appropriate

behavior

First Grade Instructional Planning Form


•Silent Reading

•Books •Independent •10 min / day•Praise for appropriate

behavior

•Choral Reading

•1st Grade Teacher

•Whole Group •10 min / day•Verbal

Feedback

•Word Walls •Word Cards •Whole Group •10 min / day•Praise for

participating

A significant proportion of 3rd grade students are not making adequate rates of progress in reading BECAUSE……..

• Not all students established satisfactory reading trajectories during Kindergarten & 1st grade BECAUSE…….

• Current early elementary reading curriculum places little focus on systematic pre-literacy skill instruction (i.e. phonemic awareness and phonics).

To change trajectories, we must intervene systematically, strategically, and early.


A. Write the goal, a measurable statement of expected outcomes.

Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal?B. Define logistics (e.g., what strategies/procedures will be used,

when and how often the intervention will occur, who will implement the intervention and where it will be implemented, and when it will begin).

Question: How will progress be monitored?C. Define logistics (e.g., what materials are used, when and how

often data will be collected, where data will be collected, and who is responsible).

D. Decide on decision-making rules for plan evaluation.

Step 3: Plan DevelopmentKindergarten & 1st Grade

Question: What is the goal? – To have 100% of first grade students make

adequate rates of improvement (1.4 words per week based on local norms).

– To have 100% of students reach CBM benchmarks in Winter and Spring of Kindergarten

Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal? Since problem analysis points to a problem

in the curriculum, revisit the Instructional Planning Form to select curricular modifications.

Kindergarten Instructional Planning Form


•Language Exposure

•Books•Whole Group Teacher Led

•50 min / week

•Praise for attention

•Letter Naming

•Manipulatives•Books

•Worksheets

•Whole Group•Small Group•Independent

•20 min / week •Reminding

•Independent•Reading

•Books •Individual•20 min /

week


behavior

•Phonemic Awareness Activities

•Manipulatives•Worksheets •Small Group •50 min /

week•Praise for

participation

First Grade Instructional Planning Form

Activity Materials Arrangements Time MotivationalStrategy

•Silent Reading

•Books •Independent•10 min /

day


behavior

•Choral Reading

•1st Grade Teacher

•Whole Group•10 min /

day•Verbal

Feedback

•Word Walls •Word Cards •Whole Group•10 min /

day•Praise for

participating

•Phonics Instruction

•Manipulatives•Worksheets •Small Group •15 min /

day•Praise for participating

Question: How will progress be monitored? – Continue collecting CBM reading data for 1st

graders.– Begin monitoring pre-literacy skills for

Kindergartners using DIBELS.

Tier 2:Targeted / Group

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%


sam

plin

g of

stud

ents

all s

tude

nts i

nclu

ded

Student TeacherFall WRC

Winter WRC

Winter Percentile

Rank ClassificationRate of Progress

Average Rate of Progress

S, A Smith 209 208 1.00 Well Above Average -0.1 1.3K, D Jones 159 170 0.93 Well Above Average 0.6 1.3F, M Smith 134 156 0.90 Above Average 1.2 1.3H, A Smith 130 148 0.81 Above Average 1.0 1.3E, S Smith 115 145 0.75 Average 1.7 1.3P, A Jones 96 133 0.68 Average 2.1 1.3K, C Jones 109 114 0.51 Average 0.3 1.3S, D Armstrong 66 112 0.46 Average 2.6 1.3B, C Armstrong 92 94 0.36 Average 0.1 1.3E, A Armstrong 61 80 0.25 Average 1.1 1.3A, B Smith 39 65 0.24 Below Average 1.4 1.3R, P Armstrong 42 63 0.22 Below Average 1.2 1.3M, W Jones 50 60 0.20 Below Average 0.6 1.3G, S Jones 28 58 0.19 Below Average 1.7 1.3J, J Smith 20 54 0.17 Below Average 1.9 1.3M, A Smith 38 51 0.15 Below Average 0.7 1.3B, J Jones 47 48 0.14 Below Average 0.1 1.3P, M Smith 47 45 0.10 Below Average -0.1 1.3A, D Armstrong 38 45 0.10 Below Average 0.4 1.3M, T Jones 42 41 0.08 Well Below Average -0.1 1.3D, Z Armstrong 31 39 0.07 Well Below Average 0.4 1.3M, M Smith 30 38 0.03 Well Below Average 0.4 1.3D, A Jones 18 38 0.03 Well Below Average 1.1 1.3K, A Armstrong 8 21 0.02 Well Below Average 0.7 1.3A, J Jones 7 18 0.00 Well Below Average 0.6 1.3



Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal?B. Define logistics (e.g., what strategies/procedures will be used,

when and how often the intervention will occur, who will implement the intervention and where it will be implemented, and when it will begin).

Question: How will progress be monitored?C. Define logistics (e.g., what materials are used, when and how

often data will be collected, where data will be collected, and who is responsible).


Step 3: Plan DevelopmentThird Grade

Question: What is the goal? In 10 weeks, all identified students will increase their fluency on 3rd grade passages by 13 WRC per minute.Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal?Replace silent reading time each day with small group focused instruction in phonics.

Question: How will progress be monitored?Weekly monitoring of reading fluency (CBM).



A. Provide support to those implementing interventions.

B. Observe intervention in action.C. Make adjustments to intervention plan if

needed.D. Collect and graph data on intervention goal.


A. Provide support to those implementing interventions.The resource teacher provided classroom teachers with materials to use for focused intervention groups. Resource teacher met with classroom teachers after few days of implementation to answer questions about materials.

B. Observe intervention in action.Social worker agreed to drop by each class during the silent reading time to assist with classroom management as necessary.


Ensuring Implementation IntegrityC. Make adjustments to intervention plan if needed.

The students originally were grouped by classroom. However, in order to make the groups more homogeneous, the teachers decided to do cross-classroom grouping during the silent reading time.

D. Collect and graph data on intervention goal.The Instructional Materials Center teacher agreed to complete 1 one minute reading probe with each of the 12 students once per week (2+ students per day), and to graph these students’ data.

Step 5: Plan Evaluation

Question: Is the intervention plan effective?

A. Is the student making progress toward the goal?

B. Is the student decreasing the discrepancy between him/her and the general education peers?

C. Is the plan able to be maintained in the general education setting?

Is the student making progress toward the goal?

Damien's Reading

0102030405060

Date

Wor

ds R

ead

Corr

ect

Per

Min

ute

Series1 35 33 37 40 46 43 47 50 54 53 54

baseline 1/21 1/28 2/4 2/11 2/18 2/25 3/4 3/11 3/18 3/25


Matt's Reading

20304050607080

Date

Wor

ds R

ead

Corr

ect

Per

Min

ute

Series1 39 40 39 41 42 40 37 41 44 43 45

baseline 1/21 1/28 2/4 2/11 2/18 2/25 3/4 3/11 3/18 3/25

Tier 2:Targeted / Group

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%



• Primary Area of Concern-Student’s Not Turning in the Behavior

• Choose Target Behavior-Increasing Homework Completion



• A majority of the school’s individual student referrals were due to lack of on-time assignment/homework completion.

To address Chronic Homework Issue

• Baseline data of homework completion were collected

• Homework Extension program is a target intervention that has been implemented


Teachers determined a number of hypotheses including:– Lack of time– Lack of skill– Lack of motivation/interest in the subject

area


• All students would turn in at least 80% of their homework on time.

Question: How will progress be monitored?

• Teachers will meet weekly and calculate the average work turned in per week for all students attending Homework Extension.

Plan Development

• Homework Extension lasts the entire lunch period for the course of five school days. Students are then reevaluated. If work completion exceeds 80%, the student may return to the lunchroom. If not, he/she will be reassigned to Homework Extension.

• If a student attends Homework Extension for three consecutive weeks, then the student is automatically referred for individual student problem solving.



The principal required a weekly e-mail sent out to report which students qualified for Homework Extension and which attended Homework Extension and met their goals.

The principal and assistant principal found a classroom and staff who would assist and monitor students’ work completion during lunch.


Question: Is the intervention plan effective?A. Are the students making progress toward the

goal?

Plan Evaluation Data Collection Form


B. Is the student decreasing the discrepancy between him/her and the general education peers?


Is the plan able to be maintained in the general education setting?

More Intensive Individualized Data-Based Problem-Solving

At Tier IIISkill-Based Training Module


1. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

2. Problem Analysis

3. Plan Development

4. PlanImplementation

5. Plan Evaluation

Step 1: Problem IdentificationQuestion: What is the discrepancy between what is

expected and what is occurring?A. List problem behavior(s) and prioritize.B. Collect baseline data on primary area of concern

(target student and peer). • Record Review• Interview• Observation• Testing


List Problem Behaviors and Prioritize

• Teams should tackle one problem at a time. • Consider the following problems first:

– Dangerous/Severe behaviors– High frequency behaviors – Foundational behaviors (e.g., reading)– Chronic problem behaviors

• State the primary area of concern.• Define behavior on which team is collecting data in

observable and measurable terms.– When possible, define the behavior you want to see.– Gain consensus.

Problem Identification: Target Behavior and Replacement

Behaviors• State specifically what you want the student to do• Example: Be able to sound out the vowel sounds

in CVCC words• Example: Remain on-task for 7 minutes • Example: Use words instead of fists when teased• Read at 92 wcpm• Comply 75% of opportunities

Group Example

1. Using the information below, how would you prioritize this 4th grade team’s list of generated concerns regarding Danny?– Fall reading benchmarks indicate that he is reading at

15th percentile compared to peers.– They think he may have ADHD– Makes inappropriate comments in class that disrupts

students.– Inconsistent homework completion – Keeps a messy work area.

2. Based on the primary area of concern, how would you define the behavior in observable and measurable terms?

• Data can be collected from a number of sources:– R = Record Review– I = Interview– O = Observation– T = Testing

• And in a number of domains:– Instruction– Curriculum– Environment– Learner

Collect Baseline Data on Primary Area of Concern

• Collect only what you need to determine the discrepancy between what is expected (peer performance) and what is occurring (target student performance).

• Use existing data when possible:– Records (e.g., attendance)– CBM/DIBELS benchmarking data

• Collect additional information when needed:– Interview– Observation (e.g., Frequency Count, On-task).

RIOT TIPS

Group Example

What baseline data would you collect in order to determine the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring for the following primary areas of concern?

• Homework completion • Reading fluency • Talking out in Class • Attendance

State Discrepancy• Be objective. Does it refer to an observable

characteristic of behavior?• Be clear. Can others read the discrepancy

statement and observe it easily?• Calculate the discrepancy ratio

– Include statement of student’s current level of performance.

– Include statement of the expected level of performance (e.g., peer data, teacher expectation).

Discrepancy RatiosHelps to quantify how many times the student’s current level of performance varies from that of his/her peers.

– In order to calculate a discrepancy ratio use the following formula: Peer Behavior Target Student Behavior

– Example:When given a 4th grade EdFormation probe, Jessica is reading 80 correct words per minute while average 4th grade peers are reading 145 correct words per minute.

Peer Behavior = 145 = 1.81x Target Student Behavior 80

Discrepancy Ratios

Enables team to make decisions about levels of support and resource from the start.Generally speaking…

– A student who is 2x discrepant from his/her peers is appropriate for the problem-solving team.

– If a student is significantly discrepant from peers, additional problem-solving and intervention resources may be appropriate.

– Example: Jessica is 1.81 x discrepant from peers and MAY benefit from problem solving.

Provides a way to evaluate student outcomes

and the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce initial performance discrepancies.

Name Grade Area Initial Performance Discrepancy

Follow Up Performance Discrepancy

Rate of Progress

Outcome Decision

Bill 3 Reading 3.5X 2.2X 2.3 WRC per week

Satisfactory; Maintain Intervention

Susie 2 Reading 1.5X NA NA No Severe Problem

Rob 4 Math 4.2X 3.8X .1 CD per week

No Progress, Recycle through process


1. ProblemIdentification

2. PROBLEMANALYSIS

3. Plan Development


5. Plan Evaluation


A. Review RIOT data, think about why the problem is occurring, and determine appropriate additional RIOT data you need to collect to:B. Differentiate between skill problem and


is most likely and least likely to occur.D. Examine hypotheses for why a problem is occurring.E. Narrow down to the most valid and changeable

hypothesis.

Review Existing Data

• Consider discrepancy data collected during Problem Identification

• Permanent Products• Records• CBM/DIBELS information

Consider Multiple Domains: ICEL

Instruction Curriculum

Environment

Learner

Typical Hypotheses

• What are common hypotheses for:– Not completing homework?– Talking out during class?– Poor math test scores?– Not coming to class prepared?

Group Example

Focus on Changeable Variables

Focus on those variables that we have direct control over, including: Curriculum Instruction (e.g., arrangement, response format) Allotted/Engaged Time Classroom Environment Motivational Strategies (individualized)

This does not suggest that other variables are not important, but that we may have less control over some variables in the school environment.

Writing Hypotheses• Add because… at the end of the discrepancy

statement and insert your hypotheses.• The hypotheses should be specific, observable, and

measurable.

– Example: Beth is on-task for 35% of intervals while peers are on-task

87% of intervals during a 20-minute observation during direct instruction in Math class, because she is escaping the Math work which is above her instructional level.

Team Problem Solving ActivityDiscrepancy Statement

Curriculum Instruction Environment Learner

Susie is reading 86 correct WPM while peers are reading 145 correct WPM on 5th Gr. CBM Probes in Spring (1.7x discrepant)

John has completed and turned in total of 10 Algebra homework assignments first trimester while peers have completed and turned in an average of 20 homework assignments (2x discrepent)

Melissa is on-task 50% of observed intervals while her female peers are on-task an average of 94% of observed intervals during a 30 minute observation in science class (1.9 x discrepant)

Team Problem Solving Activities

• Refer to Slides 41-42 for some initial ideas

Plan for the Collection of Additional Data Needed to

Support Hypotheses• Your hypotheses should be supported by at least 2

convergent sources of RIOT data with at least one piece being objective.

• If you develop a hypothesis that you don’t have enough data to support, plan for the collection of additional data you need validate or refute the hypothesis.

• Data collection should be planned not random!

Team Problem Solving ActivityPossible

HypothesesReview Interview Observe Test

Susie is reading 86wpm (1.7x discrepant) .…because she has not had sufficient fluency practice.

John has turned in 10 Algebra assignments (2.0x discrepant)…. because he lacks organizational skills.

Melissa is on-task 50% of intervals (1.9x discrepant) …because she trying to gain attention from her peers.

Data collection should be…

Data collection should not be…

•Planned, meaningful, and specific to each child

•Random,“overdone,” or the same for each student

•Collected from a number of domains and sources

•Focused on only the Learner

•Used to… -differentiate between a skill/performance problem -determine situations when a behavior is most/least likely to occur - narrow down and/or support predicted hypotheses

•Be collected in every domain or source with no relation to hypotheses

•Linked to plan implementation • Be only used in Problem ID and Problem Analysis

Determine Situations in Which Behavior is Most Likely and Least

Likely to Occur• Review all RIOT data to find convergent

evidence about when, with whom, where, and how a student may succeed.



Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal?B. Define logistics (e.g., what strategies/procedures will be used, when

and how often the intervention will occur, who will implement the intervention and where it will be implemented, and when it will begin).

Question: How will progress be monitored?C. Define logistics (e.g., what materials are used, when and how often

data will be collected, where data will be collected, and who is responsible).


Question: How will implementation integrity be ensured?


B. Observe intervention in action.

C. Make adjustments to intervention plan if needed.

D. Collect and graph data on intervention goal.


Intervention Integrity• Strategies that improve fidelity

– Follow-up by a consultant/support staff– Presentation of student data illustrating response to intervention– Review of treatment implementation– Frequency--range from daily to weekly initially

Teacher responsiveness to implementing interventions– Understands the “need” for intervention– Perceives self as possessing skills to implement OR has the

social support to implement while acquiring skills


Question: Is the intervention plan effective?A. Is the student making progress toward the goal?B. Is the student decreasing the discrepancy between

him/her and the general education peers?C. Is the plan able to be maintained in the general

education setting?

Continueintervention

Performaceimproved

Recycle throughproblem solving

process

Performancedid not improve

or got worse

Goalnot met

Beginto fade

intervention

Increasegoal

Goal metor exceeded

Implement intervention andcollect progressmonitoring data

Insufficientdata

ProgressConclusion


Continue intervention until significant discrepancy is

no longer present

Lessdiscrepant fromacceptable levelof performance

Recycle throughProblem-Solving

process

Morediscrepant fromacceptable levelof performance

Increase theintensity of

the intervention

Same amount ofdiscrepancy fromacceptable levelof performance

Implement theintervention andcollect progress monitoring data

Insufficientdata

Discrepancy Conclusion

Is the student decreasing the discrepancy between him/her and

the general education peers?

Begin to fadeintervention

Same materials, planning,and personnel as general

education peers

Continue interventionusing general

educationresources

Similar materials, planningand personnel as general

education peers.


(consider specialeducation entitlement)

Significantly differentmaterials, planning, and

personnel thangeneral education peers.

InstructionalConclusion

Is the plan able to be maintained in the general education setting ?


Damien's Reading

0102030405060

Date

Wor

ds R

ead

Corr

ect

Per

Min

ute

Series1 35 33 37 40 46 43 47 50 54 53 54

baseline 1/21 1/28 2/4 2/11 2/18 2/25 3/4 3/11 3/18 3/25


M a tt's R e a d in g

2 03 04 05 06 07 08 0

D a te

Word

s R

ead

Corr

ect Per M

inute

S e r ie s 1 3 9 4 0 3 9 4 1 4 2 4 0 3 7 4 1 4 4 4 3 4 5

b a s e l 1 / 2 1 1 / 2 8 2 / 4 2 / 1 1 2 / 1 8 2 / 2 5 3 / 4 3 / 1 1 3 / 1 8 3 / 2 5

Example of More Intensive Individual Data-based

Problem Solving at Tier III

Tier 3:Intensive / Individualized

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%


The Individual Student

Matt is in the 3rd grade group of students receiving additional phonics instruction in place of silent reading, and his teacher (Ms. Armstrong) has indicated concerns that he is not making adequate progress toward his goal despite this intervention.



Examine Matt’s progress monitoring graph to determine his growth rate as compared to the expected growth rate for students participating in the intervention program

Matt’s Problem Identification

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

W E E K S

WR

CM

B a s e lin e T ie r II M o r e In t e n s e P h o n ic In s t r u c t io n

M a t t

A R P


Matt is making less than 1 word per week increase in WRC on 3rd grade probes, while his expected growth is 1.3 words per week.

Step 2: Problem Analysis

Question: Why is the problem occurring?

– Conduct a teacher interview to clarify the problem and define current program.

– Examine CBM Survey-Level Assessment data.– Develop hypotheses.

3rd Grade Instructional Planning FormMatt’s Current Instructional Program


•Pre-teach story

vocabulary

•3rd grade basal•Blackboard

•Practice Sentences

•Small Group (1:5 Ratio)

•10 min/day •Praise for attention

•Round Robin Choral

Reading

•3rd grade basal •Small Group (1:5 Ratio)

•20 min/day •Reminding of rules

•Story Mapping

•Visual organizer •Small Group •15 min/day •Praise for answering

•Grammar Workbook

•3rd grade workbook

•Independent •15 min/day •Reminding and peer grading

•Phonics Instruction

•Manipulatives •Small Group •15 min/day •Praise for answering

Grade Level Passage 1 Passage 2 Passage 3 3 39/10 42/10 44/8

2 61/10 59/2 83/10

This pattern of performance is also confirmed through an interview with Ms. Armstrong.

Problem Analysis Data

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

THIRD

SECOND

FIRST


Winter WRC Grade 1

Winter WRC Grade 2

Winter WRC Grade 3

Matt’sSurvey-LevelAssessment

Hypotheses: Matt is not making adequate rates of progress in 3rd

grade materials BECAUSE his current instructional reading level is in 2nd grade material (61 WRC/minute).

Matt also displays difficulty with reading because he makes a high rate of errors that violate meaning in texts.


In 6 weeks, Matt will read 2nd grade material with a fluency rate of 70 WRC per minute.

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

W E E K S

WR

CM

B a s e lin e T ie r II M o r e In t e n s e P h o n ic In s t r u c t io n

M a t t

A R P

Target Date

Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal? Since problem analysis points to a problem in

the curriculum instructional level, revisit the Instructional Planning Form to select curricular modifications.

3rd Grade Instructional Planning FormMatt’s Current Instructional Program


•Pre-teach story

vocabulary

•2nd grade basal•Blackboard

•Practice Sentences

•Small Group (1:5 Ratio)

•10 min/day •Praise for attention

•Round Robin Choral

Reading

•2nd grade basal •Small Group (1:5 Ratio)

•20 min/day •Reminding of rules

•Story Mapping

•Visual organizer •Small Group •15 min/day •Praise for answering

•Grammar Workbook

•3rd grade workbook

•Independent •15 min/day •Reminding and peer grading

•Reading, Pencil Tap Strategy

•Book•Pencil

•Individual •10 min/day •Praise for effort

Question: How will progress be monitored? – Continue collecting CBM reading data weekly

with 2nd grade probes– Collect CBM reading data with 3rd grade

probes at end of 6 weeks.


A. Provide support to those implementing interventions.Second grade teacher provided Ms. Armstrong with reading materials, and came in during one of her specials times to model the pencil tap method (that she had used before).

B. Observe intervention in action.Fourth grade teacher came in to observe intervention so he would feel comfortable with doing it in the future.

.


C. Make adjustments to intervention plan if needed.New second grade reading materials with more words & fewer pictures per page were substituted.

D. Collect and graph data on intervention goal.Principal agreed to collect the 1 minute fluency sample & graph weekly.




education setting?

Educational Progress Discrepancy Instructional

Needs+ + = PlanEvaluationDecision


Performaceimproved


process


or got worse

Goalnot met

Beginto fade

intervention

Increasegoal

Goal metor exceeded


Insufficientdata

ProgressConclusion



0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

W E E K S

WR

CM

B a s e lin e P e n c il T a p S t r a t e g yT ie r II M o r e In t e n s e P h o n ic In s t r u c t io n

M a t t

A R P


no longer present



process



the intervention



Insufficientdata


Is the student decreasing the discrepancy between him/her

and the general education peers?



education peers


educationresources


education peers.







Plan Evaluation Summary

• The revised intervention program:– Did result in improved reading fluency.– Decreased the discrepancy between the target student and his

peers.– Was able to be maintained in the general education setting.

• The team decided to continue the intervention in the general education setting.

+ + =

Tier 3:Intensive / Individualized

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%


Case Example: Karen

• 6th grade student• Referred by her

math teacher to the problem-solving team.


1. Problem Identification

2. Problem Analysis

3. Plan Development


5. Plan Evaluation

Step 1: Problem IdentificationQuestion: What is the discrepancy between

what is expected and what is occurring?A. List problem behavior(s) and prioritize.B. Collect baseline data on primary area of concern (target

student and peer). • Record Review• Interview• Observation• Testing


List problem behaviors and prioritize:– Karen’s grades are dropping.– Karen is not turning in her homework on a consistent basis.

When she does, it is often incomplete.– Karen is talking to her peers during class.– Karen may have ADHD.

State the primary area of concern:– Karen is not turning in completed homework on a

consistent basis.

Collect baseline data on primary area of concern:

– Record Review (R) Karen’s teachers reviewed their record books and examined Karen’s weekly percentage of homework turned in compared to the class average over the last three weeks.

89%92%Social Studies70%60%Spanish 80%27%Math84%78%English 78%72%Science

PeersKarenHomework Completion

Math 27% 80%

Record Review (R):Karen’s math teacher reviewed her record books and examined the weekly number of completed homework assignments Karen turned in compared to the total number of completed assignments given over the last three weeks.

DateWeekly

Homework Assigned

Weekly Homework Turned In

Homework “Made-Up”

1/13 5 2 01/20 5 1 01/27 5 1 0

Why use Cumulative Homework Completion?

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

9 /5 /2 0 0 0 9 /1 2 /2 0 0 0 9 /1 9 /2 0 0 0 9 /2 6 /2 0 0 0D a te

Perc

en

t

State the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring:

Data collected over a 3 week period indicates Karen has turned in 4 out of 15 assignments, which is 3x discrepant from what is expected.


A. Review RIOT data, think about why the problem is occurring, and determine appropriate additional RIOT data you need to collect to:B. Differentiate between skill problem and


is most likely and least likely to occur.D. Examine hypotheses for why a problem is occurring.E. Narrow down to the most validated and alterable

hypothesis.

Possible Hypotheses

Review Interview Observe Test

She leaves class not having the skills to independently complete the work.

Karen is socializing during class.

Something is happening when she gets home that is interfering with her doing her homework.

•Old report cards•Look trends in homework assignments/week

•Teacher•Karen

•Teacher

•Parent •Teacher •Karen

•Observe during math class

Carefully Plan for Data Collection

Review RIOT Data

– Review (R): Cumulative File

• Review (R): Teacher records and student’s permanent products.

50%52% accurate75% accurateMath

Test Score Average

Out of Class Work

In Class Work

DateWeekly

Homework Assigned

Weekly Homework Turned In

Homework “Made-Up”

1/13 5 2 01/20 5 1 01/27 5 1 0Cumulative Number of

Assignments:15

Cumulative Number of Assignments Turned In:

4

Review RIOT Data

• Interview (I): – Teacher (Ms. Goldammer, Math)

– Student (Karen)

– Parent (Karen’s Mom)

Review RIOT Data

• Observation (O): Time on Task– Karen was observed during her math

class for 20 minutes towards the end of class.

Karen Peers On-Task Off-Task

Review RIOT Data• Test (T)

What kind of testing is necessary?

Hypothesis Generation

Differentiate between skill problem and performance problem (e.g., can’t do vs. won’t do).– Do the data suggest that Math homework is a

problem for Karen because she does not have the requisite skills or because she is choosing not to do the homework?

– If you are not sure, treat problems as skill deficits first!

Hypothesis Generation Determine situations in which the

problem behavior is most likely and least likely to occur.

Hypothesis GenerationExamine hypotheses for why the problem

is occurring.

– Review evidence for existing hypotheses– Review evidence for new hypotheses

Hypotheses Review Interview ObserveTest

She leaves class not having the skills to independently complete the work.

Karen is socializing during class.

Something is happening when she gets home that is interfering with doing her homework.

•HW completion rate low.•In class more accurate than out of class work.

•Karen enjoys working with peers.•Is more likely to complete work that is started in class.

•Involved with after school sports.•Mom reports that she is no longer able to help with math HW.•Karen enjoys socializing with her friends on the computer.

•Observations indicate her on-task behavior is comparable to peers

Narrow down to the most valid changeable hypothesis.

Karen has turned in 4 out of 15 assignments (3x discrepant) in the last 3 weeks because she leaves class not having the skills to independently complete the work.



Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal?B. Define logistics (e.g., what strategies/procedures will be used, when and

how often the intervention will occur, who will implement the intervention and where it will be implemented, and when it will begin).

Question: How will progress be monitored?C. Define logistics (e.g., what materials are used, when and how often data

will be collected, where data will be collected, and who is responsible).D. Decide on decision-making rules for plan evaluation.


– In 8 weeks, Karen’s total number of completed assignments will increase to 33.

Define the intervention plan logistics:

What? Set the Stage: Paired with hard working student.Teach: Karen will be given time in class to complete assignment with assistance or will schedule a time to work with the teacher later in the day. Motivate: Time spent with peers. Praise from teacher and parent.

When? Class or other scheduled time by Karen. Intervention will occur daily.

Where? Classroom or library

Who? Peer group, teacher, and/or teacher tutor

Start Date? 2/06

Define the progress monitoring plan logistics:

Karen’s math teacher and KarenWho?

Collected daily, reviewed weekly.

In math classroom.

Materials needed are the gradebooks and Karen’s completed homework chart.

Karen will keep homework chart signed by

When?Where?What?How? teacher

Teacher Signature___________Date____

Student Signature___________Date____

Weekly # Turned In: ____

Yes No NAFriday

Yes No NAThursday

Yes No NAWednesday

Yes No NATuesday

Yes No NAMonday

Daily Assignment CompletedAssignment DueWeek_____

# Assignments “Made Up”




B. Observe intervention in action.C. Make adjustments to intervention plan if

needed.D. Collect and graph data on intervention goal.

Teacher Signature_Mrs. Goldammer__Date_2/7Student Signature___Karen Smith___Date_2/7

Weekly Number Completed: 1Weekly Number Assigned: 4

Yes NO NAComplete in class worksheet

Friday

Yes NO NAChpt. 8, pg. 242# 6-26 even

Thursday

Yes No NANo homeworkWednesday

YES No NAChpt. 8, pg. 238# 6-30 even

Tuesday

Yes NO NAChpt. 8, pg. 231# 4-20 even

Monday

Turned in Completed

Assignment DueWeek: 2/3 # Assignments “Made Up”

0

00

0

0

Collect and graph data on intervention goal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Instructional Week

Num

ber o

f Ass

ignm

ents

Cumulative Assignments AssignedKaren's Cumulative Number of Assignments Turned In

Baseline Intervention


1. Problem Identification

2. Problem Analysis

3. Plan Development


5. Plan Evaluation




education setting?


Performaceimproved


process


or got worse

Goalnot met

Beginto fade

intervention

Increasegoal

Goal metor exceeded


Insufficientdata

ProgressConclusion



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Instructional Week

Num

ber o

f Ass

ignm

ents


Baseline Intervention

Recycle Through Process: Step 2: Problem Analysis

Question: Why is the problem occurring?

A. Collect additional RIOT data:– Review: Mrs. Goldammer’s records suggested that Karen’s

test grades were improving.– Interview: According to Mrs. Goldammer, Karen was leaving

class knowing how to do the assignments but she was still not turning most of them in.

– Interview: According to Karen, she did feel better prepared to do the work, but she disliked doing the math and so when given the choice to do her math homework or “IM” her friends on the computer, she chose the computer.

Generate hypotheses forwhy the problem is occurring.

Karen has completed 8 of the 28 assignments given (2.8x discrepant) because Karen is more motivated to talk to her friends at night than to complete her math homework.

Recycle Through the Process:Step 3: Plan Development

• Question: What is our goal? – Stayed the same (80%).

• Question: What is the intervention plan to reach the goal?– Knowing that Karen enjoyed IM’ing her friends, the team

involved Karen’s mother in the intervention plan and together they decided that Karen would only have access to AOL Instant Messaging once her math homework was completed.

– The rest of the intervention remained the same.

• Question: How will progress be monitored? – Stayed the same.

Recycle Through the Process:Step 5: Plan Evaluation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Instructional Week

Num

ber o

f Ass

ignm

ents


Baseline Intervention 1 Intervention 2


Performaceimproved


process


or got worse

Goalnot met

Beginto fade

intervention

Increasegoal

Goal metor exceeded


Insufficientdata

ProgressConclusion



no longer present



process



the intervention



Insufficientdata


Is the student decreasing the discrepancy between him/her

and the general education peers?



education peers


educationresources


education peers.







Steps of Problem-Solving1. Problem

Identification2. Problem

Analysis

3. Plan Development


5. PlanEvaluation

Practice: Selecting a Replacement Behavior

• Read case study-Brandon and identify the problems, prioritize them and choose one or two target behaviors including a replacement behavior(s).

Practice: Selecting a Baseline Measure

• How would you collect baseline data for your target behavior(s)

Practice: Selecting Hypotheses and Determine How you will Test Them

Using RIOT

• Selecting Hypotheses for Brandon and Determine How you will Test Them Using RIOT

Practice: Develop a Plan Based on Your Confirmed Hypotheses

• Develop a Plan Based on Your Confirmed (fictional) Hypotheses for Brandon

Practice: Develop An Evaluation Plan for your Intervention(s)

• Develop An Evaluation Plan for the Intervention(s) your developed for Brandon



Analysis

3. Plan Development


5. PlanEvaluation

Practice: Selecting a Replacement Behavior

• For Your Own Case: Identify the problem, choose a target behavior including a replacement behavior.

Practice: Selecting a Baseline Measure

• For Your Own Case: Selecting a Baseline Measure

Practice: Selecting Hypotheses and Determine How you will Test Them

Using RIOT

• For Your Own Case: Select Hypotheses for and Determine How you will Test Them Using RIOT

Practice: Develop a Plan Based on Your Confirmed Hypotheses

• Develop a Plan Based on Your Confirmed (“fictional) Hypotheses for your own case

Practice: Develop An Evaluation Plan for your Intervention(s)

• Develop An Evaluation Plan for the Intervention(s) your developed for your own case



Analysis

3. Plan Development


5. PlanEvaluation

Discussion: Next Steps• How will you share these ideas with the staff at

your building?• How could this process be put into practice in

your building?• More Advanced: What are you doing that is

already aligned with a problem-solving / response to intervention model? What is going well? What can be improved? What universal data system will be used?

• How will data be summarized?• How will teams be trained to implement a data-

based decision making model?

gary l. cates, ph.d. mark e. swerdlik, ph.d illinois state university

Documents

integrated data systemmay

think3 minutes

local academic standards

story starter1 minutes

ultimate instructional

intensive interventions

databased decision makinggary

specific skills