| 8:30 |
Introduction to The Wing Institute and Summit Outcomes |
|
Download presentation
|
|
Randy Keyworth, The Wing Institute |
| Keyworth
reviewed the mission and activities of The Wing Institute, set the
context for discussing Response to Intervention (RtI), reviewed the
result of the pre-Summit survey, and discussed the desired Summit
outcomes. |
|
| 8:50 |
RtI: What it is and What it Isn’t |
|
Download presentation
|
|
Ronnie Detrich, The Wing Institute |
| Detrich
provided an introduction and overview of RtI, identifying it as a
systematic data-based process rather than specific interventions or
initiatives. He reviewed the fundamental components of RtI including:
multi-tiered interventions, evidence-based interventions, progress
monitoring and data-based decision making. |
|
|
| 9:10 |
Research on RtI: How Do We Know It Works? |
|
Download presentation |
|
Jack States, The Wing Institute |
| States
reviewed the hierarchies of evidence for reviewing RtI, examined the
existing efficacy and effectiveness research supporting RtI and its
components, discussed a meta-analysis study of four large scale RtI
models, reviewed the opportunities and challenges for future research,
and presented recommendations for next steps. |
|
|
| 9:30 |
RtI in California |
| |
Allan Lloyd-Jones, Ph.D, California Department of Education |
| Lloyd-Jones
presented a history of RtI in California and identified its
relationship to various state-wide initiatives, best practices, and
legislative mandates. He discussed some of the obstacles to
implementation of RtI as well as some of the successes. Finally, he
reviewed the resources available from the California Department of
Education for supporting RtI, including a DVD for training California
educators. |
|
|
| 10:00 |
Identifying Research-based Practices for RtI: Scientifically Based Reading |
|
Download presentation |
|
Janet Twyman, Ph.D, Headsprout |
| Twyman
examined RtI in the context of scientifically-based reading
curriculum. She reviewed the legislative mandates and policy issues
requiring “research-based” programs. She then did an extensive
presentation on the types of research to consider when evaluating
programs, how to know what “evidence’ to use, and continuums of
evidence (quantity of the evidence, quality of the evidence, and
program development). She then examined actual research studies
related to reading programs. Finally, she provided a wide range of
on-line resources for consumers interested in seeking our
evidence-based programs. |
|
|
| 11:05 |
Work Group: Evaluating Evidence |
|
|
Using
Twyman’s “continuum of evidence” worksheet, each work group reviewed
the “evidenced-based “ claims of a specific reading curriculum
program. Each curriculum program had published a report touting the
research supporting their program. The group examined the published
report to identify whether or not the research presented was adequate
to substantiate their claims. By in large, the groups found that the
presented material was inadequate, and often misleading. The continuum
of evidence worksheet proved to be an excellent tool for reviewing
these materials.
|
|
|
| 11:45 |
Lunch |
| |
|
| 12:45 |
Evaluating Student Response to Instruction Using a 3 Tier RtI Progress Monitoring System |
| |
Download presentation |
| |
John Hintze, Ph.D, University of Massachusetts-Amherst |
Hintze
discussed the two methods for identification of students with learning
disabilities—the traditional IQ/achievement discrepancy model and
RtI—highlighting the value of the RtI option. He next identified five
dimensions when implementing RtI: the tier model, identification of
“at risk students”, preventative treatment, progress monitoring, and
strategies for nonresponders. He then presented two case studies
showing how curriculum based measurement was used to develop customized
education programs students with varying educational challenges.
|
|
|
| 1:50 |
Developing and Implementing a Quality RtI Process |
|
Download presentation |
|
Edward Daly, III, Ph.D, University of Nebraska/Lincoln |
| Daly
presented RtI as a continuous evaluation cycle: problem identification,
problem analysis, goal setting, plans implementation and plan
evaluation. He identified “technical adequacy”—reliability and
validity of decisions, problem solving as a continuous evaluation
cycle, and local validation—as critical to successful implementation.
He distinguished between “empirical validation (scientific supported
interventions) and “local validation” (is it working for individual
students), highlighting the importance of the latter. He then quality
indicators to track when implementing RtI system wide, stressing the
importance of integrating RtI with existing practices and tracking
procedural integrity |
|
|
| 2:55 |
Work Group: Implementation Questions |
The
work groups reconvened with the assignment of doing a “plus/delta” on
RtI as it might apply to their specific school settings, and
|
|
|
| 3:10 |
Speaker Panel
|
|
Janet Twyman, Ph.D, Headsprout |
| |
John Hintze, Ph.D, University of Massachusetts |
| |
Edward Daly, III, Ph.D, University of Nebraska/Lincoln |
| |
|
| 2:15 |
Wrap-Up |
|
|