EDSN 640_ Disccusion Board #3
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Touro College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
640
Subject
Health Science
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
Pages
4
Uploaded by xannedeng
Discussion #3:
1.
Using the seven weeks of progress monitoring data outlined above, calculate Hannah’s slope
ROI.
2.
Draw the goal line using slope of 1.2 - what is her benchmark at the end of week 7?
Hannah’s benchmark at the end of week 7 is 58.
3.
Post your graph in your initial post by downloading the graph below, plotting the points,
drawing her goal line, then taking a screenshot and inserting the picture at the beginning of
your post.
Graph is above.
4.
Determine whether Hannah is responding adequately to Tier 1 instruction. Elaborate. Use the
dual discrepancy model to determine adequate progress (Brown, Skow, and the IRIS Center,
2009b, pp. 20-22).
Based on the dual discrepancy model outlined by Brown, Skow, and the IRIS Center (2009b),
evaluating Hannah's response to Tier 1 instruction involves assessing both her performance level
and her rate of improvement. Firstly, her performance level is compared against the benchmark
set for her grade level. According to Brown, Skow, and the IRIS Center (2009b), if a student's
performance meets or surpasses the relevant benchmark, they are considered to be making
adequate progress. However, despite Tier 1 instruction, Hannah's performance level falls short of
the expected benchmark. Her average words read correctly per minute of 52.6 is below the
expected benchmark of 58. Secondly, the rate of improvement is assessed to determine whether
the student is progressing adequately. Brown, Skow, and the IRIS Center (2009b) emphasize the
importance of comparing the student's rate of improvement against their expected goal. In
Hannah's case, her rate of improvement is calculated to be 0.83, which is lower than her expected
goal of 1.2 wpm per week. Based on these assessments utilizing the dual discrepancy model, it
can be concluded that Hannah is not responding adequately to Tier 1 instruction. Both her
performance level and rate of improvement are below the expected benchmarks. Intervention
strategies or adjustments to instruction may be necessary to support Hannah's progress
effectively.
5.
What would you consider regarding weeks 5-7? Consider computing a new ROI from this
point.
Although Hannah's rate of improvement (ROI) spiked to 2.5 during weeks 5-7, it's important to
consider several factors in interpreting this significant increase. While a significant increase in
ROI may initially seem promising, it's essential to determine if Hannah has demonstrated
sustained growth over these 3 weeks or if the spike is an anomaly. Further evaluation of her
performance level and whether she is approaching or exceeding the expected benchmarks
outlined in Tier 1 instruction is necessary to make informed decisions about her instructional
needs moving forward.
6.
Based on your evaluation, what tier of instruction would you recommend for Hannah? How
would you address her status with her parents (Brown, Skow, & the IRIS Center, 2009a,
p.26)?
I would recommend that Hannah continues with Tier 1 instruction. Despite her current words
read correctly falling slightly below the benchmark of 58, her rate of improvement (ROI) over
the last three weeks has significantly surpassed the expected goal outlined in Tier 1 instruction.
According to Brown, Skow, and the IRIS Center (2009a), if the student's rate of improvement is
greater than or equal to the established rate of growth, it indicates adequate progress. In Hannah's
case, her ROI of 2.5 exceeds the expected goal of 1.2, suggesting that the Tier 1 intervention she
is receiving is effective in supporting her reading progress.
To address Hannah's status with her parents, I would communicate the positive trend in her ROI
and emphasize that her accelerated rate of improvement demonstrates the effectiveness of the
Tier 1 instruction. By highlighting Hannah's progress and the potential for her to reach her
benchmark soon if she continues at this pace, it reassures her parents that their child is
responding well to the intervention provided. Open communication and collaboration with
parents are vital in ensuring they are informed and involved in their child's educational journey
(Brown, Skow, & the IRIS Center, 2009a). Therefore, by sharing this information with them, it
fosters a supportive partnership between home and school in supporting Hannah's continued
growth and success in reading.
7.
Describe what other parts of the RTI process (using all assigned materials) could come into
play in this scenario.
The Response to Intervention (RTI) process involves multiple tiers, with Tier 1 focusing on
universal instruction for all students, including Hannah. Salvia et al. (2017) highlights that the
effectiveness of Tier 1 instruction relies heavily on its proper implementation and fidelity.
Teachers need to be proficient in delivering interventions tailored to students' needs, ensuring
that Hannah receives the appropriate support. Additionally, regular monitoring and assessment
are essential components of the RTI process (Brown, Skow, & IRIS Center, 2009b). While
Hannah's progress is currently being measured through weekly tests on her reading fluency,
incorporating other forms of assessment, such as curriculum-based measurements (CBMs) or
classroom assessment techniques (CATs), can provide a more comprehensive understanding of
her reading abilities, including comprehension skills (Mawhinney, 2022). These assessments
would offer insights beyond mere reading speed, allowing educators to tailor interventions more
effectively to address Hannah's specific learning needs.
Some questions I had while reading were:
●
How can the Response to Intervention (RTI) process be adapted or modified to suit the
developmental needs and abilities of preschool-aged children? What tools or assessments
might you use?
●
As a 3K teacher, what are some creative strategies or activities I can implement to engage
younger children in RTI interventions?
●
How can I ensure that my RTI interventions are developmentally appropriate for my young
students?
References
Brown, J., Skow, K., & the IRIS Center. (2009a).
RTI: Progress monitoring
.
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdf_case_studies/ics_rtipm.pdf
Brown, J., Skow, K., & the IRIS Center. (2009b).
RTI: Data-based decision making
.
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdf_case_studies/ics_rtidm.pdf
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Mawhinney, T. S. (2022, May 19).
Response to intervention progress monitoring.
Canvas
[Video].
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Witmer, S. (2017).
Assessment in special and inclusive education,
(13th ed.)
. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.