| 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 |
| |
| |
