A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 52
About This Presentation
Title:

A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention

Description:

Classroom staff design and complete student assessments and ... Four and twenty blackbirds. Baked in a pie. When the pie was opened, They all began to sing. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:50
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 53
Provided by: specialser
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention


1
A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework
for Response to Intervention
Julie Esparza Brown Portland State
University jebrown_at_pdx.edu Historian, Oregon
Association of Latino Administrators
2
General Features of RTI
  • High quality classroom instruction
  • Research-based instruction
  • Classroom staff design and complete student
    assessments and are actively involved in
    curriculum planning
  • Universal screening of academics and behavior
  • Continuous progress monitoring
  • Research-based interventions
  • Progress monitoring during interventions
  • Fidelity measures

3
General Attributes of RTI
  • The concept of multiple tiers of increasingly
    intense student interventions
  • Implementation of a differentiated curriculum
    with the option of different curriculum at second
    and third tiers
  • Interventions can be delivered by staff other
    than classroom teacher (although classroom
    teachers maintain ultimate responsibility)
  • Varied duration, frequency and time of
    interventions
  • Categorical or noncategorical placement decisions
    at highest tier

4
Problems
  • Where is the scientifically-based instruction for
    ELLs in either L1 or L2 literacy?
  • Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson Francis (2005)
    say At the current time, it is very difficult
    to actually implement this model with ELLs
    because efficacy of various interventions has not
    been tested with this population.
  • The main problem with RTI and ELLs is the same as
    that with standardized assessment what is the
    appropriate standard, expectation for growth or
    baseline to use?

5
IDEA Mandates Equity in Evaluation
  • IDEA states that assessment materials
  • (a) should not be racially or culturally biased,
    and
  • (b) should be provided in the childs native
    language when feasible (20 U.S.C. 1412 (6)(B)).
  • IDEA also mandates that states have policies and
    procedures in place to prevent disproportionality
    of diverse students in special education (20
    U.S.C. 1412 (24)).

6
RTI Universal Screening for All Including ELL
Students
  • Screenings should occur for all ELL students in
    the following areas
  • Phonemic Awareness, letter knowledge, concepts of
    print
  • The alphabetic code phonics and decoding
  • Fluency and automaticity
  • Vocabulary
  • Comprehension
  • Screening should also occur for
  • First and second oral proficiency
  • Existing knowledge base for content

7
The Intervention Paradigm - Pros
  • There is an increased emphasis on curriculum
    based assessment and alternative local
    assessments.
  • Progress monitoring and universal screening for
    all.
  • Students can be compared to peers in their local
    cohort rather than to national norms.
  • There are increased opportunities for
    collaboration and consultation with other site
    support personnel.

8
The Intervention Paradigm - Cons
  • There is no mechanism for determining a disorder
    in the basic psychological processes (which
    remains part of the federal definition for LD).
  • It may be difficult to determine if a childs
    ecology or intrinsic learning problem is the
    primary cause of academic challenges.
  • Once all interventions have been exhausted and a
    students progress has been minimal, there is
    little guidance as to next steps. Evaluation of
    a childs cognitive abilities (not learning
    styles) may aide in determining why the previous
    interventions may not have been successful and
    what might be done to improve the interventions
    for this particular child.

9
The Traditional Assessment Approach
  • The traditional assessment approach has been
    criticized for
  • Emphasizing eligibility rather than linking to
    intervention
  • Using a discrepancy approach in learning
    disability determinations that does not
    necessarily highlight a disorder in one or more
    of the basic psychological processes
  • To circumvent the problems with the traditional
    approach, the RTI model has been outlined in IDEA
    2004 as an alternative.
  • The main idea of RTI is that students should
    receive interventions as early as possible and in
    the general classroom setting before being
    referred for a special education evaluation.

10
However
  • Vellutino (2006) says appropriate psychometric
    tests may also be useful in cross-validating
    initial impressions based on response to
    intervention.
  • Over time, cognitive ability tests have moved
    away from g and there are now well-normed,
    well-validated, theory-based tests of cognitive
    processes that measure multiple and complex
    processes or abilities (cited in Kavale,
    Holdnack Mostert, 2005).
  • In other words, standardized cognitive tests can
    be used in the RTI paradigm to identify
    processing profiles and NOT to provide a useless
    IQ or global score.

11
Needed New Framework
  • In current RTI models, little focus has been on
    the role of standardized assessment, and there
    has been no discussion of the role of
    standardized assessments for ELL students.
  • Some suggest that assessments must be part of the
    RTI process because the results can guide the
    design of appropriate interventions for an
    individuals unique needs (Braden Kratochwill,
    1997 Hale Fiorello, 2001).
  • It is virtually impossible to make a valid
    diagnosis or an individualized intervention
    program without test data gleaned from a
    comprehensive evaluation that elucidates
    individual strengths and weaknesses (Kavale,
    Holdnack Mostert, 2005, p. 9).

12
A Framework for RTI for ELLs
  • Tier I
  • Baseline data gathered at least three times per
    year for all students
  • General education instruction is appropriate and
    effective for culturally and linguistically
    diverse students
  • If an ELL student is having academic
    difficulties, instruction is modified to match
    their level of language proficiency or possibly
    delivered in their native language (L1)
  • Native language literacy instruction may be
    especially helpful to students whose L1 has a
    transparent, or consistent, orthography such as
    Spanish or Italian
  • The intervention process at this level may be
    similar to the Pre-referral or Student Study Team
    process.

13
A Framework for RTI for ELLs
  • Tier I
  • Extensive data should be collected to explore all
    possible reasons for students learning
    difficulty
  • Parents should be interviewed for information on
    childs major milestones and progress
  • Interventions should be planned that target
    explicit skills and be implemented for a
    reasonable period of time (eight weeks)
  • Baseline and post-intervention data should be
    gathered on the targeted skills

14
A Framework for RTI for ELLs
  • Tier I
  • Tier I interventions should be based on
    research-based best practices for ELL students
  • For reading, recommendations from the Report of
    the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
    Children and Youth (August Shanahan, 2006)
    could be used.

15
Report of National Literacy Panel for ELLs
  • The panel states that five components should be
    explicitly taught
  • Phonemic awareness
  • The alphabetic code
  • Fluency
  • Vocabulary
  • Comprehension

16
However
  • There are two additional components that must be
    addressed
  • Explicit oral language development (preferably in
    L1 as well as English (L2)
  • Whether the students has the background knowledge
    in the instructional content

17
Phonemic Awareness, Letter Knowledge and Concepts
of Print
  • Some children must learn a new alphabetic system
  • Some children may need to learn to read from left
    to right
  • Phonemic awareness is a transferable skill and
    can be taught in either L1 or L2
  • Phonological tasks with unknown words are very
    difficult

18
The Alphabetic Code Phonics and Decoding
  • Begin with pattern and predictable books and then
    move to decodable books
  • Include a focus on comprehension
  • For beginning ELL readers, wordless picture books
    are useful
  • Systematic phonics should be linked to spelling
  • If a student is literate in their first language
    they can be fast-tracked to decoding in English
    (with continued emphasis on comprehension)
  • For ELL students in K-3 provide explicit
    instruction to develop English vocabulary and
    oral language
  • When students encounter unknown words, give them
    the word since they may have difficulty decoding
    unfamiliar words by context clues
  • For students with interrupted education who enter
    our system in grades 4-12, fast-track to English
    decoding (and target comprehension)

19
Fluent, Automatic Reading of Text
  • Provide repeated opportunities for students to
    read aloud familiar passages
  • Provide read-along stories on tape
  • For grades K-3 provide cross-age tutors for
    repeated readings
  • For students with interrupted education who enter
    the system in grades 4 12, fast-track building
    fluency skills

20
Vocabulary
  • Teach different tiers of vocabulary (Beck, 2002)
  • Provide explicit instruction in analyzing words
    to detect meaning
  • Practice words in meaningful context

21
Making Vocabulary and Concepts Comprehensible
Boyd-Batstone, P. (2006). Differentiated early
literacy for English language learners
Practical strategies. Boston Allyn Bacon.
22
Vocabulary Development
  • Nouns Realia and visuals
  • Verbs meaningful actions with Total Physical
    Response (TPR)
  • Adjectives Graphic organizes and continuums

Boyd-Batstone, P. (2006). Differentiated early
literacy for English language learners
Practical strategies. Boston Allyn Bacon.
23
Text Comprehension
  • Books must be a close match to students level of
    language proficiency
  • Do not ask an ELL student to read aloud to assess
    their reading comprehension
  • They need to read for meaning, not to become
    word callers
  • Reading aloud may make ELL students
    self-conscious and send the wrong message so that
    fluency seems more important than comprehension

24
Oral Language Proficiency
  • ELL children need language rich environments
  • Reading in any language is dependent upon a
    childs oral language abilities in that language
  • Children cannot comprehend what they are reading
    in a language they cannot speak and understand.
  • Readers must be familiar with a minimum of 95 of
    the vocabulary in a text to comprehend.

25
Background Knowledge and Motivation
  • Students from diverse backgrounds may not have
    had the same experiences as mainstream peers
  • U.S. curriculum is built on U.S. cultural norms
    and values which may be different from those of
    ELL children
  • Students must e immersed in opportunities to gain
    the needed background knowledge through real
    opportunities and using real materials
  • All students are motivated to learn when they see
    themselves in the curriculum and are taught that
    the language and culture they bring to school is
    valued.

26
Tier II
  • Different interventions than those in Tier I can
    be provided here
  • Instruction is most likely in a small group and
    can be in the general ed room or another setting
  • Instruction may be provided by another specialist
    (Title I teacher, reading specialist, speech and
    language therapist, etc.)
  • Instruction should be supplemental to that in
    general ed
  • Instruction MUST continue to be both
    linguistically and culturally appropriate
  • Performance data continues to be collected and
    monitored
  • A student who makes good progress may cycle back
    to Tier I
  • A student who continues to have difficulties may
    move to Tier III

27
Tier III
  • Intensive and individual interventions may begin
  • Students progress is again carefully monitored
  • It may be appropriate to refer a student who has
    not responded or who has had limited response to
    Tier I and II interventions for special education
    assessment.

28
Tier III
  • The type of assessment that is appropriate here
    continues to be controversial.
  • Some believe that students should be officially
    admitted to special education at this Tier since
    they have not responded well to previous
    interventions
  • Others feel that a comprehensive evaluation
    should occur
  • A comprehensive evaluation could include
    standardized assessment information (but not
    necessarily IQ scores)

29
Modern Intelligence Theory
  • The Carroll-Horn-Cattell (CHC) theory of
    cognitive abilities is supported by a large
    network of validity evidence, which includes more
    than half a century of factor analytic,
    developmental, heritability, external outcome
    validity, and neurocognitive research evidence
    (Floyd, Evans, McGrew, 2003).

30
Flanagan, D.P. Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials
of cross-battery assessment. New York Wiley
Sons.
31
CHC Theory as a Problem Solving Model
  • CHC Theory is a combination of the theories of
    three researchers
  • Cattell
  • Horn (his work was an extension of Cattells
    original Gf-Gc formulation)
  • Carroll
  • McGrew (2004) states CHC Theory of
    Intelligence is the tent that houses the two most
    prominent psychometric theoretical models of
    human cognitive abilities.
  • This model serves as the theoretical foundation
    for some of the latest cognitive assessment
    (WJ-III, Stanford Binet V, KABC-II, WISC IV/WAIS
    IV/WPPSI, and the upcoming DAS II) instruments
    and is gaining acceptance by assessment
    specialists (Fiorello Primerano, 2005).

32
Why Use CHC As Part of the Problem Solving Model?
  • It is an empirically-based.
  • Research shows that cognitive constructs are
    related to certain academic difficulties.
  • It allows for identification of a processing
    disorder in one of more of the psychological
    processes.
  • Assessment can be directly linked to
    intervention.
  • Using CHC Theory and a cross-battery approach
    allows practitioners to use the Cultural and
    Linguistic Test Classifications (C-LTC) and
    Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM)
    (Ortiz Flanagan, 1998 Ortiz, 2001 Flanagan
    Ortiz, 2001 Ortiz Ochoa, 2005 Ortiz Dynda,
    2005 Rhodes, Ochoa Ortiz, 2005) for
    interpreting the test scores of ELL students in
    the most fair and defensible way.

33
What ALL Teachers Need to Know
34
Why Do Some Children Have Difficulty Learning to
Read?
  • Vellutino (2006) says there are two broad (but
    not mutually exclusive) possibilities
  • Basic cognitive deficits inherent limitations
    in reading related cognitive abilities that make
    it difficult for a child to acquire foundational
    reading skills.
  • Experiential/Instructional deficits
    deficiencies in the childs emergent literacy
    skills and/or early literacy instruction.
  • I say there is one more possibility
  • Being culturally and linguistically diverse in a
    system that does not adequately accommodate these
    differences and build on the strengths these
    children bring with them.

35
Questions
  • Compton (2004) asks if low verbal ability, often
    a source of poor reading comprehension skill, is
    a defendable category of LD, particularly if the
    student is ELL?

36
Questions
  • If the federal definition of learning disability
    still includes a disorder in one or more of the
    basic psychological processes, how will these
    deficits be identified in the RTI model?

37
English Sounds that Do Not Exist in Spanish
  • Twenty-seven consonants and consonant blends are
    the same in English and Spanish. However, there
    are many letters and combinations that are
    pronounced differently or that do not exist in
    Spanish.
  • There sounds do not exist
  • Initial consonants of g, h, j, r, v, z
  • Digraphs of ch, dg, sh, th, wh

38
English Sounds that Do Not Exist in Spanish
  • Letter combinations -ck, -ght, -nd, -ng, -nt,
    sc-, sch-, scr-, sk-, sl-, sm-, sn-, sp-, spl-,
    spr-, sq-, st-, str-, sw-, -tch, thr-, tw-
  • Short vowel sounds /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/
  • Long vowel sounds /a/ represented as a-e, ai, ay,
    ei /e/ represented as ea, ee, ie, y /i/
    represented as I, i-e, ight, -ind, y /o/
    represented by o-e, oe, ow, oa, o /u/
    represented by u-e, u

39
English Sounds that Do Not Exist in Spanish
  • Diphthongs au, aw, ew, oi, ou, ow, oy, ue
  • R-controlled vowels /ar/, /er/, /ir/, /or/, /ur/
  • Schwa a as in again, a as in second a in camera
    and around, e as in stolen, e as in the second e
    in obedience, o as in dragon, u as in circus, and
    u as in suspect
  • Silent letters gn-, kn-, -mb, wr-

40
Phonemes Commonly Mispronounced in English by
Spanish-speaking Students
  • /st/ for /est/
  • Phonetic error addition
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transference.
    This transfer occurs in initial word positions
    because the syllabic consonant-vowel structure of
    the Spanish language means that no words starts
    with two consonants (besides clusters present in
    the language).
  • /sh/ for /ch/
  • Phonetic error change in the mode of
    articulation (a fricative for an affricate)
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transference.
    This transfer occurs because the sound /sh/ does
    not exist in Spanish, and it is substituted for
    the most similar one in Spanish both phonemes
    are voiceless linguopalatals in terms of place of
    articulation.
  • /b/ for /v/
  • Phonetic error change in place and manner of
    articulation (a fricative is converted into an
    occlusive)
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transference.
    This transfer occurs because the sound /v/ is
    pronounced in Spanish as /b/.

41
Phonemes Commonly Mispronounced in English by
Spanish-speaking Students
  • /f/ or /s/ for /th/
  • Phonetic error change in the place and manner of
    articulation (to a labiodental for /f/ and to a
    linguoalvelar for /s/)
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transference.
    This transfer occurs because the /th/ does not
    exist in Spanish and is substituted for phonemes
    that have the same manner of articulation and
    voice.
  • /d/ for /b/ and /t/ for /th/
  • Phonetic error change in place and manner of
    articulation ( a voiceless occlusive for a
    voiceless fricative)
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transference.
    This transfer occurs because the phoneme /th/
    does not exist in Spanish, and the /d/ and /t/
    phonemes are pronounced with different points and
    manners of articulation in Spanish than in
    English.

42
Phonemes Commonly Mispronounced in English by
Spanish-speaking Students
  • /ch/ for /dz/
  • Phonetic error change in a voice (a voiceless
    for a voiced phoneme)
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transference.
    This transfer occurs because the sound /dz/ does
    not exist in Spanish.
  • /n/ for /ing/
  • Phonetic error change in place of articulation
    (a voiced linguoalveolar for a voiced
    linguopalatal)
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transference.
    This transfer occurs because the phoneme /ing/
    does not exist in Spanish.

43
Phonemes Commonly Mispronounced in English by
Spanish-speaking Students
  • /ch/ for /th/
  • Phonetic error change in mode of articulation (a
    voiceless affricate for a voiceless fricative)
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transfer. This
    transfer occurs because the phoneme /th/ does not
    exist in Spanish.
  • /ks/ for /rks/, /f/ for /lf/, /n/ for /nd/, /n/
    for /nt/, and /s/ for /st/
  • Phonetic error reductions of consonant clusters
    in final position
  • Phonological strategy avoidance. This occurs
    because the /ks/, /rks/, /lf/, /nt/, and /st/
    phonemes do not exist in Spanish, due to its
    consonant-vowel syllabic structure.

44
Phonemes Commonly Mispronounced in English by
Spanish-speaking Students
  • /ch/ for /th/
  • Phonetic error change in mode of articulation (a
    voiceless affricate for a voiceless fricative)
  • Phonological strategy linguistic transfer. This
    transfer occurs because the phoneme /th/ does not
    exist in Spanish.
  • /ks/ for /rks/, /f/ for /lf/, /n/ for /nd/, /n/
    for /nt/, and /s/ for /st/
  • Phonetic error reductions of consonant clusters
    in final position
  • Phonological strategy avoidance. This occurs
    because the /ks/, /rks/, /lf/, /nt/, and /st/
    phonemes do not exist in Spanish, due to its
    consonant-vowel syllabic structure.

45
Phonemic Awareness and ELLs
  • Rhyming may be difficult for ELL students because
    it is so dependent on English oral language
    proficiency.
  • Nursery rhymes in Spanish are more likely to play
    with vowels, while in English they are more
    likely to play with consonants.
  • ELL students need to see rhyming words in print
    as well as hear them.
  • Two types of phoneme manipulations seem to be
    directly involved in the reading and spelling
    process blending and segmenting.

46
Viento trabajador
  • El viento es trabajador.
  • Soplando, soplando va,
  • ayudando al sembrador
  • y cantando así al pasar
  • uuu, uuu, uuu.
  • En los campos y praderas
  • el viento es muy juguetón
  • hace bailar las hojitas
  • al trino de su canción
  • Uuu, uuu, uuu.

47
Cosas que vemos
  • La arañita es muy ligera
  • porque tiene muchos pies,
  • por su rápida carerra,
  • muy notable es!
  • La, la, la
  • Y el buen caracolito
  • que tan sólo tiene un pie,
  • porque avanza despacito,
  • muy notable es!
  • La, la, la, la

48
Hey Diddle Diddle (Nonsensical for ELL Students)
  • Hey, diddle, diddle,The cat and the fiddle,The
    cow jumped over the moon.The little dog
    laughedTo see such sport,And the dish ran away
    with the spoon.

49
Sing a Song of Sixpence (Nonsensical for ELL
Students)
  • Sing a song of sixpence,A pocket full of
    ryeFour and twenty blackbirdsBaked in a
    pie.When the pie was opened,They all began to
    sing.Now, wasn't that a dainty dishTo set
    before the King?
  • The King was in his countinghouse,Counting out
    his moneyThe Queen was in the parlorEating
    bread and honey.The maid was in the
    garden,Hanging out the clothes.Along there came
    a big black birdAnd snipped off her nose!

50
Teacher Roles in RTI
  • What new roles will teachers have?
  • Delivering scientifically-based instruction for
    all students including ELL students
  • Administering curriculum-based measures
  • Regularly monitoring progress
  • Interpreting data
  • Grouping students
  • Choosing appropriate interventions
  • Making decisions as to which students move into
    higher tiers

51
  • To teach in a manner that respects and cares for
    the souls of our students is essential if we are
    to provide the necessary conditions where
    learning can most deeply and intimately begin.
  • - bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress

52
To Conclude
  • It is essential to find out what works with
    whom
  • (cited in NCCRESt, 2005, p. 5).
  • http//www.nccrest.org/
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com