This module discusses approaches to intensifying academic interventions for students with severe and persistent learning needs. The module describes how intensification fits into DBI process and introduces four categories of intensification practices. It uses examples to illustrate concepts and provides activities to support development of teams’ understanding of these practices, and how they might be used to design effective individualized programs for students with intensive needs.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
This module focuses primarily on selecting evidence-based interventions that align with the functions of behavior for students with severe and persistent learning and behavior needs. The emphasis of this training will include four main content areas: (a) relating assessment to function, (b) selecting evidence-based interventions that align with functions of behavior, (c) linking assessment and monitoring, and (d) connecting data with the evidence-based interventions selected. The overarching goal is to connect concepts and theories in behavior and begin planning how intensive intervention can be put into practice to support students with intensive behavioral needs.
This tool is designed to help educators collect and graph academic progress monitoring data across multiple measures as a part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process. This tool allows educators to store data for multiple students (across multiple measures), graph student progress, and set individualized goals for a student on specific measures.
This is part 1 of the larger module, “Informal Academic Diagnostic Assessment: Using Data to Guide Intensive Instruction.” This part is intended to provide an overview of common general outcome measures (GOM) used for progress monitoring in reading and mathematics, with guidance on selecting an appropriate measure.
This log can be used as a daily and weekly record of the implementation of an individual student’s intensive intervention plan. This information, along with progress monitoring graphs, can inform team intervention and data review meetings. You may choose to supplement the logs with additional items or more detailed intervention notes.
In this video, Dr. Joe Wehby, Senior Advisor to the National Center for Intensive Intervention and Associate Professor in the Vanderbilt University Department of Special Education, discusses the number of data points needed to make decisions for students with intensive behavior needs.
In this video, Dr. Lynn Fuchs, Nicholas Hobbs Professor of Special Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University and Senior Advisor to the National Center on Intensive Intervention, shares considerations for adapting interventions when the validated intervention program wasn’t successful.
In this video, Dr. Devin Kearns, an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Education Psychology at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut and NCII Trainer & Coach, discusses importance of consistency when selecting, administering, and scoring progress monitoring tools.
The purpose of this document is to increase the capacity of practitioners and educational leaders to support a broad range of learners who need more literacy supports to become skilled readers and writers by identifying a set of essential practices that are research-supported and should be the focus of professional development. These practices for intensifying literacy instruction apply to those learners with severe and persistent reading and writing challenges who have not responded when provided with instruction aligned with state academic standards, regardless of disability status.
Providing more explicit instruction, captured within the comprehensiveness domain of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity, is critical within intensive intervention. The Recognizing Effective Special Education Teachers (RESET) project, funded by U.S. Department of Education Institute for Education Sciences (IES) and led by Evelyn Johnson at Boise State University, developed a series of rubrics based on evidence-based practices for students with high incidence disabilities. One set of rubrics focuses on explicit instruction. Based on the main ideas of Explicit Instruction, the Explicit Instruction Rubric was designed for use by supervisors and administrators to reliably evaluate explicit instructional practice, to provide specific, accurate, and actionable feedback to special education teachers about the quality of their explicit instruction, and ultimately, improve the outcomes for students with disabilities.