This training module, includes four sections that (a) provide an overview of administering common general outcome measures for progress monitoring in reading and mathematics, (b) review graphed progress monitoring data, and (c) provide guidance on identifying what type of skills the intervention should target to be most effective in reading and mathematics.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
Monitoring Student Progress for Behavioral Interventions (DBI Professional Learning Series Module 3)
This module focuses on behavioral progress monitoring within the context of the DBI process and addresses: (a) methods available for behavioral progress monitoring, including but not limited to Direct Behavior Rating (DBR), and (b) using progress monitoring data to make decisions about behavioral interventions.
This training module demonstrates how academic progress monitoring fits into the Data-Based Individualization (DBI) process by (a) providing approaches and tools for academic progress monitoring and (b) showing how to use progress monitoring data to set ambitious goals, make instructional decisions, and plan programs for individual students with intensive needs.
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.
There are a variety of terms used interchangeably to define special education: specially-designed instruction, Tier 3 supports, and intensive intervention, but, do they mean the same thing? In this presentation, delivered at the 2017 OSEP Leadership Conference, state leaders of special education, David Sienko from the Rhode Island Department of Education and Glenna Gallo, from the Washington State Board of Education – alongside personnel from the National Center on Intensive Intervention – shared perspectives on how special education is defined to espouse commonalities across terminology and services to support students with disabilities. Presentation
What is an evidence-based practice? How do I know if evidence shows that a practice will be right for my students? Many practitioners ask these critical questions every day as they are faced with making decisions regarding how to best meet the needs of their students.
This webinar discusses the importance of family engagement and provides examples of ways to engage families to support students.
This three-part series of IRIS STAR Legacy Modules includes information for selecting, implementing, and monitoring evidence-based practices.
These documents are intended to illustrate how college- and career-ready standards can be addressed across levels of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or response to intervention framework in reading and mathematics. They provide examples of how to apply standards relevant instruction across core instruction (Tier 1), secondary intervention (Tier 2), intensive intervention (Tier 3) and for to support students with significant cognitive challenges.
Norms for oral reading fluency (ORF) can be used to help educators make decisions about which students might need intervention in reading and to help monitor students’ progress once instruction has begun. This paper describes the origins of the widely used curriculum-based measure of ORF and how the creation and use of ORF norms has evolved over time. Using data from three widely-used commercially available ORF assessments (DIBELS, DIBELS Next, and easyCBM), a new set of compiled ORF norms for grade 1-6 are presented here along with an analysis of how they differ from the norms created in 2006.