This course collection provides a guide to available NCII courses for those who are newer to the DBI process or interested in learning more about how intensive intervention can support students with severe and persistent learning and/or social, emotional, or behavioral needs.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
This module is intended to help educators and administrators understand the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity and how it can be used to select, evaluate, and intensify interventions.
This IRIS Star Legacy Module, first in a series of two, overviews data-based individualization and provides information about adaptations for intensifying and individualizing instruction. Developed in collaboration with the IRIS Center and the CEEDAR Center, this resource is designed for individuals who will be implementing intensive interventions (e.g., special education teachers, reading specialists, interventionists).
This rubric uses descriptors of the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity to support teams in selecting and evaluating validated interventions for small groups or individual students. Teams may consider using data available on the National Center on Intensive Intervention Academic Tools Chart and the publishers’ websites as well as results from previous implementation efforts. Each dimension will be rated on a scale of 0– Fails to Address Standard to 3 – Addresses Standard Well. Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity: Academic Rating Rubric Related Resources Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity Resources
This two page handout defines the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity through guiding questions and highlights when the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity can be used within the data-based individualization (DBI) process. Teams can use the dimensions to evaluate a current intervention, select a new intervention and intensify interventions when students do not respond.
In this Voices From the Field piece, the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) speaks to Cyndi Caniglia, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Education at Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington about how she has meaningfully integrated the NCII Features of Explicit Instruction Course Content into her coursework.
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.
How do you know if an intervention, program, or practice is likely to be effective with a particular subgroup of students? What resources are there to help school, district, and State leaders identify and select evidence-based practices (EBPs)? EBPs play an increasingly prominent role in Federal education policy. In both State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) and provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), States are being asked to implement practices and programs that have evidence of effectiveness.
This three-part series of IRIS STAR Legacy Modules includes information for selecting, implementing, and monitoring evidence-based practices.
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.