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.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
In this video, Sandra Chafouleas, Professor of Educational Psychology in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut, discusses the importance of progress monitoring in behavior and how it differs from screening and diagnostic assessment.
In this video, Ralph P. Ferretti, Professor of Education and Psychological & Brain Sciences at the University of Delaware explain why it is important to consider both the study quality and the study results when determining the evidence base of an intervention.
In this video, Michelle Hosp, Associate Professor in the College of Education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst discusses why your progress monitoring tool may not directly focus on the skills that you are teaching.
Why do we need to ensure we have multiple parallel or equated forms when measuring student progress?
In this video, Lee Branum-Martin, Associate Professor at Georgia State University explains why we need to ensure we have multiple parallel or equated forms when measuring student progress.
In this video, Ellen Reinhardt, MTSS Technical Assistance Provider in Rhode Island and NCII Coach, discusses conditions that are necessary for effective and sustainable implementation of intensive intervention.
In this video, Sarah Powell, Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Texas at Austin, discusses key considerations when teaching students with math difficulty.
In this video, John M. Hintze, Professor in the Department of Student Development at the University of Massachusetts Amherst explains why it is important to consider whether an assessment is biased against a specific sub-group.
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.