In this video, Dr. Chris Riley-Tillman, a Professor at the University of Missouri and NCII Senior Advisor, discusses the important considerations when selecting behavioral 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.
This webinar presents a data-based decision-making framework to individualize instruction for students with intensive needs in writing.
This video from the REL Midwest features Michigan educators discussing how districts can accelerate reading growth for young learners. Educators and leaders from Chippewa Hills School District, specifically discuss the use of data-based individualization (DBI).
These two modules from the IRIS Center introduce users to progress monitoring in reading and mathematics. Progress monitoring is a type of formative assessment in which student learning is evaluated to provide useful feedback about performance to both learners and teachers. Because the overall progress monitoring process is almost identical for any subject area, the content in the two modules is very similar.
An effective and efficient data system is essential for successful implementation of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). However, prior to selecting an appropriate system, schools and districts must identify what its staff and community need and what resources the district or school has to support an MTSS data system. This two-step tool can help teams to consider both what their needs are and to evaluate available tools against those needs. Step 1 can help your team systematically identify and document your MTSS data system needs and current context and step 2 focuses on selecting and evaluating a data system for conducting screening and progress monitoring within a tiered system of support based on the identified needs and context from step 1
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.
This guide provides information critical to developing and implementing an effective school-level intervention program. It is designed to suggest some guiding principles along with examples of how these principles can be operationalized to develop an effective school-level system for meeting the instruction needs of all students.
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.
It is important that the instructional practices and interventions delivered within a school’s multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) be grounded in evidence. However, the “practice” that happens within each tier is different; therefore, the type of evidence that is required for each tier also must be different. A useful way to think about evidence-based practices in MTSS is to think about levels of evidence that vary and correspond to the different levels of intervention intensity at each tier. In the tables below, find resources to support the selection and evaluation of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 or intensive interventions.