Diagnosis: The Missing Ingredient in <scp>RTI</scp> Assessment

Lipson, Marjorie Y.; Chomsky-Higgins, Pam; Kanfer, Jane

doi:10.1002/trtr.01031

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reading/literacy specialists need to be both experienced and strategic in knowing how to analyze data patterns that document students' strengths and needs to optimize student learning (Afflerbach, 2011;Lipson, Chomsky-Higgins, Kanfer, 2011;Scanlon, 2010). Another key aspect of their role is to use results of these assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional practices.…”

Section: Standard 3 Assessment and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing reading/literacy specialists to meet changes and challenges: International Literacy Association’sStandards 2017

Kern

Bean

Dagen

et al. 2018

Literacy Research and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

that affect schools and how they function informed ILA's decision to create a set of distinct standards for the three roles of specialized literacy professionals.By separating the roles, we have "sharpened the terminology" as recommended by Galloway and Lesaux (2014, p. 524). Standard requirements for the reading/literacy specialist now focus on the primary role as instructional, while maintaining an emphasis on the need for professionals to be able to work collaboratively with other educators. Standards for literacy coaches place primary emphasis on working with teachers in schools; whereas, standards for literacy coordinators/supervisors emphasize districtwide leadership of literacy programs. Thus, preparation programs can now focus their development efforts more precisely on the role of the reading /literacy specialist or coach or coordinator/supervisor.

show abstract

Section: Standard 3 Assessment and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing reading/literacy specialists to meet changes and challenges: International Literacy Association’sStandards 2017

Kern

Bean

Dagen

et al. 2018

Literacy Research and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As far as was possible, curriculum for each unit was based on the following key principles: Assessment‐based grouping for instruction (Lipson, Chomsky‐Higgins, & Kanfer, ) Focus on meaning making and enjoyment (Stephens et al., ) Incorporating student strengths as well as challenges (Watts‐Taffe et al., ) Reading authentic texts (McEneaney, Lose, & Schwartz, ), many of which were self‐selected (Ivey & Johnston, ) Whole‐to‐part instruction (Dombey & Moustafa, ) Gradual release of responsibility instructional models (Pearson & Gallagher, ) Integrating reading and writing (Frankel, Jaeger, & Pearson., ) Student–student and student–teacher interaction (Beecher, ) Student self‐evaluation and tangible evidence of success (Schunk, ) Integrating CCSS ELA standards for reading literature and/or reading informational text, even in units focused on foundational skills …”

Section: Tier 2 Curriculummentioning

confidence: 99%

Intensity of Focus, Richness of Content: Crafting Tier 2 Response to Intervention in an Era of the Common Core

Jaeger¹

2016

Read Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes a Tier 2 intervention program for fourth graders that is well suited to supporting implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Screening assessments and miscue analyses were used to clarify students’ strengths and challenges. Students then attended only classes that were suited to their particular literacy needs, spending the remainder of their time participating in classroom lessons that integrated language arts throughout content area curriculum. This program supported struggling readers in effective and efficient ways. A Tier 2 class in prosody is explained in depth. Findings demonstrate clear growth on progress‐monitoring assessments and overall reading gains as measured on an informal reading inventory. The study has implications for adjusting RTI protocols to better suit contemporary literacy practices.

show abstract

“…Whether we are concerned about early intervention or interventions for older struggling students, we need to be very clear about outcomes we intend to achieve, and we need to be asking ourselves whether we are closing the gap with more typically developing students. We refer you to an earlier column in which we described a method that we have used to good effect that uses assessment information to diagnostically build profiles of students and to describe specific interventions (see Lipson, Chomsky‐Higgins, & Kanfer, ), as the responsive nature of good intervention is clear for both older and younger students.…”

Section: Beyond Early Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%