This poster aims to present results from a study that aimed to characterize Portuguese students at risk of specific learning disabilities based on results of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in reading comprehension. Additionally, the objectives of the study were to show 1) the differences between students at risk and not at risk; 2) qualitative data related to environmental and personal factors that were present in students considered at risk; 3) acceptance and reliability of the CBM probe.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Martins, Ana Paula Loução

Vaz, Paula Marisa Fortunato

English

Biblioteca Digital do IPB

19/11/19, 22'04Characterization Of Portuguese Students At Risk Of Specific Lear… Of Curriculum-Based Measurement In Reading Comprehension | EERAPágina 1 de 6https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/48963/Characterization Of Portuguese Students At Risk Of Specific Learning Disabilities Based On Results Of Curriculum-BasedMeasurement In Reading Comprehensionback to searchAuthor(s): Paula Fortunato Vaz (presenting / submitting)Ana Paula Loução Martins (presenting)Conference: ECER 2019Network: 05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban EducationFormat: PosterSession Information05 SES 05.5 PS, General Poster SessionGeneral Poster SessionTime: 2019-09-0412:15-13:15Room: Poster TentChair:ContributionThis poster aims to present results from a study that aimed to characterize Portuguese students at risk of specific learningdisabilities based on results of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in reading comprehension. Additionally, the objectives ofthe study were to show 1) the differences between students at risk and not at risk; 2) qualitative data related to environmentaland personal factors that were present in students considered at risk; 3) acceptance and reliability of the CBM probe.This study was conducted within a Response to intervention Model, which is a multi-tiered system of prevention that integratesassessment and intervention, to maximize students’ achievement (Heinemann, Bolanos, & Griffin, 2017; NCRI, 2019). It includesfour components: universal screening, multi level prevention, progress monitoring and data-based decision making. Theuniversal screening assessment of all students, in regular class, aims to identify, as early as possible, those who are at risk. Thesestudents at risk need additional and intensive instruction integrated in a multi level prevention and intervention system,organized in intensive tiers of instruction, to improve learning outcomes. During the different tiers of intensive intervention is19/11/19, 22'04Characterization Of Portuguese Students At Risk Of Specific Lear… Of Curriculum-Based Measurement In Reading Comprehension | EERAPágina 2 de 6https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/48963/made, weekly or monthly, the progress monitoring of these students. Data-based decision making consists in consider the resultsof the progress monitoring for future intervention and in the tier change (D. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012;Heinemann et al.,2017; NCRI, 2019). Curriculum-based measurement (Deno, 1985) in reading has been used for universal screening and progress monitoring within aresponse to intervention conceptual model as it is a technically adequate system of school-wide screening and progressmonitoring in reading that promotes an early identification of students at risk academically for specific learning disabilities inreading (D. Fuchs et al., 2012; L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). Curriculum-based measurement consists in used short-term and easy-to-administer tests and is administered and quoted in a standardized manner (L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). This results inindicators of overall proficiency in the academic areas evaluated (for example in reading) (Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008). Tounderstand reading comprehension, we can use Maze-probes (Busch & Lembke, 2005) that consists of students reading silentlytext passages. Every seventh word is deleted and replaced with three word choices and students have to select the correct wordfrom each set of word choices (Deno et al., 2009). In the scope of the preventive approach that characterizes Level 1 of the Response to Intervention model, it is important todeepen the knowledge about students at risk in reading, namely with regard to the risk factors that may be associated with them.This are, for example, physical and clinical conditions, as well as differences in language acquisition and development, and thento a set of predictors that may be present at school (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Together, knowledge of risk factors and theinformation obtained with curriculum-based measurement will be useful in the early identification of their difficulties, in thepreparation of appropriate intervention (McCardle, Scarborough, & Catts, 2001; Scarborough, 1998) and therefore in preventingmore severe difficulties (Burns, Griffin, & Snow, 1999).Therefore, within the above-mentioned context, this study, can contribute to the field of Specific Learning Disabilities in readingin Portugal and in many other countries, which have educational systems characterized by a lack of a technically adequatesystem of school-wide screening and progress monitoring that can promote an early identification of students at riskacademically for developing reading disabilities.MethodA quantitative research was carried out within a sample of 82 third grade students from a School Cluster in the north of Portugal.Data were collected using a CBM Maze probe three times a year and analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. Studentsconsidered at risk were those with results below the 20th percentile. Additionally we characterized the risk factors that werefound in the students that below the 20th percentile. To collect that data we used a questionnaire.Expected OutcomesOur results show that: a) The Maze probes received excellent acceptance among both teachers and students, although it wasused in the district for the first time; The test retest reliability analysis show that the values of the Person ́s correlation rangedfrom .647 to .831 when considering different score rules. Additionally, when considering the score rule of "count the number of19/11/19, 22'04Characterization Of Portuguese Students At Risk Of Specific Lear… Of Curriculum-Based Measurement In Reading Comprehension | EERAPágina 3 de 6https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/48963/correct choices selected prior to the first of three consecutive errors", at the end of 3rd grade: d) The benchmark was 15.99(DP=5.889), and the annual growth rate was .27 (DP=.16); e) Girls (M=16.23) presented a higher average value than boys'(M=15.66); f) Ten students were considered at risk throughout the whole school year; g) The mean results from students whowere never at risk (M=18.91) was significantly higher than the mean results from those who have been at risk throughout theyear M=8.30); h) the annual growth rate of students who were never at risk (.32) was significantly higher than the growth rate ofstudents who were at risk throughout the whole year .18); i) the Mattew effect was visible in our results when we comparestudents at risk with those not at risk; finally j) the articulation problems, delay in language development and the absence ofreading experience in pairs with their parents stand out as reading risk factors in these participants. The presentation of theabove mentioned results will give us the opportunity to discuss the advantages of the existence of early intervention programsfor students at risk, as well as of a school-wide screening and progress monitoring system.ReferencesDeno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232. Deno, S. L.,Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., Windram, H. et al. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46(1), 44-55. Burns, S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. (1999). Starting out right: A guide topromoting children's reading success. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Busch, T.W., & Lembke, E.S. (2005). Teachingtutorial 5: Progress monitoring in reading using the cbm maze procedure: Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council forExceptional Children. Deno, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Lembke, E.S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S.A., Windram, H., & Stachel, N. (2009).Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (1), 44-55. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton,D.L. (2012). Smart rti: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263-279. doi:10.1177/001440291207800301 Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Using cbm for progress monitoring in reading: United States Officeof Special Education Program; Student Progress Monitoring. Heinemann, K.A., Bolanos, H., & Griffin, J.S. (2017). Specific learningdisabilities: Response to intervention. In C. S. Ryan (Ed.), Learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 99-114): INTECH.McCardle, P., Scarborough, H., & Catts, H. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children's reading difficulties. LearningDisabilities Research & Practice 16(4), 230. NCRI. (2019). Multi-level prevention system. Retrieved january 1, 2019, from NationalCenter on Response To Intervention Web site http://www.rti4success.org, fromhttp://www.rti4success.org/categorycontents/multi-level_prevention_system Scarborough, H.S. (1998). Early identification ofchildren at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In P. Accardo, A. Capute &B. Shapiro (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75-119). Timonium, MD: York Press. Snow, C., Burns, S., &Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children N. A. Press (Ed.) Retrieved fromhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6023 Stecker, P.M., Lembke, E.S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoringdata to improve instructional decision making. Retrieved 27-12-2010http://www.scred.k12.mn.us/School/documents/Using_Progress_Monitoring_Data_to_Improve_Instructional_Decision_Making.pdfAuthor Information19/11/19, 22'04Characterization Of Portuguese Students At Risk Of Specific Lear… Of Curriculum-Based Measurement In Reading Comprehension | EERAPágina 4 de 6https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/48963/Paula Fortunato Vaz (presenting / submitting)Centro de Investigação em Educação Básica, InstitutoPolitécnico de BragançaPsychologyBragança-PortugalAna Paula Loução Martins (presenting)Research Center on Education, University of MinhoBragaProgramme by Network 201900. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and OrganisationsNetwork 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)Network 3. Curriculum InnovationNetwork 4. Inclusive EducationNetwork 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban EducationNetwork 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and CulturesNetwork 7. Social Justice and Intercultural EducationNetwork 8. Research on Health EducationNetwork 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and MeasurementNetwork 10. Teacher Education ResearchNetwork 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality AssuranceNetwork 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network19/11/19, 22'04Characterization Of Portuguese Students At Risk Of Specific Lear… Of Curriculum-Based Measurement In Reading Comprehension | EERAPágina 5 de 6https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/48963/Network 13. Philosophy of EducationNetwork 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational ResearchNetwork 15. Research Partnerships in EducationNetwork 16. ICT in Education and TrainingNetwork 17. Histories of EducationNetwork 18. Research in Sport PedagogyNetwork 19. EthnographyNetwork 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning EnvironmentsNetwork 22. Research in Higher EducationNetwork 23. Policy Studies and Politics of EducationNetwork 24. Mathematics Education ResearchNetwork 25. Research on Children's Rights in EducationNetwork 26. Educational LeadershipNetwork 27. Didactics – Learning and TeachingNetwork 28. Sociologies of EducationNetwork 29. Reserach on Arts EducationNetwork 30. Research on Environmental und Sustainability EducationNetwork 31. Research on Language and Education (LEd)Network 32. Organizational EducationNetwork 33. Gender and Education19/11/19, 22'04Characterization Of Portuguese Students At Risk Of Specific Lear… Of Curriculum-Based Measurement In Reading Comprehension | EERAPágina 6 de 6https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/48963/Additional EventsEmerging Researchers' ConferenceThe programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)Search the ECER ProgrammeSearch for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"Search for authors and in the respective field.For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks beforethe conferenceIf you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.EERA OfficeEuropean Educational Research AssociationFeurigstr. 2210827 Berlin, GermanyTelephone: +49 (0)30 857 36220Telefax: +49 (0)30 377 19572office@eera.eu

Characterization of portuguese students at risk of specific learning disabilities based on results of curriculum-based measurement in reading comprehension

This poster aims to present results from a study that aimed to characterize Portuguese students at risk of specific learning disabilities based on results of Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in reading comprehension.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Characterization Of Portuguese Students At Risk Of  Specific Learning Disabilities Based On Results Of  Curriculum-Based Measurement In Reading Comprehension Paula Marisa Fortunato Vaz (paulavaz@ipb.pt), Research Centre in Basic Education, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Portugal Ana Paula Loução Martins (apmartins@ie.uminho.pt), Research Centre on Education, Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal       References Busch, T.W., & Lembke, E.S. (2005). Teaching tutorial 5: Progress monitoring in reading using the cbm maze procedure: Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children. Deno, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Lembke, E.S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S.A., Windram, H., & Stachel, N. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (1), 44-55.  Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2012). Smart rti: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263-279. doi: 10.1177/001440291207800301 Heinemann, K.A., Bolanos, H., & Griffin, J.S. (2017). Specific learning disabilities: Response to intervention. In C. S. Ryan (Ed.), Learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 99-114): INTECH. McCardle, P., Scarborough, H., & Catts, H. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children's reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 16(4), 230.  NCRI. (2019). Multi-level prevention system.   Retrieved january 1, 2019, from National Center on Response To Intervention Web site http://www.rti4success.org, from http://www.rti4success.org/categorycontents/multi-level_prevention_system Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children N. A. Press (Ed.)   Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6023  Stecker, P.M., Lembke, E.S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making. Retrieved 27-12-2010 http://www.scred.k12.mn.us/School/documents/Using_Progress_Monitoring_Data_to_Improve_Instructional_Decision_Making.pdf Purpose: This poster aims to present results from a study that aimed to characterize Portuguese students at risk of specific learning disabilities based on results of Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in reading comprehension. This study was conducted in the context of the first level of a Response to Intervention Model (RTI), which is a multi-tiered system of prevention that integrates assessment and intervention, to maximize students’ achievement (Heinemann, Bolanos, & Griffin, 2017; NCRI, 2019). It includes four components: universal screening, multi level prevention, progress monitoring and data-based decision making.  ECER 2019 Hamburg •  When considering the score rule of "count the number of correct choices selected prior to the first of three consecutive errors", at the end of 3rd grade:  •  The benchmark was 15.99 (DP=5.889), and the annual growth rate was .27 (DP=.16);  •  Girls (M=16.23) presented a higher average value than boys (M=15.66), though the difference is not statistically significant.  •  Ten students were considered at risk throughout the whole school year; Eight of these students were still at risk by the end of 4th grade; •  The mean results from students who were never at risk (M=18.91) was significantly higher than the mean results from those who have been at risk throughout the year (M=8.30);  •  The annual growth rate of students who were never at risk (.32) was significantly higher than the growth rate of students who were at risk throughout the whole year (.18);  •  The Mattew effect was visible in our results when we compare students at risk with those not at risk; •  The articulation problems, delay in language development and the absence of reading experience in pairs with their parents stand out as reading risk factors in these participants.  Universal screening assessment of all students aims to identify, as early as possible, those who are at risk in the regular classroom.    Multi level prevention These students at risk need additional and intensive instruction integrated in a multi level prevention and intervention system, organized in intensive tiers of instruction, to improve learning outcomes. Progress Monitoring During the different tiers of intensive intervention is made, weekly or monthly, the progress monitoring of these students.  Data-based decision making  Consists in consider the results of the progress monitoring for future intervention and in the tier change.  Response to Intervention Model (RTI) Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) (Deno, 1985) in reading  •  Has been used for universal screening and progress monitoring within a response to intervention conceptual model as it is a technically adequate system of school-wide screening and progress monitoring in reading that promotes an early identification of students at risk academically for specific learning disabilities in reading (Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Comptom, 2012).  •  Consists in used short-term and easy-to-administer tests and is administered and quoted in a standardized manner. It results in indicators of overall proficiency in the academic areas evaluated (for example in reading) (Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008).  Level 1 of the RTI model, it is important to deepen the knowledge about students at risk in reading, namely with regard to the risk factors that may be associated with them. This are, for example physical and clinical conditions, as well as differences in language acquisition and development, and then to a set of predictors that may be present at school (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).  Method  •  A quantitative research was carried out within a sample of 82 third grade students (47 girls and 35 boys)  from a School Cluster in the north of Portugal.  •  Data were collected using a CBM Maze probe three times a year and analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics.  •  Students considered at risk were those with results below the 20th percentile (Deno et al, 2009).  •  Additionally we characterized the risk factors that were found in the students that below the 20th percentile. To collect that data we used a questionnaire. Goals To show: •  the differences between students at risk and not at risk. •  qualitative data related to environmental and personal factors that were present in students considered at risk. •  acceptance and reliability of the CBM probe.   Level  III Level II   Level I Primary Prevention   Will be useful in: •  The early identification of their difficulties. •  The preparation of appropriate intervention (McCardle, Scarborough, & Catts, 2001).  •  Preventing more severe difficulties (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Risk factors  Information obtained with CBM Results •  The Maze probes received excellent acceptance among both teachers and students, although it was used in the district for the first time.  •  The test retest reliability analysis show that the values of the Person  s correlation ranged from .647 to .831 when considering different score rules.  CBM-Maze To understand reading comprehension, we can use Maze-probes (Busch & Lembke, 2005) that consists of students reading silently text passages. Every seventh word is deleted and replaced with three word choices and students have to select the correct word from each set of word choices (Deno et al., 2009).  Figure 1- Results in autumn, winter and spring. Fonte: http://www.rti4success.org/ In the future it is necessary to implement intervention programs at the secondary and tertiary levels as recommended by the research within the Response to Intervention Model. Based on these results we consider that the use of RTI and CBM would be a valid and reliable option to consider in the educational context of European countries. 4.1 5.7 8.3 7.88 11.25 17.68 18.91 21.86 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Mean-Maze Not at risk At risk 

Characterization of Portuguese students at risk of specific learning disabilities based on results of curriculum-based measurement in reading comprehension

https://bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt/bitstream/10198/19848/1/Paula%20Vaz%20%26%20Ana%20Paula%20Martins%20Poster%20Hamburgo2019.pdf

Characterization of portuguese students at risk of specific learning disabilities based on results of curriculum-based measurement in reading comprehension

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Biblioteca Digital do IPB

Biblioteca Digital do IPB