基于频率的数学教学与多层次评估体系相结合,增强对干预框架的响应。

A. Moors, Amy B. Weisenburgh-Snyder, Joanne K. Robbins
{"title":"基于频率的数学教学与多层次评估体系相结合,增强对干预框架的响应。","authors":"A. Moors, Amy B. Weisenburgh-Snyder, Joanne K. Robbins","doi":"10.1037/H0100703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Responsiveness to Intervention (RtI) refers to a recent innovation in education utilizing a multitiered service delivery model with two overlapping functions: first, to identify students who are struggling in the classroom and remediate academic deficits, and second, to distinguish between students who are behind due to a history of poor instructional experiences and those in need of special education services for remediation of an actual learning disability. (Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007). RtI promotes a new focus on teaching and learning, focusing on how responsive students are to instruction. The term as originally coined, \"Responsiveness\" places the agency or label of special education on the teaching methodologies and measures student responsiveness to those procedures. RtI was derived from the provisions outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004), which states that \"in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a Local Education Agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process\" [Section 614 (b)(6)(B)]. As such, RtI offers an alternative to the traditional practice of diagnosing learning disabilities based on a pronounced dual discrepancy between intellectual capacity (as determined by intelligence tests) and academic proficiency in various subjects (as determined by achievement tests). RtI is not mandated, but IDEA 2004 now prohibits states from requiring this discrepancy model. In many ways, RtI constitutes a profound paradigm shift in the way that students with educational problems are perceived and taught in the classroom. According to the traditional approach, if a significant dual discrepancy is observed between intelligence test scores and achievement scores, the problem is generally considered to exist within the student. The student is then labeled with a learning disability and committed to the special educational system. If a significant discrepancy is not observed, the student returns to the general education classroom. Due to strict qualification guidelines related to the current provision of special education services, funding to provide additional support to students that are only marginally failing is not generally available. Yet, it's clear that without an effective intervention, the deficits are only likely to increase. For this reason, the dual discrepancy model is often referred to as the \"wait-to-fail\" model and has come under increasing widespread criticisms as being an ineffective and inadequate framework for special education (Francis et al., 2005). In contrast to the dual discrepancy approach, the RtI framework emphasizes identifying and supportng all students with pronounced academic deficits. This change in perspective of how to provide services has even led to a new term, \"the enabled learner\" (Tilly, 2006) and is creating a challenge for our school psychologists to move from the use of traditional psychometric tests (i.e. intelligence and achievement tests) to an \"edumetric\" problem solving model focused on measuring changes in individual performance over time (Canter, 2006). In summary, \"RtI is a set of scientifically research-validated practices that are deployed in schools using the scientific method as a decision-making framework\" (Tilly, 2006 p. 22). RtI Framework When a school-wide approach is adopted, the RtI framework most commonly utilizes what is referred to as the Standard Protocol Model (Shores & Chester, 2009). The model was based on the research in curriculum-based measurement of reading skills conducted by Deno and Mirkin (Deno, 1985, 2003; Deno & Mirkin, 1977). CBM grew out of the need for educators to access more frequent performance data in the academic foundation skills of reading, spelling, writing, and mathematics (Deno, 1985; Shinn 1989). Teachers can use these criterion-referenced assessments to compare student progress to a grade level standard as well as to analyze individual growth compared to previous performance. …","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"226-244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating Frequency-Based Mathematics Instruction with a Multi-Level Assessment System to Enhance Response to Intervention Frameworks.\",\"authors\":\"A. Moors, Amy B. Weisenburgh-Snyder, Joanne K. Robbins\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/H0100703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Responsiveness to Intervention (RtI) refers to a recent innovation in education utilizing a multitiered service delivery model with two overlapping functions: first, to identify students who are struggling in the classroom and remediate academic deficits, and second, to distinguish between students who are behind due to a history of poor instructional experiences and those in need of special education services for remediation of an actual learning disability. (Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007). RtI promotes a new focus on teaching and learning, focusing on how responsive students are to instruction. The term as originally coined, \\\"Responsiveness\\\" places the agency or label of special education on the teaching methodologies and measures student responsiveness to those procedures. RtI was derived from the provisions outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004), which states that \\\"in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a Local Education Agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process\\\" [Section 614 (b)(6)(B)]. As such, RtI offers an alternative to the traditional practice of diagnosing learning disabilities based on a pronounced dual discrepancy between intellectual capacity (as determined by intelligence tests) and academic proficiency in various subjects (as determined by achievement tests). RtI is not mandated, but IDEA 2004 now prohibits states from requiring this discrepancy model. In many ways, RtI constitutes a profound paradigm shift in the way that students with educational problems are perceived and taught in the classroom. According to the traditional approach, if a significant dual discrepancy is observed between intelligence test scores and achievement scores, the problem is generally considered to exist within the student. The student is then labeled with a learning disability and committed to the special educational system. If a significant discrepancy is not observed, the student returns to the general education classroom. Due to strict qualification guidelines related to the current provision of special education services, funding to provide additional support to students that are only marginally failing is not generally available. Yet, it's clear that without an effective intervention, the deficits are only likely to increase. For this reason, the dual discrepancy model is often referred to as the \\\"wait-to-fail\\\" model and has come under increasing widespread criticisms as being an ineffective and inadequate framework for special education (Francis et al., 2005). In contrast to the dual discrepancy approach, the RtI framework emphasizes identifying and supportng all students with pronounced academic deficits. This change in perspective of how to provide services has even led to a new term, \\\"the enabled learner\\\" (Tilly, 2006) and is creating a challenge for our school psychologists to move from the use of traditional psychometric tests (i.e. intelligence and achievement tests) to an \\\"edumetric\\\" problem solving model focused on measuring changes in individual performance over time (Canter, 2006). In summary, \\\"RtI is a set of scientifically research-validated practices that are deployed in schools using the scientific method as a decision-making framework\\\" (Tilly, 2006 p. 22). RtI Framework When a school-wide approach is adopted, the RtI framework most commonly utilizes what is referred to as the Standard Protocol Model (Shores & Chester, 2009). The model was based on the research in curriculum-based measurement of reading skills conducted by Deno and Mirkin (Deno, 1985, 2003; Deno & Mirkin, 1977). CBM grew out of the need for educators to access more frequent performance data in the academic foundation skills of reading, spelling, writing, and mathematics (Deno, 1985; Shinn 1989). Teachers can use these criterion-referenced assessments to compare student progress to a grade level standard as well as to analyze individual growth compared to previous performance. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":88717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The behavior analyst today\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"226-244\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The behavior analyst today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100703\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The behavior analyst today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

干预响应(RtI)指的是最近在教育领域的一项创新,它利用具有两个重叠功能的多层服务提供模式:首先,识别在课堂上努力学习并纠正学业缺陷的学生;其次,区分由于教学经验不足而落后的学生和需要特殊教育服务以纠正实际学习障碍的学生。(Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007)。RtI促进了对教学和学习的新关注,关注学生对教学的反应。“响应性”一词最初被创造出来,它将特殊教育的机构或标签置于教学方法上,并衡量学生对这些程序的响应性。RtI源于2004年《残疾人改善法案》(IDEA, 2004)中概述的条款,该法案规定“在确定儿童是否有特定的学习障碍时,地方教育机构可以使用一种程序来确定儿童是否对科学的、基于研究的干预作出反应,作为评估过程的一部分”[第614 (b)(6)(b)条]。因此,RtI提供了一种替代传统做法,即根据智力能力(由智力测验确定)和各科学术熟练程度(由成绩测验确定)之间的明显双重差异来诊断学习障碍。RtI并不是强制性的,但是IDEA 2004现在禁止各州要求这种差异模型。在许多方面,RtI构成了一个深刻的范式转变,即有教育问题的学生在课堂上的认知和教学方式。根据传统的方法,如果观察到智力测试分数和成就分数之间存在显著的双重差异,则通常认为问题存在于学生内部。然后,这个学生被贴上了学习障碍的标签,并被投入到特殊教育系统中。如果没有观察到明显的差异,学生就回到通识教育教室。由于目前提供的特殊教育服务有严格的资格准则,因此通常无法提供资金,为那些只是略微不及格的学生提供额外的支持。然而,很明显,如果没有有效的干预,赤字只会增加。由于这个原因,双重差异模型通常被称为“等待失败”模型,并受到越来越广泛的批评,因为它是一个无效和不充分的特殊教育框架(Francis等人,2005)。与双重差异方法相反,RtI框架强调识别和支持所有有明显学业缺陷的学生。在如何提供服务的角度上的这种变化甚至导致了一个新的术语,"有能力的学习者" (Tilly, 2006年),并给我们的学校心理学家带来了挑战,从使用传统的心理测试(即智力和成就测试)转向侧重于测量个人表现随时间变化的"教育计量"问题解决模型(Canter, 2006年)。总之,“RtI是一套经过科学研究验证的实践,在学校中使用科学方法作为决策框架”(Tilly, 2006年第22页)。当采用全校范围的方法时,RtI框架最常使用的是所谓的标准协议模型(Shores & Chester, 2009)。该模型基于Deno和Mirkin (Deno, 1985, 2003;Deno & Mirkin, 1977)。CBM源于教育工作者需要更频繁地访问阅读、拼写、写作和数学等学术基础技能方面的表现数据(Deno, 1985;希恩1989)。教师可以使用这些参照标准的评估来将学生的进步与年级水平标准进行比较,并与以前的表现相比分析个人的成长。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Integrating Frequency-Based Mathematics Instruction with a Multi-Level Assessment System to Enhance Response to Intervention Frameworks.
Responsiveness to Intervention (RtI) refers to a recent innovation in education utilizing a multitiered service delivery model with two overlapping functions: first, to identify students who are struggling in the classroom and remediate academic deficits, and second, to distinguish between students who are behind due to a history of poor instructional experiences and those in need of special education services for remediation of an actual learning disability. (Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007). RtI promotes a new focus on teaching and learning, focusing on how responsive students are to instruction. The term as originally coined, "Responsiveness" places the agency or label of special education on the teaching methodologies and measures student responsiveness to those procedures. RtI was derived from the provisions outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004), which states that "in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a Local Education Agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process" [Section 614 (b)(6)(B)]. As such, RtI offers an alternative to the traditional practice of diagnosing learning disabilities based on a pronounced dual discrepancy between intellectual capacity (as determined by intelligence tests) and academic proficiency in various subjects (as determined by achievement tests). RtI is not mandated, but IDEA 2004 now prohibits states from requiring this discrepancy model. In many ways, RtI constitutes a profound paradigm shift in the way that students with educational problems are perceived and taught in the classroom. According to the traditional approach, if a significant dual discrepancy is observed between intelligence test scores and achievement scores, the problem is generally considered to exist within the student. The student is then labeled with a learning disability and committed to the special educational system. If a significant discrepancy is not observed, the student returns to the general education classroom. Due to strict qualification guidelines related to the current provision of special education services, funding to provide additional support to students that are only marginally failing is not generally available. Yet, it's clear that without an effective intervention, the deficits are only likely to increase. For this reason, the dual discrepancy model is often referred to as the "wait-to-fail" model and has come under increasing widespread criticisms as being an ineffective and inadequate framework for special education (Francis et al., 2005). In contrast to the dual discrepancy approach, the RtI framework emphasizes identifying and supportng all students with pronounced academic deficits. This change in perspective of how to provide services has even led to a new term, "the enabled learner" (Tilly, 2006) and is creating a challenge for our school psychologists to move from the use of traditional psychometric tests (i.e. intelligence and achievement tests) to an "edumetric" problem solving model focused on measuring changes in individual performance over time (Canter, 2006). In summary, "RtI is a set of scientifically research-validated practices that are deployed in schools using the scientific method as a decision-making framework" (Tilly, 2006 p. 22). RtI Framework When a school-wide approach is adopted, the RtI framework most commonly utilizes what is referred to as the Standard Protocol Model (Shores & Chester, 2009). The model was based on the research in curriculum-based measurement of reading skills conducted by Deno and Mirkin (Deno, 1985, 2003; Deno & Mirkin, 1977). CBM grew out of the need for educators to access more frequent performance data in the academic foundation skills of reading, spelling, writing, and mathematics (Deno, 1985; Shinn 1989). Teachers can use these criterion-referenced assessments to compare student progress to a grade level standard as well as to analyze individual growth compared to previous performance. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Functional and morphological maturation of the full-sized and mini-pig corpus luteum by programmed cell death mechanism. Procedural aspects that control discounting rates when using the fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice methods On the sequential and concurrent presentation of trials establishing prerequisites for emergent relations. Using SAFMEDS and direct instruction to teach the model of hierarchical complexity The zeitgeist of behavior analytic research in the 21st century: A keyword analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1