WTS 1 & 2

Academic Intervention Environments

Monica Huibregtse
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teaching Standards 1 & 2
EDU 691 Professional Skills
Professor Caroline Hickethier
August 11, 2015

WTS 1 & 2

Page 1 of 21

Wisconsin Standard for Teacher Development and Licensure

Standard # l: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching.
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
subject matter meaningful for students.
Knowledge. The teacher understands how students conceptual frameworks and their
misconceptions for an area of knowledge can influence their learning.
Dispositions. The teacher is committed to continuous learning and engages in
professional discourse about subject matter knowledge and children's learning of the discipline
Performances. (a) The teacher develops and uses curricula that encourage students to
see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives. (b) The teacher can evaluate
teaching resources and curriculum materials for their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and
usefulness in representing particular ideas and concepts.

Standard #2: Teachers know how children grow.

The teacher understands how children with broad ranges of ability learn and develop, and can
provide instruction that supports their intellectual, social, and personal development.
Knowledge. The teacher understands that students physical, social, emotional, moral,
and cognitive development influence learning and knows how to address these factors when
making instructional decisions.
Dispositions. The teacher appreciates individual variation within each area of
development, shows respect for the diverse talents of all learners, and is committed to help them
develop self-confidence and competence.
Performances. The teacher accesses students thinking and experiences as a basis for
instructional activities by, for example, encouraging discussion, listening and to group
interaction, and eliciting samples of student thinking orally and in writing.

WTS 1 & 2

Page 2 of 21

Danielsons Domains
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Component 1f: Assessing Student Learning
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
Component 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning
Domain 3: Instruction
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching
Component 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records

Pre-assessments
Self-assessment of Instruction Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)

WTS 1 & 2

Page 3 of 21

Given the Wisconsin Teaching Standards one and two, I want to focus on creating a
learning environment and designing instruction that is meaningful for kids. While environment is
largely the focus of my research, I also want to narrow in on designing instructional materials
that are at the ability levels of each student in the identified group of intervention students. While
I teach special education, I also had 90 minutes per day devoted to reading intervention for a
group of five fourth grade students. These students were chosen for the intervention group based
on multiple sources of data collected that placed them below the 25th percentile of grade level
peers. The intervention group consisted of four girls and one boy. The intervention took place in
the special education classroom right away in the morning.
The knowledge descriptors from teaching standards one and two that I chose to focus
on include: (a) the teacher understands how students conceptual frameworks and their
misconceptions for an area of knowledge can influence their learning. (b) The teacher
understands that students physical, social, emotional, moral, and cognitive development
influence learning and knows how to address these factors when making instructional decisions.
As a teacher focused on a specific group of students, I know that it is important for me to study
their skills already obtained and to know their strategy deficits. In addition, understanding
environmental factors of students home lives are critical to their academic success.
The disposition descriptors from teaching standards one and two that I chose to focus
on include: (a) the teacher is committed to continuous learning and engages in professional
discourse about subject matter knowledge and children's learning of the discipline. (b) The
teacher appreciates individual variation within each area of development, shows respect for the
diverse talents of all learners, and is committed to help them develop self-confidence and
competence. As a professional, I have made a point to continue my professional development
every year. This coming year, I have obtained the leadership position of the districts data coach
in addition to pursuing my masters program. All of these positions are essential to my success as
an educator. As a teacher of non-typical students, I know that it is important to make sure my
students are in a mindset that promotes learning. Ive learned through Conscious Discipline
trainings that a child must feel safe and secure before learning can occur. Therefore, my group is
facilitated in such a way that promotes confidence, security, and respect. My focus is on student
mindset before the actual delivery of instruction.

WTS 1 & 2

Page 4 of 21

The Performance descriptors I included are: (a) the teacher develops and uses
curricula that encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives.
(b) The teacher can evaluate teaching resources and curriculum materials for their
comprehensiveness, accuracy, and usefulness in representing particular ideas and concepts. In
my five years of teaching, I have tested a number of resources and delivery models. Ive tried:
lecturing, hands-on activities, worksheets, group work, and technology driven instruction. All of
these delivery methods are efficient; however, after reflecting on my particular group of students,
I found more engagement and academic success when using more technology based delivery
methods. My students appeared much more engaged when lessons were presented on the
Promethean board with opportunities to participate more interactively than the typical general
education classroom.

Assessment of Student Performance and Learning Environment Related to Targeted

Student Learning Objective(s)

WTS 1 & 2

Page 5 of 21

The reading intervention group consisted of five fourth grade students. These students
were identified below the 25th percentile in reading on at least two data sources. The goal was to
provide intervention to these students daily for a minimum or 30 minutes while providing them
with the general education curriculum through the intervention guide and small group so that
they are performing at or above the 25th percentile as measured by the AimsWeb Progress
monitoring tool. This assessment tool monitors the progress of reading fluency and
comprehension. Because progress monitoring occurred weekly or biweekly, it was easy as an
educator to reflect on my teaching methods to see what was working and what wasnt. It was
also beneficial to look at the achievement graph to identify any patterns of sudden increase or
decrease in achievement and determine the function.
The sources of data that identified these students at or below the 25th percentile include:
weekly reading tests, previous years state test results, most recent AimsWeb test results, and
Lexile. The data sources were color coded in red, yellow, and green to visually show who was
struggling. If a student was performing in the red in more than one category, they were chosen
for the intervention group as long as teacher input supported the decision to ensure there werent
exclusionary factors. The special education teacher, regular education teachers, and school
principal met as a team to discuss the decision of who was chosen for intervention, and then a
personalized learning plan was then made to document goals and progress.

WTS 1 & 2

Page 6 of 21

Assessment Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research

After reviewing existing data and current assessment data, it is clear that small group
instruction for general education reading curriculum was successful for the five identified
struggling learners. In addition to the general education curriculum performance increase, the
students also demonstrated significant growth in the intervention program. Many students started
the year off at a level K in their Reading A to Z intervention program. By the end of the year, the
students were reading independently at level R. In addition to this increase, two out of the five
identified students not only met their reading goal (SLO), but surpassed the 25th percentile. All
five students significantly increased their lexile scores to the low-average range for fourth grade
students. When the students began intervention, they were well below average in the area of
lexile performance.
Not only do data sources show an increase in student performance, but also when interviewed
in their progress meetings, the students all stated that they enjoyed the small group environment.
They expressed that it was more fun to learn and sitting on alternate pieces of furniture was fun.
This indicated to me that the change in environment was necessary. In addition to the
environment being more fun and expressing delight for differentiated seating, every one of the
students expressed excitement with learning on the Promethean board. While other general
education classrooms use their technology boards, I used mine on a daily basis with interactive
lessons that correlated directly to their learning goals and the small group provided more
opportunities for hands-on participation. The use of technology captured their interest and kept
the students engaged which was a highly important factor to overcome. By the end of the year, it
was determined that three of the five students have obtained the necessary strategies and tools to
be successful in the general education setting; therefore, they should be included back in the
large group general education setting for this coming year with close monitoring. However, the
two remaining students did not show enough growth and independence that would enable them
to be successful in the general education classroom without support. One student was identified
with a learning disability by the end of the year. The other student will be assessed for a learning
disability as well in the fall of 2015. These two students did make significant gains; however,
both students demonstrate some significant learning deficits that warrant further and more formal
assessment.
Research Summary

WTS 1 & 2

Page 7 of 21

WTS 1 & 2

Page 8 of 21

As teachers, we always want whats best for our students differing ideas on how to
best achieve it continues to be the hurdle. Evidence proves that small group instruction
accelerates student learning; however, it is unclear where the best results occur and who provides
the instruction. Small group instruction sometimes takes place in a classroom, and sometimes it
takes place in a resource room separate from the general education environment. Our district has
changed models several times in the last five years. Research-based intervention programs have
been identified and proved useful in our district. Now, I wanted to research the best learning
environment that would prove to meet the childs academic needs.
(Kruse, Spencer, Olszewski, & Goldstein, 2014) conducted a study involving three triads and
a total of seven children involved in the study. These children were early childhood students that
were lacking early literacy skills. Kruse et al. (2014) explained A trained interventionist
delivered small group sessions 3 to 4 days a week and received 28 to 36 lessons that lasted about
10 min each and focused on PA and alphabet knowledge. I thought it was important to note that
a professional other than the general education teacher was providing instruction to this group. In
addition, the small group instruction and testing took place in a room or hallway near the
childrens general education classroom outside of their language arts instruction time (Kruse et
al., 2014). The study included a baseline assessment measure, treatment measure and
maintenance measure. Having served as an interventionist, I have seen interventions work for
students, but as soon as they are placed back into the general education classroom, the
maintenance of the strategies learned is suddenly gone. This study specifically monitored
maintenance and prepared the students to not only achieve these learning goals, but they also
maintained the knowledge to transfer the success into their general education setting. Kruse et
al., (2014) reported a pre-assessment score from the seven students ranging from zero to two.
The post assessments yielded scores from the seven students ranging from a minimum of 4.8 to a
maximum of 26.7. There were six areas of literacy that were formally assessed with pre and post
assessments. In three of these six areas, all seven students made significant gains. In the
Rhyming IGDI assessment area, only one student fell below their pre-assessment score- they
only decreased by one point. In the Sound ID IGDI assessment area, three of the seven students
fell below their pre-assessment score two students fell by one point; the other student fell five
points. Lastly, the TOPEL PA assessment showed only two of seven students who fell below
their pre-assessment score (Kruse et al. 2014). In summary, one student gained his skills in all six

WTS 1 & 2

Page 9 of 21

areas. The remaining six students made significant gains in all but one category of assessment.
These results prove that small group instruction can and does provide students with the skills that
they need to accelerate their learning when provided by a trained professional in a separate
learning environment.

Research Implications
While there are many other factors that are pertinent in assessing how effective tier 2
intervention is, my specific question guiding my research was to see if there was a difference in
how effective an intervention is when it is provided in a separate learning environment outside of
the general education classroom. The main article that supports intervention provided outside of
the general education setting was clear, concise, and supported my initial hypothesis that
intervention provided in a quieter, secluded setting will benefit student learning. However, there
are implications to the research as well. According to Micari and Pazoz (2014), students that are
participating in small group learning may feel anxiety. Social-comparison is a complication when
intervention is introduced to students. Micari and Pazos (2014) asserted that some students may
feel inferior to their peers and that feelings of insecurity can scrutinize their learning outcomes. It
has been proven multiple times that small group instruction is effective in increasing student
learning at a more rapid rate than their peers; however, if the social emotional well-being of a
student is being compromised, that creates a whole new problem. In the learning realm, social
comparison concern can prompt or heighten students anxiety. Micari and Pazoz (2014).

WTS 1 & 2

Page 10 of 21

Buchs, Celine, Butera, Fabirizio, Mugny and Gabriel, (2004) found that when students
are in a small group learning environment, they are more likely to stress about their own
performance while comparing themselves to others this can lead to negative learning effects.
Buchs et al. (2004) found that students were more self-conscious about their own competence
levels when their classmates were working on identical assignments, but less concerned when
each student was working on a different task than those around them. This provided less
opportunity for comparison. The idea of taking students to a different classroom away from the
general education environment can alleviate or eliminate the stresses of social comparison or any
hindering feelings of inferiority. If students are in a small group in the back of a large classroom,
it creates more opportunity for social comparison and feelings of anxiety of others watching. If
the students are taken to a separate environment, they do not have to stress about their classmates
watching them; therefore, they are able to focus on the learning.
Other research implications were present at the time of the study done in 2014
with the early childhood students as well. Kruse (2014) explains that results of the study indicate
that this PA curriculum was an effective method of promoting PA skills of preschool children
with identified early literacy deficits. It shares features with other effective Tier 2 instruction in
early literacy in being systematic, explicit, and intensive. It is clear that this is a time consuming
intervention and requires extreme dedication and fidelity. This can create a problem in our
schools as the demands on teachers are higher than ever creating less and less time each day. In
our district, the general education teachers are now expected to provide tier 1 and 2 interventions
to students identified. Creating time for such intensive intervention will prove to be extremely
difficult. In all the articles Ive read, the general education teacher was not the one providing
instruction not to say that they couldnt. Time constraints dont allow for general education
teachers to provide the intense intervention. Also, a trained intervention specialist is the most
prepared to deliver this kind of instruction to students. These are all just a few implications of
this research and will continue to be a struggle in the next few years.

Research-based Action Plan

WTS 1 & 2

Page 11 of 21

Action Plan Summary Outline

1. The special education teacher will continue to research best practices of RTI and
document findings.
2. The teacher will share the research based evidence to support best practices in small
group collaboration with building administrator and/or school psychologist.
3. Develop a plan with administrator and special education team to determine what the
best outcome for students will be. This will also include possible conversations with the
superintendent and director of instruction to ensure that our model of delivery will be in
compliance with district policy.

Targeted Student Learning Objective(s)

1. Given a small group learning environment of no more than five students, the identified
students will demonstrate the ability to perform at or above the 25th percentile for reading
comprehension when compared to all fourth grade students.
2. Given a small group learning environment of no more than five students, the identified
students will demonstrate the ability to perform at or above the 25th percentile (or about 112
words per minute) for reading fluency when compared to all fourth grade students.

Task(s) and Essential Proficiency Criteria for Targeted Learning Objective(s)

1. Student will demonstrate the ability to perform 80% or higher on weekly curriculum
based summative assessments.
2. Criteria that prove proficiency in meeting Targeted Learning Objective(s)
a. Correct answers of 80% or higher on multiple choice questions.
b. Demonstrate complete sentences in short answer questions.
Method(s) to Assess Progress of Proficiency for Targeted Learning Objective(s)
1. Students will be assessed weekly by a percentage score to assess comprehension.
2. Students will be assessed weekly or bi-weekly with the AimsWeb Progress Monitoring
tool to assess reading fluency and comprehension.
3. Students data will be assessed on a monthly basis to reflect on best teaching practices.
Post-assessments
Instructional Insights Related to WTS and Targeted Student Learning Objectives

WTS 1 & 2

Page 12 of 21

One obstacle that remains to be problematic is determining who is servicing the

students with intervention. During the spring of 2015, it was acceptable for the special education
teacher to provide general education students with tier 2 interventions in the special education
resource room. The students loved coming to class, and made some significant gains to their
education. Now, our district is being directed to tier 2 interventions being provided within the
general education classroom; the special education teacher is allowed to provide intervention so
long as it is in the general education setting. This has easily started to become an issue of special
education teachers becoming glorified teacher assistants. This also created stresses and
resentment among general education and special education teachers because of the seemingly
unfair work load dispersal. The special education and general education teacher are going to have
to continue to collaborate and be creative in deciding who will be responsible for what
instruction, who will progress monitor, and who will report the information. I believe if this is
agreed upon before the interventions start, the teachers will have a positive working relationship
and the academic results for the student will yield positive results.
Comparison of Student Performance Related to Targeted Student Learning
Objectives
The national standards of reading fluency and comprehension are converted into
standard scores so that progress monitoring can occur to compare student data across the nation.
The national target for fourth grade students at the 25th percentile with AimsWeb progress
monitoring is a standard score of 115 words read per minute for fluency and a score of 15 on the
MAZE probe, which assesses reading comprehension. In our district, we chose to set our targets
for our students at the 25th percentile mark, as research shows that any score below that has a
significant probability for a referral to special education.
When I began the intervention with these students, their scores were far below the 25th
percentile. Around Christmas time, the students were rapidly approaching their goals, and it was
a very exciting time. When assessed in the spring of 2015, one out of the five students was
referred to special education and was found to have a learning disability. The remaining four
students either met or exceeded goals established at the beginning of the year. One of those
remaining four students was unable to reach the 25th percentile in reading fluency due to a
severe case of dyslexia; however, she was able to highly improve her fluency skills from her
baseline score.

WTS 1 & 2

Page 13 of 21

Comparison of Learning Environment While Learning Targeted Learning

Objectives
This comparison was probably the most pertinent to my research. The intervention
materials and choice of supplemental materials were not in question. Rather, I was curious to see
how the students performed on academic tasks in a separate environment other than their general
education classroom. The idea of separating the students from the classroom so that they can
engage and participate more in instruction, receive true differentiated instruction through the use
ipads and promethean board lesson plans that are not able to be provided within the general
education setting due to distractions, and lack of funds to provide technology in the general
education setting.
The outcome was a positive one. The students, by the end of the year, performed
significantly better on their assignments, and gained strategies, skills and most importantly,
confidence in their abilities. Each student had a meeting three times throughout the school year.
The first meeting began at the beginning when their individual personal learning plan was made,
midterm, and then an end of the year meeting. These students all expressed how much they liked
participating in the small group, and their regular education teachers reported that they would
constantly ask when it was time for them to leave for their group. Parents also reported that their
child expressed to them that they enjoyed the small group instruction and there was noticeable
increases in their childs grades and confidence. The personal learning plans were not IEPs, but a
short, two-page guide stating the goals and objectives for that student, how much time of
intervention they received, and reported quarterly data updates. In summary, after interviews
with the students, parents, teachers, and assessing student data, there is evidence to support that a
separate environment was highly effective in the academic and social emotional gains of these
students receiving intervention outside of the general education classroom.
Reflection of Entire Learning Process
Does a separate environment outside of the general education classroom provide a
struggling learner a better chance to succeed? This was the question that was researched. After
reading through many articles pertaining to tier two interventions and specifically focusing on
where they took place, I can say with confidence that, yes, a separate environment outside of the
general education classroom does enhance a students chances at success. Moreover, what
surprised me even more is the positive impact it had on students social emotional development
as well.

WTS 1 & 2

Page 14 of 21

What Worked and Why:

1. Properly evaluating student performance and comparing multiple sources of data was
essential in creating the intervention groups. This was essential so that the students werent
misidentified which happens all too often. In addition to consulting multiple sources of data,
collaboration with past year teachers was critical as well in determining whether or not the child
was in need of true academic intervention, or if their performance was due to exclusionary
factors.
2. Having an intervention group of no more than five students was also a critical
component. Studies show that intervention, specifically tier two and three interventions are
meant to be executed with no more than five students per group.
3. Creating a common time each day or every other day that is the same time and place
was crucial. These students needed a routine, and they also needed to be able to know their
schedule each day to reduce anxiety while enhancing structure. This is also, in my opinion,
believed to be best practice.
4. Following a schedule within the intervention group was helpful in creating successful
classroom management. Each day, Id write the routine of our class time on the white board so
the students could anticipate what was next. After a few weeks, student behaviors such as
blurting and interruptions were less and less.
5. Finally, differentiating instruction while still following the schedule was crucial to
keep the students engaged. I would follow the intervention guide of the materials given to me;
however, I supplemented or enriched the activity by creating lessons on the Promethean board
that directly corresponded to the curriculum.

What Did Not Work and Why:

1. Interruptions were an issue in the special education classroom. Having students with
significant disabilities sometimes created distractions for the intervention group. Many times
there were paraprofessionals who were coming in and out of the room to gather materials; these
interruptions were a distraction for the students.
2. Occasionally, students did not come in, and I would have to retrieve them from the
classroom if their teacher forgot to send them. This often created problems as we would get off
schedule and have to eliminate a scheduled activity for that day.
My Next Steps:

WTS 1 & 2

Page 15 of 21

1. My next step is to collaborate with the general education teachers and our
administrator to determine whether or not it is possible to continue with our model of services for
students without an IEP.
2. The final step will be to find a classroom or space other than the hallway and special
education classroom to provide academic interventions so that no laws are being broken.

References

Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G. (2004) Conflict Elaboration and cognitive outcomes.
Theory Into Practice 43, 23-30.
Kruse, L., Spencer, T.D., Olszewski, A., Goldstein, H. (2015) Small groups, big gains:
Efficacy of a tier 2 phonological awareness intervention with preschoolers with early
literacy deficits. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 17, 189-205.
Micari, M., Pazoz, P. (2014) Worrying about what others think: A social-comparison
concern intervention in small learning groups. Active Learning in Higher Education 15,
249-262.

WTS 1 & 2

Page 16 of 21

Artifact A
This is a piece of evidence that was used in determining the progress of one of the students
in the intervention group. As seen below, progress was monitored weekly or bi-weekly. This
particular assessment tool measured reading comprehension. This graph was presented to
parents, teachers and administrators at quarterly follow-up meetings.

WTS 1 & 2

Artifact B

Page 17 of 21

WTS 1 & 2

Page 18 of 21

This is a piece of evidence was used in determining the progress of one of the students in the
intervention group. As seen below, progress was monitored weekly or bi-weekly. This particular
assessment tool measured reading fluency. Each point of data represents how many words per
minute the student was able to correctly read. The green line shows errors. This graph was
presented to parents, teachers and administrators at quarterly follow-up meetings.

WTS 1 & 2

Page 19 of 21

WTS 1 & 2

Page 20 of 21