Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary, Research Paper Example

Introduction

This is a position discussion evaluating the advantages of the response to intervention (RTI) educational model. Specific features will be explored. They encompass the instruction focus itself,  research tools, intervention strategies, students’ progress/ monitoring and comparison of another model. Response to intervention (RTI) is a modern strategy developed to facilitate learning among students who have been diagnosed with special learning and irregularities. The model is still being researched for maximum efficacy.

Instruction

Instruction is impacted by the RTI model in several ways and at many levels. For example, the RTI model caters towards bridging the gap between instruction required in the twenty-first century special education philosophy and general educational models. It has been extended into the general education framework to encompass research/ evidence-based interventions and exclusive periodic student progress monitoring techniques. Ultimately, data retrieved during instruction is further applied to the decision making process (Shinn, 2007).

Further, instructional modifications are conducted as relevant to improve learning in the special education context. As it pertains to the instruction impact precisely, RTI functions to eliminate from classroom instruction profile, delivery of content or strategies that may work, replacing them with content and techniques that do work given the evidence obtained from profound extensive scientific research practices (Shinn, 2007).

There are several advantages to be obtained when RTI is used in the classroom and educational system alike. It is a wonderful intervention for twenty first century teachers of special education discipline. As an education it appears to me, however, that the greatest advantage to both student and educational system is the privilege to conduct pre and post test evaluations of the student’s behavior. In this way students will learning irregularities are discovered very early and the dysfunction can be addressed adequately. The student is saved and the educational system reduces cost on irrelevant instruction (Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2007).

The differences or changes in classroom instruction after using the RTI model are immense. One such difference or change is that it removes inadequate inconsistent instructions from the classroom. This is accomplished through feedback that directs the instruction rather than one emerging from a curriculum that is nonaligned to the students’ needs. Essentially, these gaps are closed as parents; teacher and school administrators collaborate in producing the best instruction model for the student’s benefit. School-wide instructional goals are transformed with the RTI model by allowing participation of a wider community of stake holders. RTI becomes a student-centered goal oriented instructional development guide (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

Research tools

The specific evidence-based research tools applied in the RTI model include Universal screening and progress monitoring. These tools measure student’s performance in core subjects at any grade level. The subjects are usually mathematics, language arts, reading, social behavior and science. The Universal screening tool evaluates students’ competency in those areas to determine whether they are at risk of failing. After the diagnostic assessment instruction is designed to enhance performance with the goal of upgrading to normalcy or above. Progress monitoring is the other tool applied (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

It is intended to improve performance based on tier criteria. The tier criteria measurements predict whether the interventions are effective or need to be modified. It makes a great difference because there are a variety of measurements, which are applied. These tools are notable absent from the general education curriculum. Tests seem to be the only reliable performance measurement for student not challenged by learning irregularities. These students do not generally performance at an average on the standardized testing techniques. Therefore,  performance monitoring while being unique offers hope to students with learning difficulties (Gresham,  Reschly & Shinn, 2010).

Intervention

Intervention chart three tiers

The intervention protocol has three levels or tiers. For the purposes of this position paper emphasis will be placed on tiers 11 and 111. Tier 1 applies universal screening to develop interventional guides. The instructions are general catering for students with a very high aptitude level, which accounts for 80-90% of the school population.  Interventions are created applying problem solving mechanisms. Tier 11 interventions are developed as supplemental catering for 5-10% of the school’s population. It is designed with the formula of instruction + targeted interventions. These could range from literary support in cases of reading difficulties to mathematical interpretation irregularities (Charles & Dexter, 2011).

Experts have identified the focus of tier 11 is to monitor student’s progress in tier 1.  Guidelines are developed and students are evaluated more regularly to determine if extra interventions are necessary or they have moved into the tier 1 level.  Instruction usually last 30 minutes per day and is conducted in small groups.  The duration is 3 -4 times per week.  In tier 111 interventions is intensive, more explicit and individualized. These students showed very little or no progress in tiers 1 and 11 (Charles & Dexter. 2011).

Monitoring and interventions during tier 11 did result in improvement so tier 11 aims at administering core instruction + special intervention. The program encompasses comprehensive evaluations. Through these assessment techniques experts determine whether the intervention is effective or not. Importantly, tier 111 is offered outside of the regular curriculum lasting about 9 -12 weeks in two 30 minutes sessions daily. However, frequency is influenced by the student’s receptivity to the intervention (Gresham et.al, 2010).

Monitoring students’ progress

If there is no monitoring of students’ progress throughout the RTI implementation process the entire project would be futile. Essentially, the purpose of RTI is to facilitate the learning process in students who are challenged in   their receptivity of basic academic and behavior skills. The three tier process, especially, tier 11 is designed to monitor if student have progressed to tier 1 or regressed into tier 111 intensive intervention category. Monitoring affects intervention by modifying instructions that the student no longer needs or upgrade those, which have been most beneficial. One of the core assumptions of RTI is that the educational system could teach every child. It is only through progress monitoring tools that educators could evaluate if the programs are effective. Ultimately, progress monitoring mechanisms are mandatory for continued instruction modification. Specific measures of behavior and skills determine if the intervention, which occurred was enough or insufficient (Ruiz, 2012).

 Comparison to discrepancy model

The three tier dispensation of the RTI model includes specialized instructions for students with adequate learning abilities as well as those at risk. Besides, RTI advocates that there be alternative evidence-based screening measures apart from universal screening to scientifically identify specific learning irregularities. RTI was adapted to facilitate instruction for students with learning difficulties, but its efficacy forged implementation in the general curriculum (Charles & Dexter. 2011).

Discrepancy model is also a special education adaptation, but specifically addresses students with reading difficulties. RTI extends beyond the reading scope into behavior and other academic subjects considered basic. It is considered filling the educational gaps left open by the discrepancy model, which caters specifically for students’ diagnosed as dyslexic. Further, criticisms of the discrepancy model are that while it is expected to detect learning ability based on a IQ criterion it is simply a ‘wait to fail’ adaption rather than ‘prevent failure’ one as in the RTI model. Students are not evaluated for specific interventions. Reading disabilities do not yet have rigorous resolution interventions as in RTI. Conclusively, RTI seems to be a better model at addressing learning behavior and ability irregularities (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

Conclusion

This position document relating the advantages of response to intervention (RTI) examined the awesomeness of this model. It has saved many students who would have been lost in the regular school system being labeled dyslexic or disabled mentally. The progress monitoring tool ensures that student receive the most appropriate intervention applicable to their specific needs. One of the core assumptions of RTI is that the educational system could teach every child and progress evaluation tool ensures that this occurs.

Essentially, RTI removes inadequate inconsistent instructions from the classroom through consistent feedback that directs the instruction rather than using one emerging from a curriculum that is nonaligned to the students’ needs. As such, being a twenty-first century attempt at offering an equal learning opportunity to every student. When measured in relation to the discrepancy model it appears to be more applicable to the educational system responsibilities.

References

Charles, H., & Dexter. D. (2011). Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary. Theory Into Practice 50.1 (2011): 4-11.

Fuchs, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). A Framework for Building Capacity for Responsiveness to Intervention. School Psychology Review, 35 (4), 621-626.

Gresham, F, Reschly, D., & Shinn, M. (2010). RTI as a driving force in educational improvement: Historical legal, research, and practice perspectives. Bethesda, MD: National  Association of School Psychologists

Reynolds, R., & Shaywitz, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Remediation, perhaps, diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 44-47.

Ruiz, M. (2012).Training school personnel on implementation of check-in–check-out behavioral interventions. Communique, 41(1), 7-10.

Shinn, M. R. (2007). Identifying Students at Risk, Monitoring Performance, and Determining Eligibility Within Response to Intervention: Research on Educational Need and Benefit from Academic Intervention. School Psychology Review, 36 (4), 601-617.

Jimerson, S.  Burns, M., & VanDerHeyden, A.  (2007). Response to Intervention at School: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention.  New York: Springer