Response to Intervention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In education, Response to Intervention (RTI or RtI) is an academic approach used to provide early, systematic, and appropriately intensive supplemental instruction and support to children who are currently or may be at risk of performing below grade or age level standards. However, to better reflect the transition toward a more comprehensive approach to intervention, there has been a shift in recent years from the terminology referring to RTI to MTSS, which stands for "multi-tiered system of supports".[1] MTSS represents the latest intervention framework that is being implemented to systematically meet the wider needs which influence student learning and performance.

Description[edit]

The RTI approach encompasses tiered levels of support and interventions to adequately meet students' academic needs.[1] It was originally developed as a method for supporting students who appear below-grade level in demonstrating academic skills and identifying students with learning disabilities. However, there has been a shift in the labeling of RTI in schools and professional literature that reflects its adoption as one of the approaches contained within the broader Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS).[2]

Within the RTI process that is embodied by the MTSS framework, instruction is differentiated using varying tiers of intervention, progress monitoring of students' performance, and flexible groupings to meet the academic needs of students.[3] The level of support that is provided to individual students intensifies as the tiers increase in number.

Tier 1 intervention is the broadest tier of support that is provided to all general education students, which covers core content and grade-level standards. Instruction and the academic supports provided in this tier are differentiated to meet students' needs and learning styles.[3] Students who appear below-grade level on academic screening assessments will often qualify for Tier 2 intervention, which typically involves evidence-based interventions focused on specific content or skills, and some instruction in a small-group setting.[3] Standardized universal screeners and regular progress monitoring assessments are used to evaluate students' proficiency in performing specific skills, as well as determine any necessary modifications to the instruction or appropriate interventions for those appearing as below grade level.[3] Universal screeners are given to all students and help to identify those who may be at risk of falling below grade-level.[4] In a similar way, benchmark assessments are also administered to measure students' proficiency levels with performing certain skills, although typically given periodically at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year. Using both screeners and benchmark assessments helps to systematically identify those needing additional support who may appear below grade level, or are at risk of falling below grade level, and plan appropriate interventions. To evaluate students' learning more regularly, progress monitoring assessments are administered to assess students' proficiency in independently applying a specific skill and inform any adjustments to the instruction. Students who continue to perform below grade level on benchmark assessments, and show little to no response to the Tier 2 interventions, may then be found eligible for Tier 3 intervention, which consists of either small-group, or in some cases one-to-one, instruction.[3] Those who do not advance after receiving Tier 3 intervention(s) will qualify for a referral to special education.[3]

Using a tiered approach to intervention helps schools to determine students' specific instructional levels across subject areas and inform instructional support. Through administering educational assessments and conducting a critical analysis of the data collected, schools can provide academic support to students at an appropriate level of intensity under the RTI framework.

Whereas RTI focuses primarily on meeting the academic needs of students, MTSS takes into account other factors which influence student performance. A study of the nationwide implementation of MTSS reflected that a greater number of states in the U.S. are integrating MTSS to provide services to students with learning disabilities, English Language Learners, and academically advanced students.[1] MTSS offers educators a data-based approach to assessing students' current levels of academic performance and providing targeted interventions, while also aiming to promote their holistic growth.[1]

The systematic shift toward MTSS in schools provides educators with a framework that allows them to target a more diverse range of students' academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs by using data to inform intensive instructional supports and interventions.[5] MTSS has been adopted nationally as an umbrella term to reference a multi-tiered and more whole-child approach to meeting students' learning needs and supporting all areas of their development.[1] Whereas RTI focuses on providing tiered academic interventions, MTSS delivers a more comprehensive approach. As MTSS integrates components of both the RTI and PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports) frameworks, it produces challenges for schools to successfully balance and employ to improve student outcomes.[6] However, when implemented with fidelity and uses of best practices to support students across grade levels and subject areas, this framework can yield positive academic and behavioral results.[6]

Reasons for Implementation[edit]

There are at least four main reasons for implementing RTI to address the academic needs of students:[7]

  1. To increase achievement for all students
  2. To reduce racial and ethnic disproportionate representation of minority students in special education
  3. To increase collaboration and integration of general and special education
  4. To identify students with learning disabilities through a different lens than the IQ-achievement discrepancy model

A study which evaluated the effects of supplemental reading interventions under MTSS and RTI initiatives found that when Tier 2 intervention is integrated with high levels of fidelity, consistency, and intensity, it is possible for students’ reading outcomes to improve.[4] The same study supported the existing research surrounding the use of Tier 2 intervention to improve student reading performance, especially in schools with low reading achievements levels, and across varying school districts.[4] Setting reading goals that students are also made aware of can help them toward developing reading self-concept, which influences reading fluency skills and promotes the importance of goal setting in reading intervention programs.[8] Students involved in multiple-component reading intervention programs show significant improvement, and students in different socioeconomic, racial, and intellectual quotient groups make equivalent gains.[9]

The MTSS framework is also very useful when working with students who have severe emotional struggles. The structure and evaluation process for RTI encompassed by MTSS will help this particular group of students to be successful in the academic environment.[10]

The objective of response to intervention is to provide all students the additional time and support necessary to learn and perform at high levels.[11] The RTI process within MTSS can help to identify students who are at-risk, inform any adjustments needed to the instruction, monitor students' progress, and inform other necessary interventions.

When MTSS is implemented using tiered methods of assessments and interventions, schools can support the academic performance of students. Through research of MTSS, it has also been found that students' academic performance improved when the proper social-emotional and behavioral supports are implemented with fidelity.[1] Utilizing MTSS frameworks with the resources available to them, schools are able to respond to the comprehensive needs of students which impact their learning.

Fidelity of Implementation[edit]

When integrating an MTSS model, one essential criteria is that the instruction and interventions being delivered are conducted with fidelity.

Factors that can reduce fidelity include:[12]

  • The complexity of the interventions and the time required to implement them
  • Inaccessibility of required materials and resources
  • Low perceptions or expectations surrounding the effectiveness of a particular intervention
  • Low numbers, levels of expertise, or motivation among those who will be delivering the interventions

Factors that can increase fidelity include:[13]

  • Developing well-functioning professional learning communities
  • Using a universal screener that is brief, aligned with the curriculum, yields reliable data, and is validated for screening decisions
  • Utilizing a data-management system that is easily accessible by classroom teachers
  • Implementing interventions that address the skill deficits of students
  • Identifying and addressing class-wide needs
  • Establishing well-defined decision rules
  • Providing clear leadership from administration
  • Incorporating consistent training and professional development opportunities
  • Maintaining strong collaboration among key stakeholders in a flexible manner to improve student learning
  • Using a standard-protocol for determining and implementing Tier 2 interventions
  • Refraining from making entitlement (i.e., special education disability identification) decisions until the RTI system is well-established

By systematically integrating MTSS, schools are able to ensure that interventions are being provided appropriately to students within each of the three levels of support. When MTSS practices are implemented with consistency, studies have found evidence of positive academic and behavioral outcomes among students.[6] Schools that incorporate components of MTSS following a clear set of procedures are equipped to appropriately address a variety of students' behavioral, social-emotional, and academic needs.

Challenges Influencing Implementation Fidelity[edit]

Certain barriers exist in schools which can affect their ability to achieve adequate implementation fidelity of an MTSS framework. Although many schools may recognize the need to administer Tier 2 assessments and instruction, they are forced to fully consider the systems and supports that are required to deliver sustained MTSS practices prior to their implementation.[4] The successful integration of MTSS initiatives in schools is shaped by the context in which it they are being coordinated, when considering the existing programs and resources available, the potential staffing arrangements that can be assigned, and the decisions being made around instruction.[3] By recognizing the different structures and supports needed by the students, schools are able to properly prepare for their execution of MTSS.

Another challenge is the variation that can occur between schools’ models of MTSS, as they adjust the systems and supports that are put in place to meet the complex academic and behavioral needs of their students. Variability exists among schools' definitions of what qualifies as “intensive” instruction and interventions.[14] These definitions can be swayed by the varying data that is collected from using different assessments to evaluate their particular body of students. For schools to achieve success in their execution of MTSS, it is critical that there is a balance between the implementation fidelity and the customization of the systems and supports that are developed.[5] When designing MTSS models, schools follow a series of problem-solving and informed decision making. The use of data-informed decisions allows schools to determine whether their framework of MTSS is sufficient toward meeting the intended student achievement outcomes.[5] Utilizing a critical and systematic approach toward the adoption of an MTSS approach can help schools determine the specific interventions necessary to meet a range of students' academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs, and ensure its successful implementation.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f Zhang, Jingyuan; Martella, Ronald C; Kang, Sungwoo; Yenioglu, Busra Yilmaz (Fall 2023). "Response to Intervention (RTI)/Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): A Nationwide Analysis". Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. 7 (1): 26.
  2. ^ Gresham, F.; Reschly, D.; Shinn, M. R. (2010). "RTI as a driving force in educational improvement: Historical legal, research, and practice perspectives". In Shinn, M. R.; Walker, H. M. (eds.). Interventions for academic achievement problems in a three-tier model, including RTI. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. pp. 47–77.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Miesner, Helen, Rose; Blair, Elizabeth E.; Packard, Chiara C.; MACGREGOR, Lyn; Grodsky, Eric (August 2023). "Instructional Coordination for Response to Intervention: How Organizational Contexts Shape Tier 2 Interventions in Practice". American Journal of Education: 565–592.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b c d Coyne, Michael D.; Oldham, Ashley; Dougherty, Shaun M.; Leonard, Kaitlin; Koriakin, Taylor; Gage, Nicholas A.; Burns, Darci; Gillis, Margie. "Evaluating the Effects of Supplemental Reading Intervention within an MTSS or RTI Reading Reform Initiative Using a Regression Discontinuity Design". Exceptional Children. 84 (4): 350–67 – via EBSCOhost.
  5. ^ a b c Morrison, Julie Q.; Russell, Christine; Dyer, Stephanie; Metcalf, Terri; Rahschulte, Rebecca L. (July 2014). "Organizational Structures and Processes to Support and Sustain Effective Technical Assistance in a State-Wide Multi-Tiered System of Support Initiative". Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2 (3): 129–37.
  6. ^ a b c Scott, Terrance M.; Gage, Nicholas A.; Hirn, Regina G.; Lingo, Amy Shearer; Burt, Jon (2019). "An examination of the association between MTSS implementation fidelity measures and student outcomes". Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 63 (4): 308–316.
  7. ^ Sawyer, R.; Holland, D.; Detgen, A. "State policies and procedures and selected local implementation practices in response to intervention in the six southeast region states" (PDF). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, regional educational laboratory southeast. Retrieved Feb 6, 2015.
  8. ^ Quirk, M.; Schwaneflugel, P. J.; Webb, M. Y. (2009). "A short-term longitudinal study of the relationship between motivation to read and reading fluency skill in second grade". Journal of Literacy Research. 41 (2): 196–227. doi:10.1080/10862960902908467. PMC 2838245. PMID 20300541.
  9. ^ Morris, R. D.; Lovett, M. W.; Wolf, M.; Sevcik, R. A.; Steinbach, K. A.; Frijters, J. C.; Shapiro, M. B. (2012). "Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome". Journal of Learning Disabilities. 45 (2): 99–127. doi:10.1177/0022219409355472. PMC 9872281. PMID 20445204. S2CID 13388168.
  10. ^ Pearce, I. R. (2009). "Helping children with emotional difficulties: A response to intervention investigation" (PDF). The Rural Educator. 30 (2): 34–36.
  11. ^ Buffum, Austin; Mattos, Mike; Weber, Chris (October 1, 2010). "The Why Behind RTI". ascd.org.
  12. ^ Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
  13. ^ Burns, Matthew; Gibbons, Kimberly (2012). Implementing response to intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  14. ^ Weisenburgh-Snyder, Amy B.; Malmquist, Susan K.; Robbins, Joanne K.; Lipshin, Alison M. "A Model of MTSS: Integrating Precision Teaching of Mathematics and a Multi-Level Assessment System in a Generative Classroom". Learning Disabilities- A Contemporary Journal. 13 (1): 21–41 – via EBSCOhost.

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Response_to_Intervention&oldid=1222966374"