crossing boundaries and initiating conversations about rti- understanding and applying...

8/4/2019 Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations About RTI- Understanding and Applying Differentiated Classroom Instruction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crossing-boundaries-and-initiating-conversations-about-rti-understanding-and 1/5

84The Reading Teacher, 63(1), pp. 84–87 © 2009 International Reading AssociationDOI:10.1598/RT.63.1.9 ISSN:0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online

READING RESEARCH INTO THE CLASSROOMREADING RESEARCH INTO THE CLASSROOM

Crossing Boundaries and InitiatingConversations About RTI:Understanding and ApplyingDifferentiated Classroom Instruction

Doris Walker-Dalhouse, Victoria J. Risko, with Cathy Esworthy,Ellen Grasley, Gina Kaisler, Dona McIlvain, and Mary Stephan

he reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004)

in the United States enables early identifica-

tion of students experiencing academic problems,

most often in reading, and a multi-tier instructional

plan before evaluating students for specific learn-

ing disabilities. This legislation allows for models

of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a method for

identifying students who will profit from differenti-

ated and appropriate instruction in the classroom. It

is expected that differentiated instruction will reducethe overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically

diverse students in special education placements or

students experiencing difficulties because of inad-

equate instruction instead of a learning disability.

Most states, including Tennessee and Wisconsin, are

currently developing RTI models.

As coauthors of this column, we represent differ-

ent areas of reading instructional practice: classroom

teachers, reading specialists who teach children and

provide district- and schoolwide professional devel-

opment, and teacher educators.We examine across geographical (Wisconsin and

Tennessee) and school boundaries (urban and subur-

ban) the current practices of teachers who are initiat-

ing RTI instruction and related research. We address

three goals for RTI instruction, goals that were also

addressed by the International Reading Association’s

(IRA) Commission on RTI (2009): providing sys-

tematic assessment of student performance, differ-

entiated instruction, and high-quality professional

development.

Systematic Assessmentto InformDifferentiated Instruction

Although no specific assessments are required by

the IDEA legislation, some states or school districts

use a screening instrument to identify students’reading abilities and needs. Often this screening

tool is narrowly conceived, measuring a small set

of skills (e.g., letter sounds, rapid letter naming, oral

reading fluency) limiting its usefulness for data-

based instructional planning. A comprehensive as-

sessment is needed for identifying most appropriate

instruction.

Some states are choosing one assessment tool for

three purposes: screening, instructional planning,

and progress monitoring. The certified RTI model in

Minnesota uses the Observation Survey of Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2002) for all three purposes; thus,

time is well spent collecting data with one instrument

on multiple aspects of children’s literacy develop-

ment (Reading Recovery Council of North America,

2009). The Wisconsin school represented here uses

the Classroom Assessment Based on Standards to

provide feedback on student performance and to

identify struggling readers. Additional assessment



© 2009 JupiterImagesCorporation

Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations About RTI

measures vary according to grade level. The K–3

teachers use the On-The-Mark Assessment Kit (Wright

Group, 2008) to measure word study skills, sight word

fluency, and comprehension. Teachers add running

records to monitor student progress as well as infor-

mal observations of students during small-group in-

struction. Our fifth-grade teacher in Wisconsin usesreading inventories and describes herself as a “real

numbers person” who collects multiple forms of data

to plan for small-group instruction.

The reading specialists and classroom teachers

in the Tennessee school district administer several

assessments that go beyond a screening instru-

ment that focuses primarily on fluency and phonics.

Similar to the Wisconsin fifth -grade teacher, these

additional measures include individual reading in-

ventories that assess oral reading and silent reading,

word identification skills and strategies, vocabulary,

and comprehension, including literal and deep un-

derstandings of texts. In both states, assessments are

formative and aligned with state and local standards.

Assessment tools that are multidimensional and on-

going, and that go beyond tests of single skills areas

are most optimal for meeting RTI goals (McIntosh,

Graves, & Gersten, 2007).

Providing Differentiated

and Appropriate InstructionIntense and differentiated instruction that is data

based and appropriately implemented can mediate

reading problems (O’Connor & Simic, 2002). Many

states adopting RTI use three tiers of intervention

(Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009), with

differentiated instruction for all students in the class-

room initiated in Tier 1 based on assessments of

students’ current levels of performance. Additional,

intensive, and systematic instruction is provided at

Tiers 2 and 3, if reading problems persist.

In the Wisconsin and Tennessee schools of thecoauthors, differentiated instruction has long been

an important part of classroom literacy instruction.

Teachers are implementing differentiated instruction

through guided reading or reading and writing work-

shop formats with texts chosen to match students’

abilities and skill needs and increase the amount of

daily reading (Allington, 2001). Minilessons during

whole-class instruction target skills and strategies

that are then practiced with teacher guidance in small

groups with leveled texts. Analysis of applications or

reteaching occurs during individual conferences or

additional small-group work. This instruction mirrors

procedures described as highly effective by McIntosh

et al. (2007) after examining teaching for Tiers 1 and

2 of RTI. Important within their study was the con-sistency and predictability of these instr uctional

routines.

In the Wisconsin classrooms, reading materials

are chosen to correspond to both instructional levels

and content themes; thus, shared reading events

and literacy instruction provide access to

vocabulary and content for students

who may not be reading these higher

level texts during guided reading.

Literacy workstations (Diller,

2005) are also used to re-

inforce core skills and todifferentiate classroom

work, whi le home-

work is differentiated

by student needs, re-

corded on labels, and

placed in homework

notebooks.

In the Wisconsin and

Tennessee schools, stu-

dents select materials on

the basis of their interests,recommended in differen-

tiating instruction (Tobin,

2008), for independent reading,

partner reading, and peer group

discussions. Instruction focuses on

multiple skills including both comprehen-

sion (e.g., use of strategies) and word study (e.g.,

use of keywords and rimes from the Integrated

Strategies Approach; Allen, 1998). Instruction is evi-

dence based (IRA, 2002), aligned with state and dis-

trict standards, systematic, and focused on specific

areas of instructional needs. The long-term goal isteachers assuming responsibility for adjusting in-

struction according to students’ specific needs rath-

er than following a predetermined skill sequence

that may not match students’ development. This

form of teacher responsiveness requires careful

guidance and expertise (McIntosh et al., 2007) but,

optimally, provides timely mediation of problems

when they occur.



86 The Reading Teacher Vol. 63, No. 1 September 2009

In conclusion, RTI holds great promise for stu-

dents experiencing reading difficulties for its empha-

sis on prevention rather than failure.

ReferencesAllen, L. (1998). An integrated strategies approach: Making word

identification instruction work for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher , 52(3), 254–268.

Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling read-

ers: Designing research-based programs. White Plains, NY:

Longman/Pearson.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W.N., Peaster, L.G., & Saunders, L. (2009).

Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot

of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 85 –95.

doi:10.1177/0022219408326214

Clay, M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achieve-

ment . Plymouth, NH: Heinemann.

Diller, D. (2005). Practice with purpose: Literacy work stations for

grades 3–6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Drame, E.R., & Xu, Y. (2008). Examining sociocultural factors in

response to intervention models. Childhood Education, 85 (1),

26–32.

Gravois, T.A., & Rosenfield, S.A. (2006). Impact of instructional

consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and place-

ment of minority students in special education. Remedial and

Special Education, 27 (1), 42–52. doi:10.1177/074193250602700

10501

Haager, D., & Mahdavi, J. (2007). Teacher roles in implementing

interventions. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.),

Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention

(pp. 245–264). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,

Pub.L.108-466.

International Reading Association. (2002). What is evidence-

based reading instruction? (Position statement). Newark,

DE: Author. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from www.reading.org/Libraries/Position_Statements_and_Resolutions/ps1055

_evidence_based.sflb.ashx

International Reading Association Commission on RTI. (2009).

Working draft of guiding principles. Retrieved March 29, 2009,

from www.reading.org/General/Publications/ReadingToday/

RTY-0902-rti.aspx

Literacy Collaborative. (2009). Research of program effectiveness.

Retrieved March 30, 2009, from www.literacycollaborative.

org/research/findings/

McIntosh, A.S., Graves, A., & Gersten, R. (2007). The effects of

response to intervention on literacy development in multiple-

language settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3),

197–212.

O’Connor, E.A., & Simic, O. (2002). The effect of Reading Recovery

on special education referrals and placements. Psychology in

the Schools, 39(6), 635–646. doi:10.1002/pits.10061

Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2009). Reading

Recovery and IDEA legislation: Early Intervening Service (EIS)

and Response to Intervention (RTI). Retrieved March 29, 2009,

from www.readingrecovery.org/pdf/reading_recovery/SPED

_Brief-07.pdf

Richards, C., Pavri, S., Golez, F., Canges, R., & Murphy, J. (2007).

Response to intervention: Building the capacity of teachers

to serve students with learning difficulties. Issues in Teacher

Education, 16(2), 55–64.

Providing High-QualityProfessional Development

Professional development is essential when imple-

menting any systemic change. For RTI, in particular,

communication and shared decision making is essen-

tial (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007). Classroom teachersneed sustained support in their efforts to monitor stu-

dent progress and determine effectiveness of instruc-

tion, in determining how to use daily observational

data to identify modifications that may be required

(Richards, Pavri, Golez, Canges, & Murphy, 2007),

and determining how to address time management,

especially in upper grades where departmental orga-

nizations can constrain instructional schedules and

limit opportunities for individualizing instruction.

One professional development approach, applied

by the Tennessee reading specialists, provides for co-planning by reading specialists and classroom teach-

ers, demonstrations of implementation of planned

instruction, and gradual release of teaching responsi-

bility to the classroom teacher with feedback and ad-

ditional cycles of coteaching (Literacy Collaborative,

2009). Observations and coaching by reading spe-

cialists are also recommended as follow-up options

for supporting teachers and ensuring that the inter-

vention principles are being implemented (Haager &

Mahdavi, 2007).

Ongoing professional development is needed

with attention to instruction, materials, and assess-

ments that are especially appropriate for students

with cultural and linguistic differences (Drame &

Xu, 2008). A problem-solving model that emphasizes

one-to-one professional development and facilitation

by a designated case manager, preferably a reading

specialist, is recommended to teach teachers more

effective classroom intervention strategies. For ex-

ample, the problem-solving, team-driven approach

(Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006), which employs instruc-

tional consultation teams, was found to be effective

in reducing the number of African American, specialeducation referrals and is proposed as one way to

help teachers differentiate instruction based on so-

ciocultural factors. Traditional inservice professional

development programs that are unresponsive to these

factors will not help teachers gain the knowledge and

skills needed to provide high-quality instruction for

all students, especially culturally and linguistically

diverse students (Xu & Drame, 2008).

crossing boundaries and initiating conversations about rti- understanding and applying...

Documents