RT Interventions

Wilson, Faggella-Luby, & Wei (2013) present a cogent plan for Tier 3 Response to Intervention (RTI) for secondary students with reading disabilities, content, and pedagogy planning tools, content instruction, and instructional method implementation. Both research application lacks concerning Tier 3 RTI in high schools (Wilson et. al). RTI is curriculum that addresses the learning needs of all students that also includes screening and monitoring progress. Continuing, Wilson et. al define Tier 1 RTI, core curriculum for all students serving the needs of 80% of students, Tier 2 RTI, small group instructional intervention, serving the needs of 15% of students, and Tier 3 RTI, an intense one to one intervention for students who continue to struggle beyond Tiers 1 and 2, serving 5% of students. Wilson et al. provides information the reader needs to understand in the article without clutter, expressing their writing with economy (Zinsser, 2013). The article is unified in theme, gives enough information without giving too much, and follows a clear progression (Zinsser). “More simple, than complex” (Henson, 1999, p. 58), Wilson et. al’s article is an example of good writing.

Helping Children with Learning Disabilities Understand What They Read is an article by Regina G. Richards. Her article discusses the basic strategies and techniques that can be used for students with learning disabilities. The article states, a key component of comprehension is that the student must be actively

The intervention used first was the Peer-Mediated instruction with repeated reading (PRR). During this phase, the students were seated across from each other. The students were then given a copy of the passage, one in which to read, and the other in which to mark the time and note any errors observed, along with a stopwatch. Both students began reading from the selected text for the pair for a duration of twenty minutes at the beginning of the class. Next, the “paired reading” time consisted of each student taking turns reading using only a whisper. To ensure the fidelity of the intervention, measures were taken to ensure that one student didn’t have to be the first reader every time. During the read aloud, the student who wasn’t reading would follow protocol and read the following sentence “Stop. That word is _______. What word? Yes, ________. Please read that sentence again.” After the paired reading time, the reader would then be asked to read

Wave 3 is expected to establish priorities, analyse the results and review progress. This means that both teachers and specialists should be able to make it clear to parents and the child what the expectations are and how progress will be tracked. Teaching should be based on individualised assessments and their starting point along with strengths, weaknesses and learning styles thus allowing interventions tailored to every individual. Children with SLCN will likely have literacy and speaking intervention. Tracking will normally take place through regular reviews that have been incorporated into the learning programme.

The author believes that there are gaps in understanding to the RTI Tier 1 interventions with effective teaching. In addition, they belive there should be more research on positive behavioral support strategies. The authors belive there is not enough research on PBS. However, the authors believe PBS might be effective but they are concern with who can implement the

Parents play a huge role in the RTI process. The ASCA National Model (2012) tells us that the “parent must feel welcomed at the school and that their voice is valued” (p. 17). The purpose of RTI is to determine what students are struggling academically or behaviorally, and provide intervention. It is the job of the RTI team to determine if the interventions are successfully working (ASCA National Model, 2012, p. 73). Most parents want what’s best for their child, which includes a successful and positive school experience. Parental involvement is essential, because they can provide extra support at home to help their struggling student. For example, I had a student last year who was on the third-tier of the RTI process.

Recently in the field of education, a great emphasis has been put on equal access to education and academic success in the school setting. With laws like No Child Left Behind supporting this belief, there has been an increase in academic accountability and success, especially for minority students, in the areas of reading and mathematics. The population of students is increasingly diverse and according to Sun, Nam, and Vanderwood (2010), the population of English Language Learners (ELLs) has increased significantly, representing 5.1 million students or 10% of the total public school enrollment (p. 1). In this population of ELL students 76% of students are performing below grade level in English reading, which is concerning as foundational literacy is important to academic success (Sun, Nam, & Vanderwood, 2010, p. 1). With the increasing demands of accountability and performance and the significant growth of ELL students, Response to Intervention (RTI) has been implemented to support students learning needs. Response to Intervention is a multi-tier approach, which provides struggling learners with interventions to increase learning. In regards to Response to Intervention and ELLs, there is not as much research as is present for the

Response to Intervention, also known as RTI is a method made up of multiple tiers, to provide early recognition and aid of children with needs concerning to their behavior or learning. This process includes high quality teaching and general screening for all children in a mainstream classroom setting. The multiple tier systems of support, fits into the existing definitions for learning disabilities by classifying students into the tiers they require in order to achieve academic success based on their needs. Before a student enters their tiers, each student goes through a screening and progress monitoring to determine where they are in their educational setting. Once this has taken place and the data have been analyzed, students will be placed

I was able to interview Mr. West, the school counselor, at my placement about Response to Intervention (RtI). He stated that they use three different forms of intervention utilizing the three tier program. The first tier is started by the student’s teacher. She assesses the student and fills out paperwork that states the specific disability and what extra help she is providing. She will also document any health concerns, attendance issues and the best time to see the disability. She will then have the nurse process a vision and hearing test. If the student fails this exam then the RtI process is stopped until the student is seen by a doctor for these problems. If they pass the RtI process continues and the teacher must observe the student

There are arguments made for and against each diagnostic approach. It seems that the discrepancy model relies on the need to test in an official capacity before services can be provided. Thus, labeling a student with LD is a natural result of the testing. If the evaluations show a difference between intellect and achievement, it is generally concluded that the student has a learning disability. The RTI method relies more on a teacher’s observations and the cooperation of general education, special education, and service providers such as literacy specialists in order to provide accommodations for students (A. Turnbull, R. Turnbull, and Wehmeyer, 2010). Using a less formal approach means that labeling is not necessarily a central part of the process.

After presenting the data from content area diagnostic and district level assessments, as well as pertinent research related to this topic, the team expressed their interest and motivation to help close the achievement gaps in reading comprehension. In addition to our team, district level specialists and outside vendors have been contacted and will provide support and their expertise relating to improving student reading comprehension

For reading comprehension, measures indicated a statistically significant difference (t (16) = -3.646, p<.05) and an effect size correlation of r =.67. Fluency measures also showed a significant difference (t (16) = -4.440, p<.05) and an effect size correlation of r =.74. The Composite score combining reading comprehension

I interviewed Andrea Erickson who teaches reading, writing, and pre-algebra at Central High school to students who have mild and moderate disabilities. Her students have varying abilities and she makes many accommodations in order to ensure her student’s success. The varying learning problems Andrea has encountered within the reading and writing realm include reading difficulties, reading comprehension, problems with inferencing plots, problems with predicting plots, and connecting sentences improperly. In pre-algebra Andrea expressed problems with students connecting the dots. For example, a student would understand one concept, but would be incapable of connecting that concept to the next. From my experience at the Boys and Girls Club, I

Benjamin et al. (2017) found that consistent with their hypothesis ABRACADABRA did increase reading accuracy for students with autism. The researchers believe that programs like ABRA may enhance the willingness of children with autism to engage in instructional content (Benjamin et al., 2017). Children with autism often prefer repetition and predictability, which is heavily used in the ABRA program structure. In addition, Benjamin et al. (2017) found that because pre and posttest were generated from assessments created independently from ABRA, this means that this instructional method could be generalized to a broader set of reading material. Benjamin et al. (2017) also point out that because this intervention featured both computerized

In schools across the United States, education leaders are actively seeking ways to increase the academic achievement of all students, both with and without disabilities. Increased accountability for student achievement in accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has led to the greater need for the differentiation of instruction, collection of student data, and close monitoring of the data that is then used to drive instructional decisions. One such approach that “integrates instruction, intervention, and assessment” (Mitchell, Deshler, Lenz, 2012, p. 53) in the general education program is Response to Intervention (RtI).