Response to Intervention - Research Paper Example

Ideas from Response to Intervention Introduction Response to intervention (RTI) is a mold for the review of the performance of operating schools with the resources required to realize maximum success from instruction giving to all the learners. The model is a replica of early intervention and prevention mechanisms aimed at offering to the different learners, especially those with special needs, the backup they need to succeed in education: to learn at the same rate and progress as other learners. The model introduces inclusiveness into the education model through introducing more accommodating models of instructions and a need-based allocation of the learning facilities to the targeted learners’ teams. One of the models concentration areas is addressing the learning difficulties detected in learners at earlier stages before they adjust to them, to the extent that they will need exposure to special education programs. From exposing students to high quality instruction models and interventions at the very initial stages of the problems detected, the model is able to prevent these subjects from falling behind their counterparts. This paper is an appraisal of RTI models to determine the ideas that are familiar, those that are new and intriguing, and those that seem confusing and impractical (Hale 16-27). Discussion Some of the assumptions adopted by the RTI model form the core aspect of learning of different students, and provide a framework for understanding the reality surrounding the learning ability of all learners. Some of the ideas contained in the assumptions adopted by RTI clearly define the dynamics that need to be introduced into the delivery of education towards realizing a more accommodative model of education for all learners. These ideas are discussed below (Sahlberg 167). The educational structure can successfully teach all learners – despite the imminent personality and intellectual variations between one learner and the other. From the study of Sahlberg (167), the ability of teachers to offer instructions from research based approaches depending on the success of the given model improves the performance of different students in a significant manner. The use of innovative models in offering instructions to learners can also accommodate both slow and fast learning students, including support of abstract ideas with diagrams, demonstrations and descriptions, all supposed to create better understanding. The problem-solving abilities of teachers also contribute greatly to the success of low-performing students as these are cultivated into the learning model. Some of the traits introduced into this approach include planning, reflection, evaluation and action to integrate what is taught at classes (Sahlberg 10). Based on these reviewed facts, it is clear that the introduction of research-based instructions, adopting those that work best, instructing using innovative models and cultivating instruction absorption models among the students can greatly influence the performance of different learners – both fast and slow. These facts, therefore, can be applied to prove the credibility of the idea presented by RTI that an effective learning system can effectively teach all students. From class and group work during my course, I have experienced the fact that student-based instruction models can foster the performance of different learners including those that are intellectually challenged. An example is a case where diagrams were greatly helpful in cultivating the success of group members, especially those who could not comprehend abstract ideas substantially (Sahlberg 167). RTI models also work on the basis of the principle that early intervention is vital towards avoiding the development of learning-based problems. From the case of Finnish schools explained in Sahlberg (155), the training of teachers to make them highly capable of detecting and diagnosing problems among their students, classrooms and schools has been a great step towards addressing the learning difficulties of different learners. This has been applied in the areas of teachers’ styles and class interactive models. Here, the teachers apply evidence-based alternatives to less effective models and solution models in the attempts to address the problem areas depicted in the different learners. After the adoption of an alternative approach, analysis and evaluation of the impacts of the implemented approach are determined so as to decide whether the approach should be changed or applied further (Sahlberg 155). From the evidence given here, teacher’s abilities are given the central role in detecting problems in students at earlier stages, hence the effective addressing of the problems or the problem causing factors. This case, therefore, shows the credibility of the RTI model in addressing student problems, a case that I witnessed at elementary school. The case involved a pupil who was neglected at home by the parents, which made the pupil feel and act distanced from other pupils. They also showed signs of absent-mindedness at class. However, after our grade five teacher drew closer to her, offering her extra coaching and moral support; the girl moved to top positions in class performance and showed improvement in other areas. The areas that improved included her tidiness, interaction with other pupils and response levels at class. From the case explained to support the RTI idea, it is true and applicable to learning environments as the addressing of the problem of the girl at an early stage improved her performance greatly. One of the ideas presented by RTI, which is new but intriguing is that the introduction of multi-tiered instruction delivery is helpful in addressing the learning problems displayed by learners. Despite the fact that this is a fairly new idea, the different tiers including offering instructions on the basis of evidence-based, methodically researched learning programs, offering skill development instructions and fostering basic skills like phonics and decoding, are proved to work. The credibility of the approach has been described by Bradley et al. (486), that students should be given quality instructions, have their progress evaluated from time to time, and those that do not show the expected results receive exposure to extra instructions. In the case of those who do not respond after rounds of instruction are administered, alternative or more specific models are considered – in this case, special education. From the focus of this model, it is evident that the multiple sets of instructions will serve to point out the learning challenges that some of the learners may have. This idea is intriguing, mainly because it focuses on the exposure of the learners to different sets of instructions, which serve to differentiate those that have learning problems in the different focal areas of learning. Also, from the methodical nature of the approach explained through this idea, it is clear that the underlying learning difficulties may be pointed out; thus, it is an area that should be further explored (Bradley et al. 486). RTI offers the idea that an effective problem solving approach should be applied when making decisions between tiers. This idea is new in the application and administration of an all-round education. However, the idea is highly intriguing as it focuses on the academic progress of each learner in deciding the tier that the learner should be exposed to. This idea is fully worth of support because it seeks to express that the individual traits of the different learners in the area of evidence-based instruction adjusting, skill developing instructions and the development of basic skills act as the key indicators in deciding the tier which is fit for them. For example, in a class where learners are required to read stories – those that have developed their reading and phonics capabilities may perform better as compared to those that have not developed their phonics skills. Therefore, this example serves to show that from collective evaluation a teacher may judge the one who performs better in the reading exercise as a better student, which is not necessarily the case. However, more light should be shed on this area as more information on the area will define more refined ways of differentiating the varied levels of performance (Reynolds and Sally 130). The RTI model of monitoring learning offers the idea that research-based interventions should be applied to the highest possible extent. This simply means that the administration of interventions should be based on the consideration of the differences evident in each of the learners to the level that they can produce the expected effect. This is a relatively new idea but highly intriguing in the way it approaches response intervention. For example, those students, whose problems are not addressed at tier one, where focus is given to the entire group of students, may be subjected to the second tier. The second tier involves the focus of small groups towards identifying the problem areas and administering the most effective instruction models. Among the students who show the expected performance at this tier level, there may not be any need for taking them to the third level tier. For the learners who do not show the expected results, at the second tier, they are taken to the third tier, where the focus is one-on-one with the instructor who offers instructions with special attention to the weakness areas of the particular leaner. Though the central focus of this idea is not a highly explored area, the method is highly effective as it addresses the different problems depicted by different learners, hence an area that deserves further exploration (Hubbell et al. 14). RTI models also present the idea that the monitoring of learner progress should be drawn to inform instruction models. According to Fuchs and Pamela, this is true as it helps teachers examine whether learners are benefiting from the ordinary instructional program, identifying those that are making adequate progress (34). From the evaluation, instructors draw from the progress displayed to assemble effective intervention styles for those not benefiting from the already evaluated models. Therefore, it is an approach that reflects the success of one instruction model towards determining the design of the desired structure; the model is likely to present the expected results (Hale 16-27). Though I have not been exposed to any first-hand experience depicting the application of the concept expressed through this idea, it is evident that it needs more explanation from empirical experimentation. This is the case as the performance depicted from the evaluation may not be fully representative of the progress of the learners. Therefore, this idea is confusing, considering that the detection of progress among the different learners may not be effectively explicative. An example here is the case where elementary students are required to recite a composition. In such an exercise, a learner whose phonics is not developed may not perform well in the exercise, though they may be excellent at internal reading. As a result, more research into the evaluation models to be used for the model should be carried out (Hale 16-27). RTI presents the idea that the data collected from the evaluation of learners should drive the decisions making process. This point is confusing mainly because it draws its significance from the data collected from the evaluation of the learners, which is based on non-empirically determinable facts. However, this confusion can be eliminated from making the learner evaluation process more empirical. This can be introduced through the usage of multiple models of evaluation, then generating an average of the performance of the different learners from an array of disciplines and skill-evaluation areas (Hale 16-27). Conclusion From the discussion on RTI: RTI models present a concept of evaluating the success of different learners from their exposure to different levels of learning including the class level, group level, and personal level, to tell whether learners show the need for special education. Some of the ideas presented by RTI, which are common and clearly comprehensible, include the following: that any educational structure can successfully accommodate all learners and that early intervention is very important in avoiding the development of learning disabilities. Some new and intriguing ideas presented by the model include that the introduction of a multi-tiered instruction model is helpful in addressing the learning problems of students. The standard that effective problem solving should be applied when making decisions between tiers is one of the new, intriguing ideas presented by the model. Other ideas presented by the model include that research-based interventions should be applied to the highest extent, learner progress is helpful in informing the model, and that the data collected should drive decision making processes. Works Cited Bradley, Lord et al. “Response to intervention.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 38. 6 (2005): 485–486. Print. Fuchs, Lynn, & Pamela Stecker. Scientifically Based Progress Monitoring. Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, 2003. Print. Hale, James. “Implementing IDEA with a Three-tier Model That Includes Response to Intervention and Cognitive Assessment Methods.” School Psychology Forum: Research and Practice 2.1 (2006): 16-27. Print. Hubbell, Mary et al. “Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works.” ASCD 1.2 (2007): 1–14. Print. Reynolds, Cecil, & Sally Shaywitz. “Response to Intervention: Ready or Not? Or, from Wait-to-fail to Watch-them-fail.” School Psychology Quarterly 24.5 (2009): 130-145. Print. Sahlberg, Pasi. “Education Policies for Raising Student Learning: The Finnish Approach.” Journal of Education Policy 2.7 (2007: 155- 177. Print. Read More