Anda di halaman 1dari 5

READING RESEARCH INTO THE CLASSROOM

Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations About RTI: Understanding and Applying Differentiated 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 identification of students experiencing academic problems, most often in reading, and a multi-tier instructional plan before evaluating students for specific learning disabilities. This legislation allows for models of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a method for identifying students who will profit from differentiated and appropriate instruction in the classroom. It is expected that differentiated instruction will reduce the overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education placements or students experiencing difficulties because of inadequate instruction instead of a learning disability. Most states, including Tennessee and Wisconsin, are currently developing RTI models. As coauthors of this column, we represent different areas of reading instructional practice: classroom teachers, reading specialists who teach children and provide district- and schoolwide professional development, and teacher educators. We examine across geographical (Wisconsin and Tennessee) and school boundaries (urban and suburban) the current practices of teachers who are initiating RTI instruction and related research. We address three goals for RTI instruction, goals that were also addressed by the International Reading Associations (IRA) Commission on RTI (2009): providing systematic assessment of student performance, differ-

entiated instruction, and high-quality professional development.

Systematic Assessment to Inform Differentiated 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 databased instructional planning. A comprehensive assessment 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 childrens literacy development (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

84

The Reading Teacher, 63(1), pp. 8487 DOI:10.1598/RT.63.1.9

2009 International Reading Association ISSN:0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online

measures vary according to grade level. The K3 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 informal observations of students during small-group instruction. Our fifth-grade teacher in Wisconsin uses reading 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 instrument that focuses primarily on fluency and phonics. Similar to the Wisconsin fifth-grade teacher, these additional measures include individual reading inventories that assess oral reading and silent reading, word identification skills and strategies, vocabulary, and comprehension, including literal and deep understandings of texts. In both states, assessments are formative and aligned with state and local standards. Assessment tools that are multidimensional and ongoing, and that go beyond tests of single skills areas are most optimal for meeting RTI goals (McIntosh, Graves, & Gersten, 2007).

Providing Differentiated and Appropriate Instruction


Intense and differentiated instruction that is data based and appropriately implemented can mediate reading problems (OConnor & Simic, 2002). Many states adopting RTI use three tiers of intervention (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009), with differentiated instruction for all students in the classroom 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 the coauthors, differentiated instruction has long been an important part of classroom literacy instruction. Teachers are implementing differentiated instruction through guided reading or reading and writing workshop 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 consistency and predictability of these instructional 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 vocabular y and content for students who may not be reading these higher level texts during guided reading. Literacy workstations (Diller, 2005) are also used to reinforce core skills and to differentiate classroom wo r k , w h i l e ho m e work is differentiated by student needs, recorded on labels, and placed in homework notebooks. In the Wisconsin and Tennessee schools, students select materials on the basis of their interests, 2009 JupiterImages recommended in differenCorporation tiating instr uction ( Tobin, 2008), for independent reading, partner reading, and peer group discussions. Instruction focuses on multiple skills including both comprehension (e.g., use of strategies) and word study (e.g., use of keywords and rimes from the Integrated Strategies Approach; Allen, 1998). Instruction is evidence based (IRA, 2002), aligned with state and district standards, systematic, and focused on specific areas of instructional needs. The long-term goal is teachers assuming responsibility for adjusting instruction according to students specific needs rather 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.

Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations About RTI

85

Providing High-Quality Professional Development


Professional development is essential when implementing any systemic change. For RTI, in particular, communication and shared decision making is essential (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007). Classroom teachers need sustained support in their efforts to monitor student progress and determine effectiveness of instruction, 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 organizations can constrain instructional schedules and limit opportunities for individualizing instruction. One professional development approach, applied by the Tennessee reading specialists, provides for coplanning by reading specialists and classroom teachers, demonstrations of implementation of planned instruction, and gradual release of teaching responsibility to the classroom teacher with feedback and additional cycles of coteaching (Literacy Collaborative, 2009). Observations and coaching by reading specialists are also recommended as follow-up options for supporting teachers and ensuring that the intervention principles are being implemented (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007). Ongoing professional development is needed with attention to instruction, materials, and assessments 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 example, the problem-solving, team-driven approach (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006), which employs instructional consultation teams, was found to be effective in reducing the number of African American, special education referrals and is proposed as one way to help teachers differentiate instruction based on sociocultural 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).

In conclusion, RTI holds great promise for students experiencing reading difficulties for its emphasis on prevention rather than failure. References
Allen, L. (1998). An integrated strategies approach: Making word identification instruction work for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher, 52(3), 254268. Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: 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), 8595. doi:10.1177/0022219408326214 Clay, M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Plymouth, NH: Heinemann. Diller, D. (2005). Practice with purpose: Literacy work stations for grades 36. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Drame, E.R., & Xu, Y. (2008). Examining sociocultural factors in response to intervention models. Childhood Education, 85(1), 2632. Gravois, T.A., & Rosenfield, S.A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 4252. 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. 245264). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub.L.108-466. International Reading Association. (2002). What is evidencebased 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 multiplelanguage settings. Learning Disabilit y Quarterly, 30(3), 197212. OConnor, E.A., & Simic, O. (2002). The effect of Reading Recovery on special education referrals and placements. Psychology in the Schools, 39(6), 635646. 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), 5564.

86

The Reading Teacher

Vol. 63, No. 1

September 2009

Tobin, R. (2008). Conundrums in the differentiated literacy classroom. Reading Improvement, 45(4), 159169. Wright Group. (2008). On-the-mark assessment kit. Desoto, TX: Wright/Pearson. Xu, Y., & Drame, E. (2008). Culturally appropriate context: Unlocking the potential of response to intervention for English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(4), 305311. doi:10.1007/s10643-007-0213-4

Esworthy is a reading specialist at Crockett Elementary School, Brentwood, TN, USA; e-mail

cathye1@wcs.edu. Grasley teaches at Elm Creative Arts Elementary School, Milwaukee, WI, USA; e-mail grasleej@milwaukee.k12.wi.us. Kaisler also teaches at Elm Creative Arts Elementary School; e-mail kaislegm@milwaukee.k12.wi.us. McIlvain is a reading specialist at Edmondson Elementary School, Brentwood, TN; e-mail donam@wcs.edu. Stephan teaches at Elm Creative Arts Elementary School; e-mail stephamc@milwaukee.k12.wi.us.

The department editors welcome reader comments. Victoria J. Risko teaches at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; e-mail Victoria.j.risko@vanderbilt.edu. Doris WalkerDalhouse teaches at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA; e-mail doris.walkerdalhouse@marquette.edu.

Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations About RTI

87

Anda mungkin juga menyukai