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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment