Response to Intervention: Questions and Answers
Gateways to Experience Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49: 42–45, 2013 Copyright © Kappa Delta Pi ISSN: 0022-8958 print/2163-1611 online DOI 10.1080/00228958.2013.759851
Response to Intervention: Questions and Answers by David M. Monetti, Jennifer E. Breneiser, and Michael G. McAuley
42
KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD u JAN–MAR 2013
WWW.KDP.ORG
When school administrators talk about implementing a Problemsolving/Response to Intervention (PS/ RtI) framework, the idea often elicits apprehension from teachers who may feel unprepared to meet this challenge. Teacher preparation programs do not provide explicit instruction or information regarding PS/RtI. New teachers are placed into schools for student teaching (or as new teachers) with the expectation they know how to apply PS/RtI. As legislation adopts the language of a multi-tiered student support system (i.e., aligning the efforts of academic and behavioral intervention with high-quality core instruction), educators must adjust professional practice to meet the needs of the students instead of the system. As a result, teachers are being asked to reflect on their skill sets in ways unlike any other time in modern education history. A better understanding of the basic mechanisms of the PS/RtI framework will help educators address students’ diverse learning and behavioral needs. It will also help educators who may view PS/ RtI as a compliance matter rather than an informative educational process that helps children reach their goals (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2010). Here are some of the common questions from educators who are learning about PS/RtI, as well as what best practice would indicate in response.
Q. What Is PS/RtI? A. PS/RtI is described as a tiered service
delivery model that provides increasingly intensive and targeted instruction based on student need. Student need is determined through ongoing progress monitoring in which the teacher collects information about what students do and do not understand during the learning process. Buffum, Mattos, and Weber (2009) stressed the importance of using
student performance to continuously evaluate student progress toward important learning outcomes. Many teachers are already using important features of PS/RtI in their instruction. For example, teachers prepare standards-based lessons for students and collect information regarding students’ reactions to those lessons, including actual performance and behavioral responses. However, teachers often see PS/RtI as something separate—and intimidatingly technical—from their dayto-day teaching and assessment practices. At its essence, PS/RtI is an approach that matches instruction to students’ needs, a process that some teachers already accomplish through differentiated strategies. Typically, PS/RtI uses a three-tiered model to provide support to students— support that ranges from whole-group classroom instruction to individualized intervention. The first tier in any PS/ RtI model represents the high-quality core instruction that students receive in general education classrooms. A second tier generally represents additional support provided to students in a smallgroup setting in order to maximize resources in which intervention is targeted to students’ shared needs as identified by their performance. A third tier typically represents the implementation of individualized interventions that increase in frequency and intensity and align with existing supports; that is, in a third tier, the interventions and progress monitoring occur more frequently than in tier 2. Teachers identify that additional tiers are necessary for any given student when the student does not thrive at his or her current tier of instruction. As student data indicates a need for increasing levels of remediation/instruction aligned with core instruction (i.e., adding layers of support beyond tier 1), students experience an increase in the amount of instructional time, targeted instructional focus, and
more frequent monitoring of their performance. In the PS/RtI framework, when data reveal that students are not learning concepts and skills, teachers must consider how instruction can be altered to better meet student needs. While necessary, progress monitoring has the potential to create conflict among educators, particularly if there is not a culture of trust in the school. While educational practice always has included some form of student performance evaluation, it has typically been a subjective and nonuniform system. If the perception of punishment is used to maintain authority, this will result in an environment that lacks trust and respect and will fail to increase capacity for teachers to focus on student performance. Instead, teachers should receive continuous and high-quality professional development opportunities that are focused on improving instructional practice and implementing the PS/RtI framework (Pascopella, 2010). In some settings, teachers are only given brief in-service training sessions on PS/RtI and then are expected to use the approach without specific training on how PS/ RtI and good instructional practice are aligned. David M. Monetti is a Professor of educational psychology at Valdosta State University. His research interests include epistemology of learning, gifted education, RtI, and service learning. He recently co-authored a book with Bruce Tuckman entitled Educational Psychology (Wadsworth, 2011). Jennifer E. Breneiser is an Associate Professor in Valdosta State University’s department of psychology and counseling. Her area of specialization is cognitive psychology. Her research interests include memory and metacomprehension, as well as applying cognitive psychology to education. Michael G. McAuley is an RtI Facilitator for the statewide Problem-solving/Response to Intervention Project of the University of South Florida. His work focuses on districtlevel development and implementation of PS/ RtI structures that increase achievement and behavioral outcomes for all students. KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD u JAN–MAR 2013 43
Gateways to Experience Q. How Does PS/RtI Work? A. Problem solving and collaboration
make the PS/RtI framework a powerful educational tool. For teachers to effectively problem solve, they must have a clear sense of student outcomes as a result of their instruction. Problem solving is a way of thinking that helps educators find a “best” outcome for students. Teachers engage in problem solving by identifying problems that students are having and matching strategies to student needs. However, problem solving is most effective when teachers reach outside their own classrooms. Collaboration is important and should occur at every tier of PS/RtI. For example, collaboration at tier 1 often happens as a department or grade-based group of teachers participate in data chats with administrators regarding student performance. At tier 1, teachers also collaborate in professional learning communities that focus on professional development and overall school improvement. Specifics of collaboration are beyond the scope of the present article, but see Plauborg (2009), Hirsto (2010), and Graham (2007) for further information. As the process moves into tiers 2 and 3, individuals are added to the problem-solving process with specialized expertise in areas where students are having difficulty. For example, a school psychologist, special education expert, or master teacher might participate in the process if a student’s performance suggests the possibility of a learning disability; a speech-language therapist might participate if a student’s performance suggests a language disability. For example, if a small group of students are exhibiting difficulty in identifying rhyming words (phonemic awareness), the teacher may use a tier 2 strategy where those students are taught
44
KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD u JAN–MAR 2013
consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words in families to further identify rhyming words (Gates & Yale, 2011). An example of one such word family would be bat, sat, cat, rat, hat. The key is that the students in small groups are receiving additional word family instruction above and beyond the general instruction. This type of successful collaboration often occurs in professional learning communities. However, school leadership plays a crucial role. If school leadership does not build these opportunities into the master schedule and foster a sense of trust and support, then faculty members struggle to find convenient and predictable times to meet and adequately discuss instruction, intervention, and student learning. If faculty members cannot establish regular time for collaboration, approaches like PS/RtI tend to flounder and fail. PS/RtI is a strong approach because it uses collaboration to draw on the strengths of a group to eliminate barriers to student success. In PS/RtI, the teacher isn’t solely responsible for identifying issues and crafting solutions; instead, the group members collaborating in the PS/RtI team support each teacher.
Q. Isn’t PS/RtI Only for Getting Students into Special Education?
A.
Some teachers have noted the misconception that PS/RtI is only a special education eligibility process or an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) instructional program. The most likely source of this impression is a result of revisions to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act signed in 2004. This revision allows for the use of PS/RtI in the identification of children with learning disabilities (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). In reality, PS/RtI is for all students in all settings.
The framework of PS/RtI is intended to help teachers meet all students’ learning needs. This is evidenced by the fact that the first tier of PS/RtI is exclusively focused on collecting and reviewing data that reveals the health of core instructional outcomes. If the majority of students at a school are not reaching a reasonable threshold of success (e.g., 80%), one of the first things to consider is what changes should be made to the instruction, curriculum, or classroom environment that will improve overall student outcomes. In the past, when making eligibility decisions for special education, educators had to “prove” that students needed special education services through the use of norm-referenced tests and standardized assessment procedures. Now, educators must “show” that students have received high-quality instruction and intervention in general education, yet continue to exhibit a need for specialized instruction that is beyond the scope of general education alone (i.e., need for ESE supports). This process represents a shift in the way educational need and eligibility decisions for ESE are made. To clarify, in the past, when students struggled, the assumption was that the problem lay within the student; educators asked what was different about the student that general education was not working. In PS/RtI, the assumption when a student struggles is that the instruction, not the student, is not effective (Buffum et al., 2010).
Q. When Am I Going to
Have Time to Do PS/RtI?
A.
Two common time-related questions that teachers ask are: (1) How do we make time for problem-solving meetings? (2) How will we have time for completing paperwork that documents the PS/RtI process? Solving the time-related issue requires
WWW.KDP.ORG
helping school and district-level personnel to see the connection between PS/RtI and quality instructional practices. Schmoker (2011) spoke of a need for establishing priority based on goal-focused instruction. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (2005) reemphasized the need to take teaching from “the basics” to student-centered and active through collaborative processes and rigorous expectations. Archer and Hughes (2011) laid out a structured and systematic framework for explicit instruction methodology. None of these practices are possible without establishing a clear and focused lesson plan presented by a teacher who can effectively unpack a standard or benchmark, establish essential questions that facilitate meaningful student-teacher interaction, and plan tasks and activities that challenge students’ understanding in a way that prepares them for similarly rigorous items on an end-of-year assessment. In addition, teachers need to perceive other individuals such as reading specialists or paraprofessionals as resources who can help them deliver targeted tier 2 and tier 3 interventions. How do teachers make time for problem solving meetings? The PS/ RtI framework asks teachers to think differently about problem solving. Instead of “making time” for problem solving, teachers should incorporate models of problem solving into their everyday thinking. Ultimately, a teacher must be able to answer the question, “How will I know whether my students have learned what I needed them to learn today?” Teachers, parents, and other professionals will need to make important educational decisions about this process. Teachers (like most people) seem unwilling to dedicate time in their schedules for meetings that may prove to be unproductive. Thus, when teachers ask this question, they are really questioning the utility of the typical meeting rather
than the actual meeting time. The solution, then, is to improve the quality of the problem-solving meetings. BrownChidsey, Bronaugh, and McGraw (2009) suggested that by making meetings more structured (such as including a clear meeting plan), giving people clear roles to keep the meeting on track, ensuring that all members have the opportunity to participate, and ending meetings with a clear action plan, teachers can be assured that any time spent meeting will be productive. This process may require a system audit for how time is used. How do teachers make time for PS/RtI-related paperwork? The PS/ RtI paperwork is generally asking for information teachers already have or are planning to collect. The best way to be efficient is to get in the habit of attaching the information you already have as evidence in the documentation process. Particularly important is the data and how they are displayed for teams when engaged in collaborative problem solving. Another strategy is for administrators to distribute the necessary forms in a digital format. This will allow teachers to “cut and paste” rather than using the timeintensive handwritten method. What will require ongoing review is making sure that the need for paperwork/ documentation does not become compliance driven, which ultimately diminishes the primary purpose of the PS/RtI and problem-solving process. Ultimately, the topic of paperwork provides a perfect opportunity for teacher groups and administrators to engage in a problem-solving process through which they identify what is important to collect, why it needs to be collected, and how it will be used in the decision-making process.
Conclusion PS/RtI is a “way of thinking” more than a “thing to do.” Each student deserves
quality, targeted instruction, and the opportunity to learn. Each teacher deserves respect and an expectation of success, regardless of his or her current knowledge or skill with regard to PS/ RtI. School administrators and academic coaches have a responsibility to support teachers as they discover ways to help all students maximize their academic and behavioral achievement, while teacher training programs have a responsibility to provide the next generation of classroom teachers with the knowledge and foundation for how and why such efforts are critical to the profession. The take-home message for teachers is that PS/RtI is not an approach that should be feared or avoided, because its main tenet is to provide teachers and students with a framework of support to help them achieve their goals.
References
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford Press. Brown-Chidsey, R., Bronaugh, L., & McGraw, K. (2009). RTI in the classroom: Guidelines and recipes for success. New York: Guilford Press. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2009). Pyramid response to intervention: RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2010). The why behind RtI. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 10–16. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. Gates, L., & Yale, I. (2011). A logical letter-sound system in five phonic generalizations. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 330–339. Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case study of a professional learning community. Research in Middle Level Education, 31(1), 1–17. Hirsto, L. (2010). Strategies in home and school collaboration among early education teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(2), 99–108. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142 (2004). Pascopella, A. (2010). RtI goes mainstream. District Administration, 46(4), 45–49. Plauborg, H. (2009). Opportunities and limitations for learning within teachers’ collaboration in teams. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 25–34. Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD u JAN–MAR 2013 45
Response to Intervention: Questions and Answers by David M. Monetti, Jennifer E. Breneiser, and Michael G. McAuley
42
KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD u JAN–MAR 2013
WWW.KDP.ORG
When school administrators talk about implementing a Problemsolving/Response to Intervention (PS/ RtI) framework, the idea often elicits apprehension from teachers who may feel unprepared to meet this challenge. Teacher preparation programs do not provide explicit instruction or information regarding PS/RtI. New teachers are placed into schools for student teaching (or as new teachers) with the expectation they know how to apply PS/RtI. As legislation adopts the language of a multi-tiered student support system (i.e., aligning the efforts of academic and behavioral intervention with high-quality core instruction), educators must adjust professional practice to meet the needs of the students instead of the system. As a result, teachers are being asked to reflect on their skill sets in ways unlike any other time in modern education history. A better understanding of the basic mechanisms of the PS/RtI framework will help educators address students’ diverse learning and behavioral needs. It will also help educators who may view PS/ RtI as a compliance matter rather than an informative educational process that helps children reach their goals (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2010). Here are some of the common questions from educators who are learning about PS/RtI, as well as what best practice would indicate in response.
Q. What Is PS/RtI? A. PS/RtI is described as a tiered service
delivery model that provides increasingly intensive and targeted instruction based on student need. Student need is determined through ongoing progress monitoring in which the teacher collects information about what students do and do not understand during the learning process. Buffum, Mattos, and Weber (2009) stressed the importance of using
student performance to continuously evaluate student progress toward important learning outcomes. Many teachers are already using important features of PS/RtI in their instruction. For example, teachers prepare standards-based lessons for students and collect information regarding students’ reactions to those lessons, including actual performance and behavioral responses. However, teachers often see PS/RtI as something separate—and intimidatingly technical—from their dayto-day teaching and assessment practices. At its essence, PS/RtI is an approach that matches instruction to students’ needs, a process that some teachers already accomplish through differentiated strategies. Typically, PS/RtI uses a three-tiered model to provide support to students— support that ranges from whole-group classroom instruction to individualized intervention. The first tier in any PS/ RtI model represents the high-quality core instruction that students receive in general education classrooms. A second tier generally represents additional support provided to students in a smallgroup setting in order to maximize resources in which intervention is targeted to students’ shared needs as identified by their performance. A third tier typically represents the implementation of individualized interventions that increase in frequency and intensity and align with existing supports; that is, in a third tier, the interventions and progress monitoring occur more frequently than in tier 2. Teachers identify that additional tiers are necessary for any given student when the student does not thrive at his or her current tier of instruction. As student data indicates a need for increasing levels of remediation/instruction aligned with core instruction (i.e., adding layers of support beyond tier 1), students experience an increase in the amount of instructional time, targeted instructional focus, and
more frequent monitoring of their performance. In the PS/RtI framework, when data reveal that students are not learning concepts and skills, teachers must consider how instruction can be altered to better meet student needs. While necessary, progress monitoring has the potential to create conflict among educators, particularly if there is not a culture of trust in the school. While educational practice always has included some form of student performance evaluation, it has typically been a subjective and nonuniform system. If the perception of punishment is used to maintain authority, this will result in an environment that lacks trust and respect and will fail to increase capacity for teachers to focus on student performance. Instead, teachers should receive continuous and high-quality professional development opportunities that are focused on improving instructional practice and implementing the PS/RtI framework (Pascopella, 2010). In some settings, teachers are only given brief in-service training sessions on PS/RtI and then are expected to use the approach without specific training on how PS/ RtI and good instructional practice are aligned. David M. Monetti is a Professor of educational psychology at Valdosta State University. His research interests include epistemology of learning, gifted education, RtI, and service learning. He recently co-authored a book with Bruce Tuckman entitled Educational Psychology (Wadsworth, 2011). Jennifer E. Breneiser is an Associate Professor in Valdosta State University’s department of psychology and counseling. Her area of specialization is cognitive psychology. Her research interests include memory and metacomprehension, as well as applying cognitive psychology to education. Michael G. McAuley is an RtI Facilitator for the statewide Problem-solving/Response to Intervention Project of the University of South Florida. His work focuses on districtlevel development and implementation of PS/ RtI structures that increase achievement and behavioral outcomes for all students. KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD u JAN–MAR 2013 43
Gateways to Experience Q. How Does PS/RtI Work? A. Problem solving and collaboration
make the PS/RtI framework a powerful educational tool. For teachers to effectively problem solve, they must have a clear sense of student outcomes as a result of their instruction. Problem solving is a way of thinking that helps educators find a “best” outcome for students. Teachers engage in problem solving by identifying problems that students are having and matching strategies to student needs. However, problem solving is most effective when teachers reach outside their own classrooms. Collaboration is important and should occur at every tier of PS/RtI. For example, collaboration at tier 1 often happens as a department or grade-based group of teachers participate in data chats with administrators regarding student performance. At tier 1, teachers also collaborate in professional learning communities that focus on professional development and overall school improvement. Specifics of collaboration are beyond the scope of the present article, but see Plauborg (2009), Hirsto (2010), and Graham (2007) for further information. As the process moves into tiers 2 and 3, individuals are added to the problem-solving process with specialized expertise in areas where students are having difficulty. For example, a school psychologist, special education expert, or master teacher might participate in the process if a student’s performance suggests the possibility of a learning disability; a speech-language therapist might participate if a student’s performance suggests a language disability. For example, if a small group of students are exhibiting difficulty in identifying rhyming words (phonemic awareness), the teacher may use a tier 2 strategy where those students are taught
44
KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD u JAN–MAR 2013
consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words in families to further identify rhyming words (Gates & Yale, 2011). An example of one such word family would be bat, sat, cat, rat, hat. The key is that the students in small groups are receiving additional word family instruction above and beyond the general instruction. This type of successful collaboration often occurs in professional learning communities. However, school leadership plays a crucial role. If school leadership does not build these opportunities into the master schedule and foster a sense of trust and support, then faculty members struggle to find convenient and predictable times to meet and adequately discuss instruction, intervention, and student learning. If faculty members cannot establish regular time for collaboration, approaches like PS/RtI tend to flounder and fail. PS/RtI is a strong approach because it uses collaboration to draw on the strengths of a group to eliminate barriers to student success. In PS/RtI, the teacher isn’t solely responsible for identifying issues and crafting solutions; instead, the group members collaborating in the PS/RtI team support each teacher.
Q. Isn’t PS/RtI Only for Getting Students into Special Education?
A.
Some teachers have noted the misconception that PS/RtI is only a special education eligibility process or an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) instructional program. The most likely source of this impression is a result of revisions to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act signed in 2004. This revision allows for the use of PS/RtI in the identification of children with learning disabilities (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). In reality, PS/RtI is for all students in all settings.
The framework of PS/RtI is intended to help teachers meet all students’ learning needs. This is evidenced by the fact that the first tier of PS/RtI is exclusively focused on collecting and reviewing data that reveals the health of core instructional outcomes. If the majority of students at a school are not reaching a reasonable threshold of success (e.g., 80%), one of the first things to consider is what changes should be made to the instruction, curriculum, or classroom environment that will improve overall student outcomes. In the past, when making eligibility decisions for special education, educators had to “prove” that students needed special education services through the use of norm-referenced tests and standardized assessment procedures. Now, educators must “show” that students have received high-quality instruction and intervention in general education, yet continue to exhibit a need for specialized instruction that is beyond the scope of general education alone (i.e., need for ESE supports). This process represents a shift in the way educational need and eligibility decisions for ESE are made. To clarify, in the past, when students struggled, the assumption was that the problem lay within the student; educators asked what was different about the student that general education was not working. In PS/RtI, the assumption when a student struggles is that the instruction, not the student, is not effective (Buffum et al., 2010).
Q. When Am I Going to
Have Time to Do PS/RtI?
A.
Two common time-related questions that teachers ask are: (1) How do we make time for problem-solving meetings? (2) How will we have time for completing paperwork that documents the PS/RtI process? Solving the time-related issue requires
WWW.KDP.ORG
helping school and district-level personnel to see the connection between PS/RtI and quality instructional practices. Schmoker (2011) spoke of a need for establishing priority based on goal-focused instruction. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (2005) reemphasized the need to take teaching from “the basics” to student-centered and active through collaborative processes and rigorous expectations. Archer and Hughes (2011) laid out a structured and systematic framework for explicit instruction methodology. None of these practices are possible without establishing a clear and focused lesson plan presented by a teacher who can effectively unpack a standard or benchmark, establish essential questions that facilitate meaningful student-teacher interaction, and plan tasks and activities that challenge students’ understanding in a way that prepares them for similarly rigorous items on an end-of-year assessment. In addition, teachers need to perceive other individuals such as reading specialists or paraprofessionals as resources who can help them deliver targeted tier 2 and tier 3 interventions. How do teachers make time for problem solving meetings? The PS/ RtI framework asks teachers to think differently about problem solving. Instead of “making time” for problem solving, teachers should incorporate models of problem solving into their everyday thinking. Ultimately, a teacher must be able to answer the question, “How will I know whether my students have learned what I needed them to learn today?” Teachers, parents, and other professionals will need to make important educational decisions about this process. Teachers (like most people) seem unwilling to dedicate time in their schedules for meetings that may prove to be unproductive. Thus, when teachers ask this question, they are really questioning the utility of the typical meeting rather
than the actual meeting time. The solution, then, is to improve the quality of the problem-solving meetings. BrownChidsey, Bronaugh, and McGraw (2009) suggested that by making meetings more structured (such as including a clear meeting plan), giving people clear roles to keep the meeting on track, ensuring that all members have the opportunity to participate, and ending meetings with a clear action plan, teachers can be assured that any time spent meeting will be productive. This process may require a system audit for how time is used. How do teachers make time for PS/RtI-related paperwork? The PS/ RtI paperwork is generally asking for information teachers already have or are planning to collect. The best way to be efficient is to get in the habit of attaching the information you already have as evidence in the documentation process. Particularly important is the data and how they are displayed for teams when engaged in collaborative problem solving. Another strategy is for administrators to distribute the necessary forms in a digital format. This will allow teachers to “cut and paste” rather than using the timeintensive handwritten method. What will require ongoing review is making sure that the need for paperwork/ documentation does not become compliance driven, which ultimately diminishes the primary purpose of the PS/RtI and problem-solving process. Ultimately, the topic of paperwork provides a perfect opportunity for teacher groups and administrators to engage in a problem-solving process through which they identify what is important to collect, why it needs to be collected, and how it will be used in the decision-making process.
Conclusion PS/RtI is a “way of thinking” more than a “thing to do.” Each student deserves
quality, targeted instruction, and the opportunity to learn. Each teacher deserves respect and an expectation of success, regardless of his or her current knowledge or skill with regard to PS/ RtI. School administrators and academic coaches have a responsibility to support teachers as they discover ways to help all students maximize their academic and behavioral achievement, while teacher training programs have a responsibility to provide the next generation of classroom teachers with the knowledge and foundation for how and why such efforts are critical to the profession. The take-home message for teachers is that PS/RtI is not an approach that should be feared or avoided, because its main tenet is to provide teachers and students with a framework of support to help them achieve their goals.
References
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford Press. Brown-Chidsey, R., Bronaugh, L., & McGraw, K. (2009). RTI in the classroom: Guidelines and recipes for success. New York: Guilford Press. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2009). Pyramid response to intervention: RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2010). The why behind RtI. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 10–16. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. Gates, L., & Yale, I. (2011). A logical letter-sound system in five phonic generalizations. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 330–339. Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case study of a professional learning community. Research in Middle Level Education, 31(1), 1–17. Hirsto, L. (2010). Strategies in home and school collaboration among early education teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(2), 99–108. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142 (2004). Pascopella, A. (2010). RtI goes mainstream. District Administration, 46(4), 45–49. Plauborg, H. (2009). Opportunities and limitations for learning within teachers’ collaboration in teams. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 25–34. Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
KAPPA DELTA PI RECORD u JAN–MAR 2013 45
