AR Sections 1-3- Abby Owensx - abbyowens - home - The ...

farmacridInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

2 Φεβ 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 4 μήνες)

109 εμφανίσεις

Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
1






Response to Intervention: How do teacher perceive it?

Abby Owens

University of West Georgia
















Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
2

Introduction

Background

The

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) is a

United States federal
law

that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention,

special
education
, and related services to children with disabilities from birth to age 21

(IDEIA,
2004)
. IDEA and its predecessor, the

Education for All Handicapped Children Act
, arose
from federal case law holding that the deprivation of free public education to disabled
children constitutes a deprivation of due process
(IDEIA, 2004).

The reauthorization of
IDEA in 2004 into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improveme
nt Act (IDEIA)
r
evised the statute to align with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001 (IDEIA, 2004)
.
The 2004 IDEIA revision mentions, for the first time,
Response to Intervention as an optional method of part of the process for

identifying
studen
ts with learning disabilities.

Rationale

Since 1976, the number of students receiving special education services has
increased by 238 percent (Learner, 2003). In 2007, over two million students received
special education services (Hos
p and Madyum
,

2007). Data on students participating in
these services indicated an overrepresentation of minority students, particularly English
Language Learners (ELL) and African American stu
dents, which has lead to many
questions about how students qua
lify to receive special education services (Hosp and
Madyum, 2007).
RTI was included in the regulations due to considerable concerns raised
by both the House and Senate IDEA committees because of claims about the use of
intelligence quotient (
IQ
)

testing t
o identify learning disabilities (Texas Education
Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
3

Agency, 2008). Both Congressional committees recognized that there was a growing
collection of scientific research supporting methods of pre
-
referral interventions that
resolved learning difficulties befor
e classifyin
g students as learning disabled, thus
decreasing the number of students receiving special education services
(
Texas Education
Agency, 2008). To now qualify for special education, any student in need of services
must go through the RtI process.



Professional Reflection


For the last 5 years, I have been a self
-
contained general education teacher in the

primary grades, teaching both kindergarten and second grade.
Response to Intervention
was adopted by the state of Georgia during my first
year teaching.


Since that time, I have
witnessed an increasing number of Tier 2 and Tier 3 students
in my grade level.
Several
of these students have been in RtI since kindergar
ten but have not been tested for Special
Education

services

nor have they
be
en exited from the program, in effect they were
stagnant.
These students were receiving daily interventions but were not making enough
progress to be considered average or on grade level, which indicates to me that something
is wrong
with the Response to
Intervention process. In my own school, classroom
teachers and Early Intervention Program (EIP) teachers implement interventions.

Because all general education teachers have received training in these interventions
, I
began to question the effectiveness
of the program and the way it is implemented. I
served on the Response to Intervention committee this past school year and noticed that
many teachers
who were bringing students to the committee often seemed irritated or
disgruntled with the intervention a
nd progress monitoring process.


Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
4

Purpose of Study

The
purpose of this study
,

therefore
,

is to determine teacher perception of the
Response to Intervention process

with kindergarten, first, and second grade teachers. The
information gathered from these data will illustrate the attitude and perceptions of
teachers at Richmond Hill Primary and Richmond Hill Elementary, and Bryan County
schools in general.


Research Q
uestions

The research questions explored during my action research project will be as follows:

1.

How do general education K
-
2 teachers perceive Response to Intervention?


Literature Review



RtI was defined by Frie
nd as having two purposes
:
t
o ensure that
student
s

receive
research based remediation as soon as they are identified as having academic difficulties
and to ensure that teacher
s

gather clear data to document the effectiveness of the
remediation strategies they have implemented (Friend, 2008). Simi
larly, the 2004
amendment to IDEA stated two main components: regular assessment of student
progress and quality instruction.

To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific
learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate

instruction in reading or math,
the group must consider, as part of the evaluation…Data that demonstrate that
prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate
instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualifi
ed personnel…[and
calls for] data based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at
Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
5

reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during
instruction (IDIEA, 2004)

Progress monitoring is an important part of the RtI proc
ess. These o
n
-
going assessments
provide a continuous record of the progress that the student is making. In turn, this
information can be used to develop and refine intervention methods to improve the rate at
which the student is learning, or recommend th
at the student receive further te
sting
(Fuchs and Fuchs, 2006). Small group instruction, based on student skills and deficits, is
the basis of RtI implementation

(Vaughn, Linan
-
Thompson, and Hickman, 2003).
T
he
standard protocol approach (RtI
-
SP) and the

problem solving approach
(RtI
-
PS) have
emerged as two approaches for developing these small group interventions.
The
Response to Intervention
-
Problem Solving protocol emphasizes individualized
interventions that are based on analysis of skill deficits (
Tilly, Reschly, and Grimes,
1999
).
RtI
-
PS is guided by analysis of target skill and sub skill deficits

(Barnett, Daly,
Jones, and Lentz, 2004
).
All RtI
-
PS models have a 4
-
step process that systematically
conceptualizes a problem, studies factors that may

contribute to the problem;
implements
individualized interventions to address the problem, and evaluate

the intervention for
effectiveness (Allen and Graden, 2002). RtI
-
PS ensures that the student and the
intervention are well matched.
When used with
fidelity, RtI
-
PS can effectively improve
student learning

(
Burns and Symington, 2002).

Several large

instructional

systems, such
as Minneapolis Public Schools, Ohio’s Intervention

Based Assessment, and the
Screening to Enhance Equitable Educational Place
ment (STEEP), using this model have
shown

strong student outcomes (Witt and VanDerHeyden, 2007).
While
RtI
-
PS
addresses individual learning needs and potentially individualizes instruction for students
Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
6

with learning deficits, this model can be difficult t
o implement on a l
arge scale

with

integrity (Burns, Vanderwood, and

Ruby, 2005).

The quality of interventions is
dependent upon the teacher administering them.



The effectiveness of RtI implementation is dependent upon the quality and
consistency of in
struction at each tier and continuous progress monitoring of all students
to inform intervention delivery and more accurately problem
-
solve appropriate
instructional methods at each tier level (Brown
-
Chidsey and Steege, 2005).

Georgia’s
Response to Interv
ention model has four tiers


tier one represents all students in the
school, tier two represents students that are receiving interventions two to three times a
week, tier three represents students that are receiving interventions four to five times a
week
, and tier four represents students that have been placed in special education and are
receiving a modified
curriculum (
Georgia Department of Education, 2011)
.

Orosco and
Klingner
(2010) identified six schools facets that determine the success of the RtI

model:
resources, curriculum, professional development opportunities, assessment and
instructional methods, beliefs and attitudes.
Fuchs and Deshler (2007) assert that
practitioners need to understand the Response
-
to
-
Intervention process and any conditi
ons
and contextual factors within a school or district that may influence the implementation
of RtI. An intervention initiative takes place amid competing conditions. Political,
cultural, and personal philosophies of teaching and learning interact to infl
uence
individual responses. Changing practices to address RtI mandates requires the acquisition
of new skills for serving students that are at
-
risk
, skills that some teachers are unsure they
possess and impacts their own implementation of the Response to I
ntervention process
.

Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
7


Murawski

and Hughes (2009) found that for many teachers RtI requires a
paradigm shift. Teachers are accustomed to special education referrals that seek to
identify deficits within children, whereas RtI looks at the student in their instructional
context
(Harry &
Klingner, 2006). In schools that are linguistically and culturally diverse,
Xu and Drame (2008) found that attention to instructional context is particularly
important. To most effectively teach a diverse student population and improve the school
experien
ce of culturally diverse students, Artiles (2003) stated that teachers need to self
-
assess and acknowledge their own biases and assumptions about cultures and differences
,
which can effect their perception of students
.

An individual teacher’s efficacy is b
ased both on their own perceptions of their
capabilities and how it influences their students’ learning (Woolflook
-
Hoy & Davis,
2006).
Ashton and Webb (1986) found that

a

students’ academic performance could be
determined by their

teacher’s beliefs.
Nun
n

(2007)

pointed out that effective teachers use
effective interventions and are skilled at dealing with the range of academic and
behavioral issue
s within their classrooms
. In a related study,

Nunn, Jantz and, Butikofer
(2009) found that teacher efficacy

improved when several events coincided: improved
intervention outcomes and collaborative team planning of data based decision.
Teacher
efficacy is made up of a congruent set of attitudes and behavior
-

teacher’s self
-
awareness of their personal attitude
s, beliefs, skills, and knowledge of effective
educational practices (Lynch & Hanson, 2004). Because teachers are responsible for the
administration of RTI

interventions and the required

documentation of progress
monitoring, teacher perception of this pro
cess can presumably effect how it

is
implemented with students

Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
8

Methodology

Setting/Participants

The purpose of this study is to gather information about teacher attitudes toward
the Response to Intervention process.

A mixed methods study will be conducted at
Richmond Hill Primary and Richmond Hill Elementary, both of which are located in the
city of Richmond Hill on Frances Meeks Way.
Richmond Hill Primary serves
approximately 900 kindergarten and first grade student
s. Richmond Hill Elementary
serves approximately
950 second

and third grade students. Each grade level has 20
general education teachers.
For this action research project, approximately 60
kindergarten,

first, and second grade teachers will be surveyed
using an online survey
instrument,
Lime Survey
.

Intervention

and Data Collection

The
online
survey will consist of 27 questions that address the following areas:
demographics, familiarity with the Response to Intervention process at their home school,
perc
eption of the process, and individual teacher opinions about the impact of RtI on
student achievement. Following the collection of survey data, three teachers will be
randomly selected for an interview. The interview will take place at the teacher’s home

school and will consist of 14 open
-
ended questions about their responsibilities within the
RtI process, support and training offered by individual schools, and the benefits and
challenges of implemen
ting Response to Intervention.

Validity



The mixed
methods study will use paired t
-
test statistical analysis with qualitative
results to add depth to the data analysis
.
The use of both qualitative and quantitative data
Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
9

will allow for triangulation, which Patton (2001) advocates for validity (as quoted in

Golafshani, 2003)
.

Each interview will be recorded and transcribed. Following
interview transcription, the researcher will peruse and code the data to identify recurring
themes and comments.

Research is scheduled to begin September1, 2012 and finish by October 31, 2012.
Surveys (and the accompanying consent forms) will be sent out the first week of
September. Teachers will have two weeks to complete the survey, at which time an
email reminde
r will be sent out. Teacher interviews will be conducted the first week of
October. Data analysis, research, and conclusions will be completed before Bryan
County’s Thanksgiving Break.


.













Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
10

References

Allen, S. J., & Graden
, J. L. (2002). Best practices in collaborative problem solving for
intervention design. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (eds).
Best practices in school
psychology IV
(Vol. 1, Vol. 2) (pp. 565
-
572). Washington, DC: National
Association of School Psychologists.

Ba
rnes, A. C,
&
Harlacher. J. E. (2008). Gearing the confusi
on: Response
-
to
-

intervention a
s a set of principles.
Edu
cation
and Treatment of Children. 31,
4i7
-
431.

Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., III, Jones, K. M., &

Lentz, F. E., Jr. (2004). Response to
intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from increasing and
decreasing intensity single case designs. Journal of Special Education, 38, 66−79.

Brown
-
Chidsey, R. & Steege, M. (2005).
Response to inter
vention: Principles and
strategies for effective practice.
New York: NY: Guilford Press.

Burns, M. K., & Symington, T. (2002). A meta
-
analysis of pre
-
referral intervention
teams: Student and systemic outcomes.
Journal of School Psychology, 40,
437
-
447.

Bur
ns, M.K., Vanderwood, M.L., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of pre
-
referral intervention teams for use in a problem
-
solving model.
School
Psychology Quarterly. 20,
89
-
105.

Friend, M. (2008).
Special education: Contemporary perspectives for scho
ol
professionals.

The United States: Pearson Education, Inc.

Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). "A framework for building capacity for responsiveness
-
to
-
intervention."
School Psychology Review
, 35.

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about
responsiveness to
intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask) [Electronic version]. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(2), 129
-
136.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., &Young, C.L
(2003). Responsiveness
-
to
-
intervention: Definitions, evidence
, and

implications for the learning disabilities
construct.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18,
157

171.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Vaughn, S. (2008) An introduction to RTI. In D. Fuchs, L.S.
Fuchs, & S. Vaughn (Eds.),
Responsiveness to instructi
on
. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.


Georgia Department of Education (2011). Response to intervention: Georgia’s student



achievement pyramid of interventions.
Retrieved from


http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_services.aspx
?PageReq=CIServRTI

Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
11

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2006).
RtI

(response to intervention): Rethinking special
education for students with reading difficulties (yet again).
Reading Research
Quarterly,
41(1), 99
-
108.

Golafshani,
H. (
2003
).
Understanding Reliabilit
y and Validity in Qualitative Research

.
The Qualitative Report
, 8
(4).

Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8
-
4/golafshani.pdf

Hosp, J. & Madyum, N. (2007). Addressing disproportionality with response to
intervention. In S. Jimerson
, M. Burns, and A, VanDerHeyden (Eds.)
Handbook
of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and
intervention.
(pp. 172
-
184). New York, NY: Springer Science and Business
Media, LLC.

Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improveme
nt Act (2004). Pub. L. No 108
-

446,
118 Stat. 2807 retrieved on April 1, 2012 from
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl108
-
446.html

Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.
A. (2006).
Responsiveness to
intervention (RTI): How to do it.
Lawrence, KS: National

Research Center on
Learning

Disabilities.

Learner, J. (2003).
Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching practices
(9th
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton
-
Mifflin.

McMaster, K.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L.

(2005). Responding to
nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention
methods.
Exceptional Children, 71,
445

463.

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read
: An evidence
-
based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction [on
-
line]. Available:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nr
p/report.cfm
.

Patton, M. Q. (2002).
Qualitative evaluation and research methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc
.

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist Teaching and teacher education: Theory and
Practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.)
Constructivist Teacher Education: Building a
world of new understandings.
London: Falmer Press. (pp. 3
-
14).

Richards, C., Pavri, S., Golez, F., Canges, R., & Murphy, J. (2007). Response to
intervention: Building the capacity of teachers to serve students w
ith learning
disabilities.
Issues in Teacher Education. 16,
55
-
64.

Texas Education Agency, (2008).
Response to intervention guidance document.

Tilly, W. D. III, Reschly, D. J., & Grimes, J. (1999). Disability determination in problem
Running head: TEACHER PERCEPTION OF RTI

Owens
12

solving systems: Con
ceptual foundations and critical components. In D. J.
Reschly, W. D. Tilly, & J. P. Grimes (Eds.),
Special education in transition:
Functional assessment and noncategorical programming
(pp. 221

251).
Longman, CO: Sopris West.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J.
C., & Gilbertson, D. A (2007). Multi
-
Year Evaluation of
the Effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) Model on Identification of
Children for Special Education.
Journal of School Psychology, 45,
225
-
256.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.004.

Vaug
hn, S., Linan
-
Thompson, S., & Hick
-

man
-
Davis, P. (2003).
Response to treat
ment
as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities.
Excep
tional
Children, 69,
391

410.

Witt, J. C., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007).

System to enhance educational progress
(STEEP): Using Science to Improve Achievement. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K.
Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.)
The Handbook of Response to
Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention
(pp. 343
-

3
53). New York.