84The Reading Teacher, 63(1), pp. 84–87 © 2009 International Reading AssociationDOI:10.1598/RT.63.1.9 ISSN:0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online

READING RESEARCH INTO THE CLASSROOMREADING RESEARCH INTO THE CLASSROOM

Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations About RTI: Understanding and Applying Differentiated Classroom InstructionDoris 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 identifica-

tion of students experiencing academic problems, most often in reading, and a multi-tier instructional plan before evaluating students for specific learn-ing disabilities. This legislation allows for models of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a method for identifying students who will profit from differenti-ated 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 inad-equate instruction instead of a learning disability. Most states, including Tennessee and Wisconsin, are currently developing RTI models.

As coauthors of this column, we represent differ-ent areas of reading instructional practice: classroom teachers, reading specialists who teach children and provide district- and schoolwide professional devel-opment, and teacher educators.

We examine across geographical (Wisconsin and Tennessee) and school boundaries (urban and subur-ban) the current practices of teachers who are initiat-ing RTI instruction and related research. We address three goals for RTI instruction, goals that were also addressed by the International Reading Association’s (IRA) Commission on RTI (2009): providing sys-tematic assessment of student performance, differ-

entiated instruction, and high-quality professional development.

Systematic Assessment to Inform Differentiated InstructionAlthough 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 data-based instructional planning. A comprehensive as-sessment 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 children’s literacy develop-ment (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

© 2009 JupiterImages Corporation

85Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations About RTI

measures vary according to grade level. The K–3 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 infor-mal observations of students during small-group in-struction. 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 instru-ment that focuses primarily on fluency and phonics. Similar to the Wisconsin fifth-grade teacher, these additional measures include individual reading in-ventories that assess oral reading and silent reading, word identification skills and strategies, vocabulary, and comprehension, including literal and deep un-derstandings of texts. In both states, assessments are formative and aligned with state and local standards. Assessment tools that are multidimensional and on-going, and that go beyond tests of single skills areas are most optimal for meeting RTI goals (McIntosh, Graves, & Gersten, 2007).

Providing Differentiated and Appropriate InstructionIntense and differentiated instruction that is data based and appropriately implemented can mediate reading problems (O’Connor & Simic, 2002). Many states adopting RTI use three tiers of intervention (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009), with differentiated instruction for all students in the class-room 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 work-shop 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 con-sistency 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 vocabulary and content for students who may not be reading these higher level texts during guided reading. Literacy workstations (Diller, 2005) are also used to re-inforce core skills and to differentiate classroom work , whi le home -work is differentiated by student needs, re-corded on labels, and placed in homework notebooks.

In the Wisconsin and Tennessee schools, stu-dents select materials on the basis of their interests, recommended in differen-t iating instruction (Tobin, 2008), for independent reading, partner reading, and peer group discussions. Instruction focuses on multiple skills including both comprehen-sion (e.g., use of strategies) and word study (e.g., use of keywords and rimes from the Integrated Strategies Approach; Allen, 1998). Instruction is evi-dence based (IRA, 2002), aligned with state and dis-trict standards, systematic, and focused on specific areas of instructional needs. The long-term goal is teachers assuming responsibility for adjusting in-struction according to students’ specific needs rath-er 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.

86 The Reading Teacher Vol. 63, No. 1 September 2009

In conclusion, RTI holds great promise for stu-dents experiencing reading difficulties for its empha-sis on prevention rather than failure.

ReferencesAllen, L. (1998). An integrated strategies approach: Making word

identification instruction work for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher, 52(3), 254–268.

Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling read-ers: 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), 85–95. doi:10.1177/0022219408326214

Clay, M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achieve-ment. Plymouth, NH: Heinemann.

Diller, D. (2005). Practice with purpose: Literacy work stations for grades 3–6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Drame, E.R., & Xu, Y. (2008). Examining sociocultural factors in response to intervention models. Childhood Education, 85(1), 26–32.

Gravois, T.A., & Rosenfield, S.A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and place-ment of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 42–52. doi:10.1177/07419325060270010501

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. 245–264). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub.L.108-466.

International Reading Association. (2002). What is evidence-based 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 multiple- language settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 197–212.

O’Connor, E.A., & Simic, O. (2002). The effect of Reading Recovery on special education referrals and placements. Psychology in the Schools, 39(6), 635–646. 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), 55–64.

Providing High-Quality Professional DevelopmentProfessional development is essential when imple-menting any systemic change. For RTI, in particular, communication and shared decision making is essen-tial (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007). Classroom teachers need sustained support in their efforts to monitor stu-dent progress and determine effectiveness of instruc-tion, 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 orga-nizations can constrain instructional schedules and limit opportunities for individualizing instruction.

One professional development approach, applied by the Tennessee reading specialists, provides for co-planning by reading specialists and classroom teach-ers, demonstrations of implementation of planned instruction, and gradual release of teaching responsi-bility to the classroom teacher with feedback and ad-ditional cycles of coteaching (Literacy Collaborative, 2009). Observations and coaching by reading spe-cialists are also recommended as follow-up options for supporting teachers and ensuring that the inter-vention principles are being implemented (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007).

Ongoing professional development is needed with attention to instruction, materials, and assess-ments 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 ex-ample, the problem-solving, team-driven approach (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006), which employs instruc-tional 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 so-ciocultural 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).

87Crossing Boundaries and Initiating Conversations About RTI

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.

Tobin, R. (2008). Conundrums in the differentiated literacy class-room. Reading Improvement, 45(4), 159–169.

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), 305–311. doi:10.1007/s10643-007-0213-4

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

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