What We Need to Know About Responsiveness To Intervention (and Shouldn't Be Afraid to Ask)

During the past several years, one of the most frequently addressed topics at conferences and in professional journals is responsiveness to intervention (RTI). This is because it is viewed by many as a new way to think about both early intervention and disability identification. Despite its relative newness, a subset of RTI proponents contend researchers and practitioners know everything they need to know to implement it effectively. We disagree and argue that the smartest and most responsible way to move forward with RTI implementation is to recognize what all of us collectively do know and do not know. In this article, we identify unresolved issues—general and specific—important to RTI implementation, teacher effectiveness, and student achievement.     

The Use and Effectiveness of a Question Exploration Routine in Secondary‐Level English Language Arts Classrooms

This purpose of the study was to determine the effects of teachers using the Question Exploration Routine (QER) in regularly scheduled secondary‐level English Language Arts classes to help students answer questions about the development and use of main ideas in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Questions were posed in both multiple‐choice and written formats. On average, students representing diverse groups who received instruction with the QER correctly answered a significantly higher percentage of total questions than students receiving traditional lecture‐discussion instruction (effect sizes were very large). Results are reported for total scores, subscores of multiple‐choice and written responses, and for responses of subgroups of students. Students’ mean satisfaction and confidence responses are reported.     

Grounding intervention research in the larger context of schooling: A response to Pressley and Harris

In addition to the factors identified by Pressley and Harris for researchers to attend to in designing and conducting intervention research, it is important that this research be grounded in a practical-oriented framework that considers the dynamics of the school setting. This article argues that intervention researchers should solicit the input of practitioners in designing and operationalizing interventions through a co-constructive process, clearly spell out intervention protocols in language that can be understood and followed by practitioners, view interventions within the complex realities of schools, and insure that outcomes of interventions are both statistically and socially significant.     

The Strategies Instructional Approach

OVER THE PAST ten years, various efforts to develop and validate instructional programs to train students in strategies and thinking skills have been initiated. These efforts have usually focused on either the benefits of specific strategy training or on the very general parameters of how strategy instruction should be implemented. As a result, the translation from research to practice has often resulted in educational applications that have either been removed from common academic and social tasks required for school success, or the applications have not been sufficiently intensive or specific to have a significant impact on the learning and performance of individuals with handicapping conditions. To be successful, strategies instruction must focus on both the general and specific elements of instruction within the context of a rich strategy environment Well designed strategy environments should promote, model, guide, and prompt efficient and effective learning and performance across settings for all students, not just those with learning disabilities or handicaps. This has been the primary goal of researchers involved in the creation of the Strategies Intervention Model developed at the University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities. The authors of this article describe how they define and view the use of strategies for instruction and explain how the basic concepts of strategies instruction have been operationalized for use in educational settings.     

Literacy Challenges and Opportunities for Students with Learning Disabilities in Social Studies and History

The Common Core State Standards for literacy in history and social studies present opportunities and challenges for teachers of and adolescents with learning disabilities (LD). In addition to reading challenges, students must engage in higher order thinking and reasoning. To provide opportunities for students to successfully respond to such challenges, teachers must have an understanding of the expectations in the Standards, and of the learning needs of students with LD. Teachers can assure success for adolescents with LD by selecting proven instructional procedures and engaging in collaboration to provide students with the supports they need. Examples of one evidence‐based practice, Content Enhancement, are provided to illustrate instructional protocols for teachers of diverse classes that include adolescents with LD.     

The Effects of a Strategic Writing Program for Students with and without Learning Disabilities in Inclusive Fifth‐Grade Classes

The purpose of this study was to test the effects of a comprehensive writing program for students with and without learning disabilities (LD) in inclusive general education classrooms. The program incorporated research‐based components including instruction in a prewriting planning strategy, narrative text structure, writing strategies, and the process approach to writing. The study was conducted in five fifth‐grade inclusive classrooms with 113 students (including 14 students with LD). A quasi‐experimental comparison‐group design was utilized, whereby three intact experimental classes received the writing intervention, and two intact comparison classes received traditional writing instruction. Measures included several writing indicators as well as state writing competency test scores. Results indicated that the students with and without LD in the experimental group made significant gains from pretest to posttest on several writing measures. Although students in the comparison group made some gains, the gains were related to fewer measures than the measures associated with experimental‐group gains, and the effect sizes were smaller.     

Bridging the gap between observation protocols and formative feedback

In this study, we sought to identify how feedback about classroom observations affected novice university mathematics instructors’ (UMIs) teaching practices. Specifically, we examined how a Red–Yellow–Green feedback system (RYG feedback) affected graduate student instructor (GSI) scores on an observation protocol (GSIOP). The protocol was developed specifically for this population, and both the GSIOP and RYG feedback were used within a peer mentoring program for GSIs, wherein novice GSIs were mentored by more experienced GSIs. Mentors observed novices’ classrooms using the GSIOP and provided RYG feedback as part of observation–feedback cycles. We analyzed 100 sets of scores, each collected over the course of a semester containing on average three observation–feedback cycles. Analyzing the semester-long datasets longitudinally provided insight into what types of feedback informed and influenced observed teaching. After qualitatively coding the feedback provided to the GSIs by their mentors along multiple dimensions, we found certain forms of feedback were more influential for observable changes in GSIs’ teaching. For example, pedagogical feedback that included contextualization (context and focal events) demonstrated a more positive change in GSIOP score than feedback that lacked contextualization. Our results suggest that contextual formative feedback has a positive change to student-focused and teacher-focused observations.