html5-img
1 / 30

Collaboration, Comfort Level and College Faculty: RTI Involvement in Higher Education

Collaboration, Comfort Level and College Faculty: RTI Involvement in Higher Education. Valerie Robnolt, Virginia Commonwealth University Jennifer Jones, Radford University Jodi Welsch, Frostburg State University Katherine Doughtery-Stahl, New York University

wade-carson
Download Presentation

Collaboration, Comfort Level and College Faculty: RTI Involvement in Higher Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Collaboration, Comfort Level and College Faculty: RTI Involvement in Higher Education Valerie Robnolt, Virginia Commonwealth University Jennifer Jones, Radford University Jodi Welsch, Frostburg State University Katherine Doughtery-Stahl, New York University Latisha Hayes, University of Virginia Kevin Flanigan, West Chester University Sharon Green, Independent Consultant

  2. Significance of the Problem With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2004), Response to Intervention (RTI) became an alternative method of identifying children with disabilities. Many stakeholders, such as state departments of education, districts, schools, and colleges/universities, in the U.S. are working to address the changes to IDEA.

  3. Historical Context Historically, learning disabilities were diagnosed through the IQ-achievement discrepancy. Through a series of intervention studies by Vellutino and his colleagues (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000; Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, & Denckla, 1996; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006), the IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria were called into question.

  4. Response to Intervention (RTI) RTI was motivated by research that indicates that the number of students diagnosed as having reading disabilities can be dramatically reduced by identifying students at risk early and by providing additional literacy instruction to meet such students’ specific literacy needs (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1999; Scanlon, Vellutino, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2005; Torgesen, 2000).

  5. Responders and Non-Responders Students who respond to such additional instruction and intervention are assumed to simply have lacked the opportunity to learn; students who do not respond to the additional instruction may have reading disabilities. Existing research suggests the latter group is significantly smaller than is indicated by current levels of learning disability designations in public elementary schools (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000)

  6. Key Components of RTI Universal Screening Multitiered Instruction: Tier 1: Core Instruction Tier 2: Strategic Instruction Tier 3: Intensive Instruction Progress Monitoring

  7. Case Studies of Department of Education Stakeholders

  8. Three States in Eastern U.S. • Interviews were conducted with State Department of Education personnel to answer the following questions: • What are the roles that personnel in the state Department of Education play with regard to RTI? • What are the similarities and differences in how RTI is being implemented by personnel in state Departments of Education? • Personnel were contacted and asked a series of questions related to: • Their position and experience • Aspects of RTI as part of the special education identification process • Dissemination of information to stakeholders • Perceptions of RTI and overall implementation in state

  9. First Question: Role of Personnel • State #1: Assistant State Superintendent for Instruction • State #2: Former Director, Office of Special Education • State #3: Response to Intervention Specialist

  10. Second Question: Similarities • Each state uses RTI as one method to determine special education identification. It isn’t required or recommended, but one option. • States #1 and #2 incorporated RTI as part of the Reading First initiative. • States #1 and #3 created frameworks/guidance documents : • State #1: Served as technical assistance for school teams. • State #3: Laid RTI out as a process. • States #1 and #3 held sessions to disseminate information to stakeholders.

  11. State #3: Other RTI Initiatives • Pilot Schools: • Started in 2008, now in 3rd year • Elementary schools in 15 school divisions • Realignment of resources to implement RTI • Most success in schools where there is strong leadership in central office • The number of referrals to special education has gone down • Next Step: Cohort Schools: • Training central office RTI leadership team • Expanding to middle and high schools

  12. State #3: Quote that Sums It Up “… it’s not that RTI fixes special ed kids, but we’re finding that going through this process, using this RTI framework, children are going to get the help they need immediately, are going to get the interventions they need immediately, so you never get to the point where they’re failing going to child study.”

  13. College/University Faculty Collaboration

  14. Questions • What is the general knowledge about RTI among college/university faculty from various disciplines? • What are the levels and types of preparation being implemented in regard to RTI at the college/university level? • What are the collaboration efforts with regards to RTI among college/university faculty? • What are the levels of direct involvement of college/university faculty and students with RTI in the school districts?

  15. Participants • Approximately 266 faculty responded. • The following states were represented: • Pennsylvania (48.87%) • New York (20.68%) • Virginia (13.53%) • Maryland (9.4%) • New Jersey (7.52%) • Participants were asked the program(s) in which they teach: • Special Education (23.53%) • Reading Education (14.55%) • Elementary Education (19.51%) • Secondary Education (9.6%) • Educational Psychology (3.41%) • School Psychology (5.0%) • Counselor Education (3.72%) • Other (20.74%) • For example, General, Clinical, and Child Psychology, Educational Leadership, Educational Policy, Educational Technology, TESOL, Early Childhood

  16. Participants (continued) • Title: • Full Professor (19.01%) • Associate Professor (30.42%) • Assistant Professor (33.84%) • Non-Tenure Track (11.03%) • Other (5.7%) • Public (52.2%%) and private (47.8%) higher education institutions • Research 1 (34.3%) • Teaching Institution (65.7%)

  17. ELECTRONIC SURVEY • Administered through Inquisite • Close-ended and open-ended questions • General knowledge • Inclusion in coursework • Collaboration with other faculty • Collaboration with schools

  18. Results Choose the statement that best describes your overall understanding of Response to Intervention (RTI): • I have heard the term. (16.94%) • I have heard the term and can briefly define it. (13.22%) • I can define the term by describing the main components. (22.31%) • I can describe the RTI process (including components and stakeholders) in detail. (47.52%)

  19. Inclusion in the Curriculum During the 09-10 school year, was RTI a part of the curriculum at your institution? • Yes (54.55%) • No (18.18) • Not Sure (27.27%) During the 09-10 school year, was RTI part of your course curriculum? • Yes (52.63%) • No (47.37%)

  20. Course 1: 113 Respondents • Type of class: • Special Education (45.13%) • Reading Education (16.81%) • Elementary Education (15.93%) • Educational Psychology (1.77%) • School Psychology (8.85%) • Counselor Education (2.66%) • Other (8.85%) • % of time spent on RTI: • 1-10 (48.21%) • 11-20 (25.00%) • 21-30 (13.39%) • Elements Taught: • Tier Framework (92.92%) • Progress Monitoring (74.34%) • Universal Screening (67.26%) • Intervention Options (76.11%) • Special Education Eligibility (64.60%) • Working with Interdisciplinary Teams (63.83%) • School-wide Improvement (43.36%)

  21. Course 2: 57 Respondents • Type of class: • Special Education (45.61%) • Reading Education (19.30%) • Elementary Education (17.54%) • Educational Psychology (1.75%) • School Psychology (10.53%) • Counselor Education (1.75%) • Other (3.51%) • % of time spent on RTI: • 1-10 (35.09%) • 11-20 (24.56%) • 21-30 (15.79%) • 31-40 (12.28%) • Elements Taught: • Tier Framework (84.21%) • Progress Monitoring (89.47%) • Universal Screening (66.67%) • Intervention Options (80.70%) • Special Education Eligibility (70.18%) • Working with Interdisciplinary Teams (71.93%) • School-wide Improvement (50.88%)

  22. Dissemination of Information During the 09-10 school year, have you attended any RTI-related events? Yes (29.44%) No (70.56%) If yes, what institution sponsored the event? University/College (34.92%) School System (23.81%) State Dept. of Education (36.51%) US Dept. of Education (4.76%) Other (33.33%) How did you find out about this RTI event(s)? Personal exploration (25.4%) Mass invitation (52.38%) Direct communication (52.38%)

  23. Information to Faculty Within your university, college, or department, was information about RTI disseminated to faculty during the 09-10 school year? Yes (24.88%) No (75.12%) Within your university, college, or department, how has information been disseminated? Presentations or trainings at the university/college/department level (54.72%) Professional Literature (58.49%) Travel provided for RTI conferences (32.08%) State Dept. of Education events (32.08%)

  24. COLLABORATION Are you involved in any RTI planning or collaboration effort(s) with other faculty? Yes (17.29%) No (82.71%) Please indicate the type of collaboration taking place across programs: Scheduled program meetings (51.35%) Literature/discussion groups (18.92%) Email exchanges (32.43%) Presentations at faculty meetings (35.14%) Almost half (48.65%) indicated that five or more collaborative efforts took place in the last year.

  25. Key RTI Players • Within your university, college, or department, what program area(s) serve as “key players” and/or participants in collaboration efforts? • Reading Education (29.33%) • Special Education (47.60%) • Elementary Education (26.44%) • Educational Psychology (5.77%) • School Psychology (13.94%) • Counselor Education (2.89%) • Not Sure (40.87%)

  26. Sharing Information With Schools • Have you had the opportunity to share information with local school personnel? • Yes (25.55%) • No (74.45%) • Choose the statement that best describes how you explain the RTI process to local school personnel. • I have a limited understanding and am not very comfortable answering basic questions. (0.00%) • I have some knowledge, can briefly describe the components and answer basic questions. (20.69%) • I am able to answer specific questions with regard to the process and components. (22.41%) • I am well versed in the process and am able to give specific examples from working with schools. (56.90%)

  27. Working with Schools • With whom at the local school level did you share information? • Teachers (87.93%) • School Administrators (65.52%) • Central office staff (44.83%) • Superintendent (31.04%) • What was the purpose of RTI in the schools you worked with? • District mandate (36.21%) • School-wide Improvement (70.69%) • Eligibility for Special Education (36.21%)

  28. COLLABORATION WITH SCHOOLS Are you involved in any RTI collaboration effort(s) with the public schools? Yes (18.48%) No (81.52%) Types of collaborative efforts taking place with public schools: Presentations on teacher workdays (63.16%) After school presentations (18.42%) Consultation about progress monitoring (52.63%) Consultation about interventions (55.26%) Consultation about eligibility (23.68%) Partnership with school(s) to provide university-led intervention efforts (34.21%) Literature groups (2.63%) Over half (51.28%) indicated that five or more efforts took place in the last year.

  29. Comfort level Compared to previous survey results, faculty describe their comfort level as greater than before Incorporation of information into courses needs improvement Collaboration among faculty in higher education low Involvement with school divisions low Discussion

  30. References O’ Connor R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159-197. Scanlon, D.M., Vellutino, F.R., Small, S.G., & Fanuele, D.P., & Sweeny, J.M. (2005). Severe reading difficulties—Can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13, 4, 209-227. Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55-64. U.S. Department of Education (2004). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://idea.ed.gov/ Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223 – 238. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate, and readily remediated poor readers: Toward distinguishing between constitutionally and experientially based causes of reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601-638. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157 – 169.

More Related