Literacy and Intervention 1
Running Head: A REVIEW OF LITERACY AND INTERVENTION
Why Can’t I Read This?: A Literature Review of Response to Intervention
Melanie Schneider
University of Akron
Literacy and Intervention 2
Abstract
Response to Intervention (RTI) is a new practice within the field of School Psychology
and the realm of education when it comes to addressing academic concerns of children. The
premise behind RTI is to offer effective academic interventions to students who are struggling
with a particular concept in the classroom, most specifically reading. Since its rise of interest
after the reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2004 and No Child
Left Behind Act, RTI has quickly grown as a “best practice” for academic intervention. RTI is
based on a tier system, where the bottom tier represents general benefits to all children regardless
of their learning abilities. It is in tier 2 and tier 3 that students receive more individualized and
intense instruction based on their needs. Extensive research has been done in this area to show
the successfulness of this implementation as a means of identification of learning abilities prior
to eligibility for special education. School Psychologists are playing a crucial role in the
execution of interventions and work closely with teachers to ensure maximum positive
outcomes. RTI is still in its early stages and will continue to benefit and grow based on further
research.
Literacy and Intervention 3
Why Can’t I Read This?: A Literature Review of Response to Intervention
Literacy has always been a concern in America and is becoming an even greater concern
as the students in the US are continuously compared to similar aged children in Western cultures.
While it might seem easy to point a finger at teachers and other educators, the blame cannot fall
solely on them as parents play just as integral a role in the lives of their developing children.
Based on the child’s learning abilities, other factors outside of either parent or educators control
may be affecting the child’s ability to read. This is a disheartening realization, but a necessary
one in order to effectively direct the efforts of researchers and educators in how they can best
assist these struggling students.
In 2004, President George Bush reauthorized both the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). While several changes were made,
possibly the most impactful of those changes regarded intervention for students struggling in a
given academic area. As per the original bill for NCLB in 2001 (U.S. Congress) , the concept of
intervention related to creating programs and assisting students who may be at-risk to ensure that
they don’t drop out or continue to fall behind. IDEA (2007), on the other hand, looked to ensure
that students in the process of being tested for identification of a specific learning disability
(SLD) would receive an effective research-based intervention first as part of determining the
disability. Thus, response to intervention (RTI) was derived.
RTI, as is part of the name, is an intervention and part of series of steps that educators are
now taking to make certain students who are struggling academically are receiving the attention
they need without also being falsely classified. Much of the literature looked at discrepancies in
reading ability in regards to phonological awareness and cognitive abilities (Fiorello, Hale, and
Snyder, 2006; Vellutino et al. 1996), though there is also some argument for experiential
Literacy and Intervention 4
deficiencies as well (Vellutino et al. 1996). Unfortunately, disabilities such as those in reading
are not a one-size-fits-all situation, meaning administrators evaluating student performance must
create an intervention plan designed specifically for that student. RTI has been researched in all
levels of education and in most cases been supported in its efforts to improve student reading and
comprehension skills. The literature discussed in the following review focuses on RTI and its
relation to literacy for early education students (e.g., kindergarten through third grade).
The Abridged Version of Learning How to Read
Do you remember how you learned to read? Are you thinking about what it takes to
understand what you’re currently reading? The answer to both of these questions is most likely
“no”, though you may have some understanding of how children, and obviously you, learn to
read. In reality, something so simple as reading an email and understanding what it says has
become second nature to us. For young students learning how to read, this process appears
daunting and a large majority struggle to grasp and retain concepts. It is for these students that
RTI is essential. Based on the principles of RTI, student’s who are struggling to obtain the
knowledge of language and reading necessary to move onto more complex material do not
necessarily have a specific learning disability (reading disability). Many researchers have
concluded that the support students need to be successful can come from right in the classroom;
meaning teachers adjust or modify their instruction to ensure that those students are receiving the
attention they need to learn the material. A balance is needed to ensure those students who need
extra attention receive it while at the same time those students who have already grasped the
concept don’t feel like they are being stunted. RTI is an added step in the education system
before students would be labeled as requiring special education or having an educational
Literacy and Intervention 5
disability. It is not that some students do not need this level of intervention; indeed, some
students identified as having a reading disability may benefit most from special education
services that may include removal from regular classroom instruction during reading time.
Think back to concepts of cognitive psychology and biopsychology: learning how to read
is rooted in both areas. Most of the basic concepts come from cognitive psychology, specifically
the simplest components of language or what are often referred as the “building blocks of
language.” At the smallest component is the phoneme or the sounds corresponding to letters or
graphemes that once linked together to form meaningful words. Without these two crucial parts
of language we would not have a concrete format for vocabulary which in turn affects both
written and spoken word.
In kindergarten, students are taught this critical connection between graphemes and
phonemes—concepts they should master in order to be successful in first grade. When students
reach first grade, although the teacher will review concepts learned from the previous year, they
are expected to have a grasp of the general concepts in order to build upon those more simplistic
skills. From graphemes and phonemes come syntax and pragmatics. Syntax links words together
or basically creates meaningful sentences. This also carries over into reading and is useful when
determining the meaning of what is read and its appropriateness. Pragmatics deals specifically
with socially acceptable use of words in both speech and writing. Although phonological
awareness concerns verbal language, it is essential that students have a relatively solid
understanding of this skill, as best a 6 year old can have, prior to being successful at reading as
well.
As per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders, 4 th edition text revision
(DSM-IV-TR, 2000), there are two very distinct criteria which constitute a diagnosis of reading
Literacy and Intervention 6
disability or disorder. This includes (a) a standard score on a standardized test, administered
individually, that falls below the average for the student’s age, IQ, and age-appropriate
education, and (b) if this in turn affects other academic areas or daily living activities that require
the skill of reading (2000). RTI is not seen as a solution or program specifically designed to
address the needs of those children with a diagnosis of reading disability. It is because of the
exclusionary nature of the criteria for a diagnosis that RTI is seen as beneficial; students can be
addressed as struggling learners without cognitive impairment.
Noteworthy early research
After reading several recent articles on RTI, there appeared to be a common basic for
their support- their referral to Vellutino et al.’s (1996) study regarding remediation of struggling
readers who were thought to have cognitive deficits rather than being identified as specific
learning disabled. In their study, Vellutino et al. (1996) attempted to differentiate between
constitutional and experiential deficits that children may be experiencing in terms of reading
difficulties. Constitutional deficits are classified as biologically based limitations such as
organic disorders or genetic deficits; whereas experiential deficits are factors such as below
average intelligence, socioeconomic status, emotional or motivational inconsistencies, or sensory
deficits (1996). Because of the changes to the laws dictating how students can be identified as
specific learning disabled, school professionals cannot simply rely on discrepancies between
testing achievement and intelligence, but also need to take into consideration learning styles and
other factors affecting the child’s ability to learn. Vellutino et al. (1996) points out there needs
to be a distinction between students who are struggling to learn to read because they have not
had the opportunity to acquire the skills they need to be successful from those who are struggling
to read because of cognitive impairments disrupting this process. The latter group most likely
Literacy and Intervention 7
consists of students who, once tested, would be identified as specific learning disabled. It is the
former group they were looking to assist with early intervention strategies to keep them from
automatically transitioning to special education. In the study, they tested students entering
kindergarten for levels of reading ability and intelligence level and then continued to monitor
their progress through first grade and even into fall of their second grade year (1996).
A substantial number of measures were used to determine reading ability and
intelligence, but the most important of the group was the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests,
using the Word Identification, Word Attack, and Basic Skills Cluster subtests; these were used to
compare students of average and above average intelligence and considered normal readers to
those receiving tutoring who were classified in four groups: very low growth, low growth, good
growth, and very good growth (1996). After analyzing test scores, there were several
conclusions pertinent to the later discussion of RTI procedures: (a) intelligence testing revealed
no significant difference between normal readers and struggling readers; (b) the students
receiving tutoring improved in reading enough that a majority of them reached the 40th percentile
in reading success; and (c) there existed a difference between students in the very low growth
and low growth groups when compared to students in the good growth and very good growth
groups (1996). Based on these findings, it can be inferred that tutoring is beneficial for students
who are struggling to read; nevertheless, those who are seen as the lowest of those struggling
may need addition assistance. The study did not discuss whether special education is the
necessary answer to their learning problems.
Literacy and Intervention 8
RTI: What it is all about
Response to intervention is an innovative approach to modifying curriculum in the
classroom, ensuring that students who are struggling academically aren’t automatically placed in
special education. From the start, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not a solution to
literacy concerns, but rather an additional measure in identifying the problem before it becomes
significant. In an early study, shortly following the reauthorization of IDEA and NCLB,
VanDerHeyden et al. (2005) considered the aims of RTI and its future if it were successful at
accomplishing its intended goals. They identified 5 “goals” of RTI crucial in the success of the
implementation. These goals included (a) establishing the student’s functional competence, (b)
adjusting intensity of the intervention to optimize potential, (c) using the intervention
appropriately in determining eligibility of services, (d) increasing success of students in general
education classrooms, and (e) creating a more organized system for both general and special
education services (2005). Each of these goals may have been achieved in the subsequent
studies to be discussed.
Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), prominent researchers in the areas of education and psychology,
offered their own introduction to RTI, explaining each part of this type of program
implementation. To explain in the simplest of terms, RTI will effectively identify students who
will have academic difficulties with the proper testing and they will be monitored to ensure they
are responsive to the intervention established; this is based on the level (tiers) of intervention
they are receiving, and school professionals will be working together cohesively to ensure
optimal outcomes (2006). While they supported a tiered or leveled intensity within the model,
they were unclear about how many tiers would be most beneficial and instead offered pros and
cons to other models that were successful in their implementation. Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) also
Literacy and Intervention 9
addressed the need for exceptional monitoring strategies as well as a conscious need for the
removal of the IQ-achievement discrepancy standard. By this they meant that students could not
be identified as learning disabled based on inconsistencies in intelligence testing when related to
their current level of achievement and nothing else. Students who needed RTI would be
monitored at appropriate intervals to determine responsiveness at each tier. They implored the
reader to entertain a question extremely necessary and influential to future research: Will
students returning to regular instruction continue to struggle even after achieving responsiveness
in one of the more intense instruction tiers; if they continue to struggle regardless of
responsiveness to the previous intervention, does this then prove they have a learning disability
(2006)? This question is the impetus for future research on the intensity and duration of
instruction and what constitutes responsiveness that would ensure success upon return to tier one
instruction. Their overview of the intervention, however, looked across all education, whereas
this project is focusing on early education. Because of this, the intervention and responsiveness
correlation may look different from the same relationship in secondary education.
In today’s education world, RTI is seen as a tiered system in the schools where all
students receive universal instruction or primary prevention (tier 1), services are modified for
struggling learners (tier 2), and intense intervention is available for students needing more oneon-one attention (tier 3) (Fox et al. 2010). This is the easiest way to discuss the intervention
process and it is universally known now, instead of having varying degrees of intensity and
levels of intervention within the plan. Tier one essentially encompasses what teachers are
required to cover in order for students to move on to the next grade level with some leeway for
supports in the basest sense. From here, students who are struggling to understand the material
move to the second tier of instruction; they are offered more intense instruction such as small
Literacy and Intervention 10
group activities on the skill or skills that they didn’t grasp. If students, after this tier, still are
struggling to understand the material, they then move to tier 3 instruction, seen as the most
intensive instruction outside of the classroom, but not special education based. Students at this
level are seen one-on-one. After the student has been assessed during tier 3 instruction and there
still isn’t improvement, only then will they be referred to the school psychologist for testing to
determine if there is a specific learning disability.
How RTI works with literacy instruction
A crucial factor in creating an effective intervention in terms of literacy is to make certain
that the practice used is evidence-based. Reading instruction focuses on the “big ideas” or five
main areas of interest which include phonemic awareness, phonics and the alphabet, reading
fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (Bursuck and Blanks, 2010). These five ideas
are employed in a variety of ways and are proven effective in teaching students how to read. The
teacher may use all or only a few of these strategies depending on the feedback she receives from
her students. Feedback in this case may include testing of a recently learned concept to gauge
level of understanding before moving on to something more difficult. Bursuck and Blanks
(2010) offer insight into several highly effective instructional methods teachers should consider
in their teaching strategies. These include using explicit instructions to ensure maximum
retention of information, modeling and scaffolding of new a concept, meaningful synthesis of
beginning skills through the current skill learned, and continuous review and practice of concepts
for optimal success. It is in the synthesis of knowledge that many students struggle and this is
where tiers 2 and 3 of RTI would be beneficial. The authors offer an even more extensive list
and discussion of effective instruction methods that are not necessary in this analysis, but it
Literacy and Intervention 11
should be mentioned as their literature is extremely integral in connecting RTI and reading
instruction. Overall, the goal is to utilize evidence-based reading instruction appropriately in
RTI and use the teacher’s abilities in the higher tiers. In the future, this information may prove
useful in regards to the level of involvement of the teacher in tier 2 and even tier 3 in intensified
instruction instead of brining in an outside instructor (e.g., intervention specialist/special
education teacher, reading specialist).
First-hand observations
During May 2010, I had the opportunity to observe various classroom settings as part of
my field experience work. On one occasion, I was fortunate enough to observe a second grade
classroom that offered the unique factor of inclusion; meaning, students who would have
normally left the room to receive special education services were kept in the room during all
instruction, yet their lessons were modified for their benefit. A particularly good example of this
occurred when it was time for their daily spelling test. Those students identified as IEP
(Individualized Education Plan) students were taken to a small round table in the classroom
where an intervention specialist administered their test. The regular education teacher
administered the spelling test to the rest of the class. In other instances, the student or students
did end up leaving the classroom for additional instruction, but for the majority of the time, these
IEP students remainder with the general education teacher.
Other factors that I found particularly enriching about this one observation dealt with the
way the teacher handled concerns (academic, emotional, behavioral) with in the classroom. She
referred to her class of 20 or so students as a “family” and was adamant about resolving all
problems that arose within the classroom on her terms. The environment was healthy, friendly
Literacy and Intervention 12
and the students did seem to work well together (this observation took place toward the end of
their school year, so the length of time they had already been together is a very likely factor).
Her attitude did not come off as self-righteous in regards to how she dealt with problems. This
type of attitude is necessary in order to create a meaningful connection to students and create
cohesiveness amongst the class as a whole.
Those familiar with how professionals in Special Education determine whether early
intervention is necessary for those students being evaluated would also know that a RTI meeting
is also a crucial part of that process. I found these meetings particularly enriching during my
field experience and was able to sit in on a wide variety of such meetings. During an RTI
meeting, a group of Special Education personnel (e.g., School Psychologist, teacher, special
education teacher, Speech-Language Pathologist, etc.) come together to determine the most
beneficial course of action for a student who appears to be struggling with the education
atmosphere. Similar to an IEP meeting, the group works together to create a plan that caters to
the needs of the student not just educationally, but also emotionally and socially as well. Their
goal isn’t to simply find what works academically so the student can pass their needed classes
and then move on; they are committed to making fitting accommodations so that the student can
also succeed in life. It is important to keep in mind, however, that this does not mean a student
qualifies for services; in fact this is a step prior to the referral process. According to Fox, Carta,
Strain, Dunlap, and Hemmeter (2010), RTI is a necessary support system in place to address
specific student needs well in advance of them reaching failure and then having assistance
offered. To me, this is an extremely beneficial system for all students. If the goal as educators is
to ensure that every child is learning in a way most conducive to their learning style, then there is
possibility that fewer students having problems would go undetected. It seems that many school
Literacy and Intervention 13
districts are waiting for students to achieve “failing” status before stepping in, when they should
be taking a more proactive approach. RTI acts as a barrier and offers resources to the student and
the teacher to improve student performance before suggesting placement in special education.
The role of the School Psychologist
Among the many school administrators working to ensure students are successful as
possible in terms of reading achievement, the school psychologist is one of the most important.
While his/her role in the schools is generally split up between consultation with parents and
teachers, assessment, administrative duties, counseling, and intervention, the focus on
intervention is becoming increasingly necessary, especially in regards to RTI. In the past, school
psychologists assessed whether students were eligible for special education services and
classification of specific learning disability based on intelligence test scores; they looked for
discrepancies between intelligence and age on a norm-referenced test. Now that RTI has been
added to their already intense work load, their responsibilities have changed to accommodate.
The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) is the governing body and
regulator of training standards for school psychologists across the country. While states may
differ in how their educational systems operate, the school psychologist’s position is held
relatively constant, though there are some states that require more rigorous and specialized
training. Therefore, their RTI training is generally constant across the states as well. NASP
published general guidelines for the role of the school psychologist within the framework of RTI.
To summarize, their responsibilities may or may not include any of the following and are not
necessarily limited to these roles either: be mindful of current research in the area of RTI and
evidence-based interventions; train other educators in RTI; be responsible for assessing the
Literacy and Intervention 14
ability of the student in order to better focus the efforts of the RTI team; create efficient methods
of identifying children who would benefit from RTI; and work effectively with teachers and
parents (NASP 2006). This is obviously an abbreviated list of their responsibilities and the full
write up can be found on the NASP website (www.nasponline.org). Nevertheless, the above
mentioned roles offer a basic understanding of the extent to which the school psychologist is
involved.
At a recent graduate school interview, the program director was discussing where their
graduates landed jobs and what they were pursuing after completion of the Master’s degree. One
graduates story stood out to me- she was hired to be the RTI coordinator for an entire school
district. While I like the idea of juggling several different roles as a professional, to be able to
focus specifically on RTI would be a phenomenal opportunity at some point in my career. This
clearly portrays the ever changing field of school psychology and the role of the school
psychologist in RTI.
Sullivan and Long (2010) surveyed school psychologists to determine what training they
had received in RTI in relation to years of experience and whether or not RTI was implemented
at their current place of employment. School psychologists participating simply had to complete
a survey on the issue and return it to the researchers. Based on the materials received back, they
ran correlations to find that those school psychologists with less than five years of experience
received most of their training in RTI during graduate work while those who have been in the
profession longer relied on workshops and in-services to obtain the necessary training (2010).
Due to the recent emergence of RTI within the last 5 years, this is not surprising, though it offers
substantial insight into how best to address the information among professionals. Training for
those in the profession more than 10 years may not have studied RTI in graduate school and they
Literacy and Intervention 15
would benefit from in-services that would give them the necessary training comparable to what
current and recent graduate students received. This would be the perfect responsibility for an
RTI coordinator in a school district with a predominantly “older” school psychologist
population.
Synthesis
A first grade teacher is currently teaching her students how to read using A level books
(the simplest text format; three to five words per sentence). Students are practicing putting
sounds together and then creating their own sentences based on vocabulary words for the week.
There are several students who are fraught by the amount of information they are required to
understand in order to read through one book successfully. The teacher notices this and addresses
her concerns with the school psychologist as well as other administrators including the special
education teacher or intervention specialist. The group meets to discuss how best to address the
needs of the students. Academic information is collected on the students and classroom
observations may be completed on the part of either the school psychologist or intervention
specialist or both. The team reconvenes and determines that RTI is the best course of action.
Students who were identified as at-risk for failure are moved to a tier 2 support where they
receive additional instruction as a group during class time (the rest of the class is also learning
the same material, but this group of students receives additional instructions and clarification as
they read). After a month of this level of intervention, the students are assessed and some have
successfully reached the appropriate percentile to return to general education instruction;
however, there are two students who are continuing to struggle. The team meets again and
decides that tier 3 instruction is necessary and the students begin receiving one-on-one
Literacy and Intervention 16
instruction both in class and outside of class. They work like this for a bit longer than tier 2
interventions, possibly 2-3 months, and then are reassessed. It is the hope that at this point, they
have been remediated to return to general education. It is pertinent that the team members take
the time to consider how the student will adjust once returning to general education instruction
after acclimating to remediated instruction. While the goal is to ensure responsiveness so that
students may return to general instruction, there is the possibility that they may in fact need
adjusted instruction continuously; it is in this circumstance the school psychologist will step in to
assess the student’s abilities to determine whether a learning disability is the underlying cause.
Conclusions
It is apparent that RTI is a growing interest in the area of School Psychology. In the
coming years, further research will deliver more information regarding its role within general
education classes. This project did not offer much insight into other factors that may be affecting
student success such as socioeconomic status, language barriers at home, involvement of parents,
race/ethnicity, or behavioral issues. There are articles addressing such concerns and would be
useful references in future projects. Based on the information collected and synthesized here, I
would like to expand this topic and use the information for my thesis and later dissertation. In
completing this project I have come to realize just how important this new intervention is to the
field of School Psychology as well as to the education system. While it is apparent RTI is still
young, there is a wealth of research on the topic; so much that there wasn’t time to address
everything in this paper. However, because my intentions are to expand upon this project as I
further my education, there are articles I collected that would benefit me in the future.
Literacy and Intervention 17
As a student pursuing a graduate degree in school psychology, the heightened discussion
of RTI in many of the programs I applied to is intriguing. I am interested to see how they
address this form of program implementation and the level of training I will be receiving. Each
school district and even the individual schools view RTI differently and the roles of the team
members may vary greatly. While it might not be plausible to create uniformity in the roles of
each team member, it may be beneficial to create a more cohesive, common language among
professionals. With this accomplishment, school psychologists across states would have
numerous resources and contacts available to them. I realize that each state has very specific
education guidelines and if this were feasible, then the current guidelines would have to suffice.
If I were to expand this for a thesis, I would like to look at RTI in the preschool setting
through kindergarten and determine how effective it would be in teaching children letters and
letter sounds as well as basic combinations of words. This would take place in one school, but
would amount to a longitudinal study, if possible. As a dissertation, I would like to look at this
across several schools for one school year. Although case studies are good at receiving an indepth view of a student’s learning abilities, the outcomes of one student are not nearly as
beneficial as data for a group of 100 or more students. Working with faculty members at my
next institution will allow for more solidarity of ideas, however, I enjoy considering options.
RTI is an extremely promising practice not only involving School Psychologists, but
teachers and special education instructors as well. In the coming years, the methods used to
create optimal learning environments for struggling readers will improve and continue to be seen
as evidence-based. RTI is and will continue to allow educators to change the lives of students,
one intervention at a time.
Literacy and Intervention 18
References
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders,
4th ed. text revision: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association,
70-75.
Bursuck, B., & Blanks, B. (2010). Evidence-based early reading within a response to
intervention system. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 421-431.
Canter, A. (2006). The role of the school psychologist in the rti process. National Association of
School Psychologists, 1-7.
Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., and Snyder, L. E. (2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and response
to intervention for children with reading problems. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8),
835-853.
Fox, L., Carta, J., Strain, P. S., Dunlap, G., & Hemmeter, M. (2010). Response to intervention
and the pyramid model. Infants and Young Children, 23(1), 3-13.
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.
Sullivan, A. L., & Long, L. (2010). Examinging the changing landscape of school psychology
practice: a survey of school-based practitioners regarding response to intervention.
Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1059-1070.
US Congress. U. S. Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind act of 201 (PL 107110). Washington, DC: Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
US Congress. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services. (2007). Questions and answers on response to intervention (rti) and early
Literacy and Intervention 19
intervening services (eis) Washington, DC: Federal Register. Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures
of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339-361.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., and Denckla, M.
B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor
readers: early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and
experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88(4), 601-638.