Rti Intervention

The text I selected for this assignment was a dissertation titled, “Elementary Teachers’ Engagement in the Problem-Solving Process for Response to Intervention in Mathematics”, written by Crystal G. Lancour from the University of Delaware. This was an executive position paper submitted to the faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership during the Spring of 2014. I selected this text because as a math instructional coach I am always looking for ways to better support my teachers in reaching students to ensure all students are successful. The areas that are the hardest for teachers to understand is what an effective intervention is for mathematics
and being able to select effective materials/programs to use during this time. They can identify which students need extra help, but often times do not know what to do with the students or what materials to pull to instruct the student. This text helped me to gain a better understanding of both areas while giving me ideas to take back to my own campus to help support my teachers.
Purpose of Study Lancour notes how little research had been done in the past on RTI and its’ implementation in mathematics classrooms.
Much of the research surrounding RTI has been centered on reading because RTI was implemented for reading much sooner than in mathematics (Lancour, 2014, p. 1). Reading has many assessments and resources that are prescribed for RTI, but very little are found for mathematics. According to Lancour, her purpose for this study was to contribute to a greater body of knowledge and research regarding the implementation of RTI for mathematics, specifically how teachers engage in the problem-solving process as part of an RTI framework (p. 1). By understanding how teachers engage in the RTI process and their understanding of problem-solving, will allow one to better support teachers meeting their
needs.
Research Questions
To guide Lancour’s research and investigation, she used the following research questions:
1. How did teachers in each of the two professional learning communities (PLCs) engage in the Response to Intervention problem-solving process?
a. To what degree did teachers in each PLC use more and less descriptive talk, based on their own students’ data from the Universal Screening Tool (UST), and how did teachers’ talk in each PLC vary by purpose of the PLC meeting?
b. To what degree did teachers in each PLC move productively through the stages of the RTI problem-solving process? 

2. To what degree do the teachers’ self-reported perception of their uses of the UST and their engagement in the RTI problem-solving process align with the researcher’s PLC observations?
3. How do teachers use resources to plan for targeted instruction aligned with students’ mathematical thinking?
a. What resources do teachers seek out and use to plan for intervention instruction targeted to students’ thinking in more and less descriptive ways?
Within the text, on pages 3-4, Lancour explains her purpose for each question in great detail and then later on discuss her finding with each question.
Methods
For this qualitative study, the sample included two teams of teachers at Turner Elementary School in the Edgewood School District. One team was a group of third-grade teachers and the other was a group of fourth-grade teachers. The school was selected because teachers had already begun to experiment with an RTI process for mathematics and they have a mathematics coach who supports the grade-level teams in reflecting upon and improving the process. Lancour also notes that it was essential for her to use schools with grade level teams that were experienced with working as a PLC to improve teaching and learning.
PLC Observations The data collection methods that were used for this study were observation and interview.
First, PLC meetings were observed for the two teams of teachers as they engaged in the RTI problem-solving process. The purpose of the PLC observation was to better understand how teachers engaged in the stages of the RTI problem-solving process using the UST data as the basis for their analysis. The time period used for the PLC observations was two months, which allowed for the observation of a full cycle. A full cycle of the RTI process included all 5 stages so that way Lancour could observe how teachers define and analyze a problem (Stages One and Two), how they design a plan for intervention (Stage 3), implement the intervention (Stage 4), and reflect upon the effectiveness of the intervention (Stage 5) (Lancour, 2014, p. 37). During the two-month observations, the third-grade team engaged n all five stages of the RTI problem-solving process, and the fourth-grade team engaged in Stages One and Two only. During the observations of the PLC, the researcher conducted them as an observer rather than a participant. Observations were scheduled in advance and each PLC observed pertained to the RTI process of data collection. Lancour also videotaped the PLCs as well as digitally recorded them and then transcribed for analysis. She also took written notes during the observations to keep track of the nature of the teachers’ conversations, to keep herself focused on the purpose of the
observations, and to record my initial interpretations of my observations.
One-on-One Interviews Second, all four teachers from each of the teams and the mathematics coach participated in a one-on-one interview. The purpose of collecting data through interviews was to gather information from the teachers individually about how they engaged in the RTI problem-solving process. Lancour was interested in determining if the teachers’ perceptions aligned with what she observed during their PLC meetings to determine if they viewed their engagement in the RTI process in similar ways. The interviews also provided insight to what resources and materials the teachers were using when planning. To collect the interview data, an interview protocol was developed for each type of participant, teacher and coach. The interviews were conducted at their school and were digitally recorded. They lasted approximately 45-60 minutes and were semi-structured interviews that included both follow-up and clarification questions. The interview participants were asked the same questions worded so that the responses are open-ended. The interview protocol for teachers consisted of 12 questions, while the protocol for the mathematics coach consisted of 11 questions. The actual questions for both protocols can be found in Appendix B on pages 259-264. The interviewer typed notes on a laptop while participants responded to the questions and the recordings were then transcribed for analysis.